Councilman Lindauer’s view on prayer before council meetings
I have been following with great interest the comments regarding prayer prior to county council meetings (previous article here). I would like to take a few moments to expand on my position as well as (hopefully) enhance and encourage continued open and civil dialogue. It is obvious not everyone agrees with my view, but I thank God that we live in a free society in which discussion/debate can take place in an open arena. Also, let me say that what follows does NOT represent the opinion of the Dubois County Council as a body. The views that follow are my own, and I will do my best to be both brief and respectful.
First, with respect to the “establishment clause”: the First Amendment states, “CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Key words are in caps. County council is not congress, no law is being proposed, and as such, nothing is being established by saying a prayer prior to meeting.
Our federal and state governments have always understood this and so have felt it both compelling and allowable to pray before sessions. The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” came from Thomas Jefferson writing (several years after the 1st Amendment) to a group of Baptists assuring them that the federal government would not interfere with their style of worship. With this in mind, I stand by my position that the opportunity to pray prior to county council meetings in no way violates the TRUE meaning of the First Amendment.
Next, it is important to realize that EVERYONE, including an atheist, has a system of beliefs or religion to which he/she subscribes. Some may be more aware of these belief systems than others, but they do exist. These belief systems serve to form the lens or worldview in which we all make decisions and interact with our environment. It is worth noting then, that it is impossible to truly keep “religion” out of the public square as some demand.
My lens is Christianity and so when I vote/act, I will do what I believe best corresponds to that belief system. An atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. will do the same thing when he/she makes a decision and I would expect nothing less. However, I would NEVER suggest that Christianity be forced on anyone. History has shown that the coerced worship of Christ (which in actuality is impossible) is very bad for society, and worse for Christianity.
Finally, and more personally, the God to whom I suggest we pray is a God that clearly states He came for ALL people if we would turn to and accept Him. This God has and does interact with humanity and therefore it is wise to seek His counsel and guidance. As to other religious systems, although we may respectfully disagree, I feel strongly that they have a right to whatever belief they wish as long as it does not disrupt society (an important point of discussion…but for another time), the liberties afforded us by our system of government as well as our God given free will allow for this license. Thank God for both!
Respectfully, Shane M. Lindauer County Council District 2
As well schools are not congress, yet school led prayer is unconstitutional and is found to violate the establishment clause. (Engel v Vitale in 1962)
Also, your strict reading "CONGRESS shall make no laws…" seems to imply that you believe towns, which are not congress, could make such laws. Is that what you are saying?
Regardless, I would hope that an elected official when making decisions would do what is best for his community and not what best fits his belief system. After all, not being able to buy beer on Sunday is a pain.
I certainly know that a person can never fully detach themselves from their beliefs, but to say you vote first based on your interpretation of the bible and second based on what your community tells you it wants, is wrong.
Finally, I still don't see why, after all this time, this is NOW important. How many years have we gone without a prayer and how precisely has it hurt?
I dislike my wording in the fourth paragraph and would like to make clearer my meaning.
A councilman has a vote and should vote how he wants but with the community in mind. After all, I would suspect a councilmen to have greater insight into the community's needs vs the average voter.
However, a vote should never be first filtered through belief as it may not make to the pragmatic level of will-it-help-us.
In my opinion, if it is not the goal to indoctrinate through governmental exposure, then a simple solution of a moment of silence would be appropriate. In this manner all in attendance would have the ability and freedom to personally pray/meditate/reflect, etc. within their system of belief. After all, it is a personal relationship that need not be on display in a function of government in which represents a plethora of views. In my respect of all, would the council allow a prayer rug for a muslim to lead his prayer toward Mecca, or an alter for a wiccan to perform a banishing? Who decides what prayer to recite? I understand a persons desire to share their faith in which they have found themselves agreeable with, however the time to do so is not at a meeting of government. If one is so inclined to seek guidance from their higher power, then is it not always possible to do so at any moment? This issue demands one of two solutions: a moment of silence, or nothing at all.
