Bedrosian Apparently Can’t Read

Remember Al Bedrosian, the Roanoke County Supervisor who not only thinks that there is no such thing as separation of church and state but that the Constitution mandates a Christian theocracy? In the wake of the ruling in Greece v Galloway, which he obviously didn’t read, he now wants to have only Christian prayers allowed at their county board meetings:

Roanoke County’s Board of Supervisors may be headed toward another discussion of prayer following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down Monday. The board dealt with the matter in 2012, eventually passing a nonsectarian prayer policy that Supervisor Al Bedrosian is ready to strike from the books.

“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”

The supervisor campaigned on the idea of eliminating the policy, and the ruling has breathed new life into his idea for a policy that could lead to the exclusion of non-Christian groups from the invocation.

Commenting on Monday, Bedrosian said he envisions a setup by which the supervisors would approve, individually, people from their districts to offer the opening prayer. That system would hold supervisors accountable to their districts, he added.

When asked if he would allow representatives from non-Christian faiths and non-faiths, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and others, the Hollins District supervisor said he likely would not.

You might try actually reading the ruling, dumbass. It is quite explicit that a legislative body cannot limit pre-meeting prayers to only Christians.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • A Masked Avenger

    I think the dumbass is doing us a favor. If I understand Greece v Galloway correctly, which I probably don’t, the SCOTUS gave legislators a blank check to hold de facto sectarian prayers, as long as they were thinly veneered as nonspecific to one religion or denomination. So at least if there wasn’t a significant minority to complain about it, homogeneous communities (being most of them) could quietly start every meeting with a Baptist prayer, say, under the fig leaf that if their community had any Buddhists, then they’d also get their turn.

    Our dumbass friend is taking this opportunity to establish religion unofficially, and insisting on making it blatant and official. If it goes to the SCOTUS, then the majority justices will have egg on their faces, and will be forced to tighten down the intentional looseness in their ruling.

  • brucegee1962

    Hey, Masked Avenger, I’d like to think so — but that would involve Kennedy admitting he was wrong, and apparently the cognitive dissonance is strong in that one. I think it’s not unlikely that five supremes might just decide that Christian-only prayer is just fine. If you started explaining Pastafarianism to them, I suspect the odds of that would go up considerably.

  • busterggi

    ” It is quite explicit that a legislative body cannot limit pre-meeting prayers to only Christians.”

    Not yet but give Thomas & Scalia the chance…

  • Rasalhague

    …he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”

    Gosh, that’s an interesting and completely unexpected side-effect. However will we solve this vexing conundrum?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    This is a good thing. First, they wasted time in meetings for [thoretically] all religions. Now they can waste time in meetings for just one religion. The only step left is to waste time in meetings for no religionat all.

  • beardedbeard

    Wow the ink is not even dry on the ruling and it has already pushed some numbskull to run with the “We’re a Christian Nation” scissors.

    I am shocked to find gambling in this establishment.

  • John Pieret

    It is quite explicit that a legislative body cannot limit pre-meeting prayers to only Christians.

    We have to thank him. The Court gave him an inch and he tries to take a mile. The next time around the Court might not take for granted that the local government is acting in good faith, given the actions of bozos like Bedrosian.

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    Ed says: “You might try reading …”

    I think I’ve found the problem.

  • D. C. Sessions

    The next time around the Court might not take for granted that the local government is acting in good faith, given the actions of bozos like Bedrosian.

    Which Court? Because the Roberts Court only makes assumptions that allow it to reach the correct conclusions.

  • peterh

    “Al Bedrosian …[who] thinks… the Constitution mandates a Christian theocracy” apparently flunked U S History 101.

    From Archiving America:

    Article 11: ‘ “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

    The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington’s last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O’Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.’