Jo-Ann Mullen and her husband Earle, members of Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers, say they want to use gentle persuasion to change the Mesa County Commission’s practice of giving an invocation before its public meetings.
“We don’t want to be confrontational,” Earle Mullen said. “Religion should be a private matter.”
The two appeared Monday before the commission in Grand Junction, asking for the county’s response to a Nov. 12 letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The couple contacted the foundation, which is based in Madison, Wis., asking it to pressure the county into changing its pre-meeting invocation to a non-secular event or eliminate it altogether, Earle Mullen said.
“Prayers are unnecessary, inappropriate and divisive,” according to the foundation’s letter to the county. “The board’s practice of leading Christian-based prayers before meetings is illegal.”
The board began invocations in 2005. Before each Monday and Tuesday meeting, a member of the board will ask the audience to rise for the invocation, adding that people may participate if they wish. Board members take turns saying the invocation, which sometimes includes invoking the name of Jesus Christ.
County attorney Lyle Dechant said he is formulating a response to the foundation.
Commissioner Steve Acquafresca said he has seen the letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
“It tends to suggest that someone could come forward with some sort of a challenge,” he said.
Acquafresca said he has brought the subject up with commissioners Janet Rowland and Craig Meis. Acquafresca said he will meet with Dechant to discuss the issue and push for another meeting on the subject early in 2009 with his fellow board members.
“We should talk about it,” Acquafresca said.
Rowland seems to have dug her heels in on the issue.
“Mandating non-sectarian prayer is itself unconstitutional,” said Rowland, arguing that what the foundation would have the county do is illegal.
She added that neither Mesa County nor she would back down from a fight over the issue.
Email LE ROY STANDISH
Comments
By Pray for Atheists
Dec 3, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
Perhaps we should all say a prayer for the atheists this Christmas Season! Oh and God Bless us everyone!
By Ed-words
Dec 2, 2008 10:50 PM | Link to this
Religion is bunk!
(Thomas Edison)
(Do your praying in a setting of like-minded
people, without govt. support.I wonder why our
Const. doesn't read "We the people, under God , . . "!)
By Scott
Dec 2, 2008 10:21 PM | Link to this
The 1983 Marsh ruling allows generic, non-sectarian invocations on the basis of tradition. References to specific deities are outside the legal limitation, no matter what Janet Rowland says.
By Elazarus
Dec 2, 2008 9:04 PM | Link to this
Apparently Ms. Rowland believes herself to be a constitutional scholar.
A religious invocation as a prelude to a government meeting certainly would seem to be inappropriate and certainly might be unconstitutional. I would certainly find it personally to be a distraction from the business at hand. Perhaps the courts should be asked to decide this and then we will know how the current interpretation of the law views this.
By Elazarus
Dec 2, 2008 9:04 PM | Link to this
Apparently Ms. Rowland believes herself to be a constitutional scholar.
A religious invocation as a prelude to a government meeting certainly would seem to be inappropriate and certainly might be unconstitutional. I would certainly find it personally to be a distraction from the business at hand. Perhaps the courts should be asked to decide this and then we will know how the current interpretation of the law views this.
By Elazarus
Dec 2, 2008 9:03 PM | Link to this
Apparently Ms. Rowland believes herself to be a constitutional scholar.
A religious invocation as a prelude to a government meeting certainly would seem to be inappropriate and certainly might be unconstitutional. I would certainly find it personally to be a distraction from the business at hand. Perhaps the courts should be asked to decide this and then we will know how the current interpretation of the law views this.
By Elazarus
Dec 2, 2008 9:00 PM | Link to this
Apparently Ms. Rowland believes herself to be a constitutional scholar.
A religious invocation as a prelude to a government meeting certainly would seem to be inappropriate and certainly might be unconstitutional. I would certainly find it personally to be a distraction from the business at hand. Perhaps the courts should be asked to decide this and then we will know how the current interpretation of the law views this.
By not an idiot
Dec 2, 2008 8:52 PM | Link to this
if you dont like the "christian" prayer, then plug your ears, leave the room, or tune it out. Dont you guys have anything else to ***** about???
By Ed-words
Dec 2, 2008 7:50 PM | Link to this
Dearest Joan (et.al.),
1.Our govt.may not engage in, or support,
religious beliefs or activities.
(Offensive OR NOT)
2. It does not matter what the majority
wants.The Bill of Rights was included
to protect even ONE person from the
"tyranny of the majority"
By Ed-words
Dec 2, 2008 7:25 PM | Link to this
Dear Joan Brehon,
Nobody should HAVE to leave the room. A tax-supported
city council is no place for a prayer (unless, of course,
you want to refund the atheists' taxes.
The City Council could say a wiccan prayer, and YOU can
leave the room!
[1 2 3] next
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F, except on Tuesday when it's open until 9 p.m.
Post a comment
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.