My thoughts, too.
As I have stated before, I would even be willing to accept a third option where different religions (not simply different denominations) have the opportunity to offer a prayer or affirmation to the council. I think that would even offer the chance to put our diversity on display and that could be awesome and educational.
In 1831, French jurist, Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States. In his book Democracy in America, he pointed out that "in France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united." He also stated, "The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man."
In President George Washington's Farewell Address, he stated, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."
Both of these well respected men believed that religion, no matter the particular 'brand', was the fabric of a virtuous and moral society; particularly, it's what made the United States so unique. I'm proud to live in a country where anyone can worship (or not) the way they choose. However, I find it disheartening that we have succumb to the soft coercion of political correctness not to practice any public display of religion, which is to the detriment of our society.
I applaud Mr. Lindauer for proposing the idea of prayer before meetings. He is showing a willingness to ask our Creator for Divine assistance and inspiration to work through the decisions the council must make in order to wisely allocate our hard earned tax dollars. Where is the harm in asking for help? No one is proposing that a law be established instituting a specific religion at the county level. No one is proposing a particular prayer, type of prayer, or person to lead a prayer. Would something as simple as, "God help us make wise decisions on how to spend all this money," be so controversial? No one would be invoking any one particular religion's god. It saddens me that we are so mired down in political correctness in our progressively secularized society that our leaders are made to feel that they cannot publicly ask for divine assistance in these important matters.
I'm proud that we have a man of such principle representing our county. And I pray that Art Nordhoff, our county attorney, finds the suggestion lawful.
No one has said that you cannot pray in public. What has only been suggested is the govt led prayer not happen or at the very least, should it, let it be diverse or a moment of silence.
As for your applause of Mr. Lindauer for his idea to pray at the meeting, I can only remark that there is nothing preventing him from praying prior to the meeting at home, in church, or elsewhere where his prayer is not while he is being a steward of the gov't.
You ask, "Where is the harm in asking for help?" I ask, "What is the harm doing it outside of the meeting?" It has evidently not been needed for the past 36 years.
What purpose does it serve to pray at a meeting of citizens of all faiths that may have a different god, multiple gods, or no gods or may have no religion at all? A prayer during a meeting has only one purpose, to establish a divine presence during such meeting. It can also be assumed that person asking for assistance is addressing his god(s) not someone else's? This very issue has caused some grief in other states that offer prayer from various religious leaders.
You also claimed that "No one would be invoking any one particular religion’s god," but Mr. Lindauer already said he would be praying to the Christian god. So we know this statement is not accurate.
Regardless, our leaders can ask for divine assistance publicly, no one is saying they can't or shouldn't, but they should NOT when they are acting as stewards of the gov't. They can lead prayer in church, they can lead prayer at the dinner table at Los Bravos, they can lead prayer before his baseball team's game if he so wishes…but when he steps into the council meeting he should not lead the city or other councilmen in prayer and alienate everyone who believes differently.
And finally, since we are doing some quote mining, I will end with a Washington quote. But first, as I stated in the comments of the previous article, it is ridiculous for us to review the personal opinions of the founding fathers 200+ years later when they left in the constitution the opinions they felt mattered enough to become law. However, since you quote George W. so will I.
"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated." [George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792]
Regarding the emphasis on the key words or all caps, please see the incorporation doctrine. Not as simple as Mr. Lindauer makes it out to be.
Courts have historically upheld the right to pray at meetings of this type as long as common sense was practiced. That is, it is in the best interest to utilize a non-denominational prayer and to abstain from being or appearing to be critical or discriminatory toward other beliefs.
Religion does play an intergral part of an individual's principles and values.
A silent prayer to oneself for those inclined to do so would serve the same purpose.
Shane,
Good work. The world needs more leaders like you. I often worry about our future as a country as we focus less on God and religion in general. Thank you for having the courage to make such a proposal. God Bless.