March 16, 2011
March 16, 2011
Prayer at City Council Meeting stirs controversy
By Oregon Christian Post,
At the February 22, 2011, Damascus City council meeting, officials took public comment on whether to include an invocation at the beginning of each meeting. About 20 residents offered opinions from both sides of the issue. The issue was picked up in The Oregonian.
Steve Hardy, pastor of Damascus Community Church, offered his opinion, said, “First Timothy Chapter two verses three and four, we are called to prayer for our leaders and elected officials … however, one our concerns in prayer is for unity of the city. If you make the decision to include a prayer, members of our pastoral board will more than likely participate but a decision to not include an invocation will also not stop any of us from praying for this city.”
Kathy Russell, a resident of Damascus urged for no invocation, said, “Mayor Spinnett has said to come to meetings and ‘make yourself comfortable.’ But an invocation makes me very uncomfortable. In addition, I think it’s time to turn to real business in this city.”
Mayor Spinnett, who invited the public discussion, advocated for an invocation, said, “The phrase ‘separation of Church and State’ is not mentioned in constitution but the intent is to protect the church from government not the other way around,” did not call for a vote on Tuesday evening.
For additional information about the recent Damascus City council meeting see here.
Can you imagine what a lost soul Kathy Russell must be to be made uncomfortable by something like this and to state it publicly? My heart aches for her.
[...] OregonFaithReport.com: “At the February 22, 2011, Damascus City council meeting, officials took public comment on whether to include an invocation at the beginning of each meeting. About 20 residents offered opinions from both sides of the issue . . . ” [...]
“Mayor Spinnett, who invited the public discussion, advocated for an invocation, said, “The phrase ‘separation of Church and State’ is not mentioned in constitution but the intent is to protect the church from government not the other way around…””
I can’t resist a comment to His Honor.
Mr. Mayor; You are dead wrong. The history of the Continental Congress clearly shows that the 1st. amendment was intended to protect in both directions.
Also, although exact words aren’t included in the 1st amendment, the “separation clause” (that’s why it’s called a clause) is derived from settled Constitutional law and is quite clear in spite of that tired old saw you cited.
Copyright © 2012, OregonReport. All Rights Reserved. | Terms of Use - Copyright - Legal Policy | Contact Oregon Report
Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Faith Report through weekly email updates:
Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.
Easy. Just allow a quick word of inspiration. Non sectarian.