Congress may actually pass an economic stimulus bill this week, which is good news for the short-term needs of the country. There is no question the economy is tottering, and could easily tip over from recession to depression, so a bill that focuses on saving jobs and creating jobs is desperately needed. The good news is that the bill will definitely help achieve some of those aims. The bad news is that it will lay a crushing debt burden on taxpayers for the future, which can only be addressed if government becomes far more efficient in the use of tax dollars than it has in the past. That could very well force, down the road, what many of us have wanted for years, a smaller, more efficient government. But somehow, that doesn't seem likely. Because Congress hasn't figured out that the model for government is, and should be, changing. And the best example is the stimulus package. Despite billions of dollars in cuts, it still contains way too much pork. And some of the cuts (to make way for that pork) seem to make no sense, such as dropping $40 billion to help keep schools from having to fire teachers. That's counter-productive. The bill is supposed to save or create jobs, not leave them threatened. Both sides of the aisle bear the blame. The Democratic leadership rolled over on way too many pet projects among its members, losing sight of the long-term goal of the bill. And Republicans kept insisting on sticking to the same failed policies of the past, and playing the same old games where personal and party political power carried more weight than the needs of the nation. One GOP leader actually admitted his goal for the bill, and the amendments he introduced, were designed to divide the Democrats and make them look bad. So much for caring about the people of this country. Both parties should be ashamed. It is time for Congress to look up from its myopic and petty party power games, and its proclivity for pork, and look at the desperate state of the nation, focusing solely on programs that stand a good chance of meeting the goal of keeping people working. Making things work should be a bipartisan issue. This bill should be about America, not the Republican or Democratic parties. -- Kelly Everitt

A little prayer from the court

Posted Wednesday, May 7, 2014, at 8:08 AM

This week's decision by the Supreme Court involved prayer preceding public meetings is interesting and will be embraced by many.

In the past, courts have ruled that simply using the premises of a government building was sufficient to cause a prohibition on prayer. Monday, the court said prayer could be held, provided it occurred prior to the actual start of a government meeting. Thus, the building was separated from the actual government function or meeting (during which prayer would still be banned).

The court also indicated that such prayers would be appropriate only if all religions that made application to offer prayers were allowed to do so (at least on a rotating basis). A city in Texas, several years ago, had attempted that same standard, opening its meetings with a prayer and letting any who signed up to offer a prayer. They canceled the plan when the first to sign up were Wiccans, one of the larger "churches" of the growing pagan religious movement in this country.

The court, in Monday's ruling, was clear that if one religious group is allowed, then all religions must have their chance (although there was some indication they'd have to actually be members of the community represented by that government). That would include Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, the scores of pagan churches from the most common Wiccans to the Odinists, the Olympians and even the Satanists, let alone the hundreds of different Christian religions that exist in this country (at least 25 different ones in Mountain Home, alone). Not sure how they'd deal with athiests (perhaps just adopt a moment of silence as their "prayer"?).

Furthermore, the court did not extend this right to schools, noting that people are forced to attend schools, but at a government meeting, those offended can simply step outside until the prayer ends and the meeting begins, the court said.

And the prayer can't be overly evangelical, encourage one political position or another, threaten damnation if a vote doesn't go a specific way, or encourage people to join that religion. Essentially, it should be pretty bland.

Not everyone is going to be happy with this ruling, but it seems fair and reasonable.

-- Kelly Everitt

Comments

View 5 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

I agree with you Kelly. That ruling does seem reasonable and a good first step in relaxing some of the rules. I don't think that it goes against the separation of Church and State.

I've heard though that the ruling wasn't specific enough, for example, no definition of coercion, which may result in a lot of court battles to further define this.

-- Posted by Sam_1776 on Wed, May 7, 2014, at 5:05 PM
The problem will be communication,what the court said and how it will be intepreted will be the crux of the issue.There are some out there who will feel they have a right to dictate who ,what,and how,they do it now this will just be another way of attempting to put others in there place.

-- Posted by lamont on Thu, May 8, 2014, at 11:02 AM
I think it was a wise decision. The practice was started by our Founding Fathers and has continued to this day. I do think there should be a way for those not wishing to participate to quietly indicate so, such as remaining seated while those participating would stand. That way no one is forced to participate, or made to look like they concur, yet can allow others their freedom of expression.

-- Posted by Yandell on Thu, May 8, 2014, at 7:29 PM
I kind of agree Yandell. My immediate family is Catholic but my brothers and sister are various religions. At family gatherings the prayer is the religion of the household that we are gathering, however even if it isn't Catholic my immediate family and I still do the sign of the Cross at the end of the prayer.

Nobody has a problem with this in our family. I think that we would feel the same if a Muslim married into the family. Our mother taught us tolerance.

-- Posted by Sam_1776 on Thu, May 8, 2014, at 9:52 PM
I would have thought that the blog would have blown up about this topic.

Anyways, I am an atheist and I have no problem with this ruling. Those who do have a problem are mostly wanting an excuse to complain.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 3:32 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register