Comments on: Another Student Speaks Out Against Greensboro City Council Invocations

By: Zachary Drum

Zachary Drum — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 06:48:03 +0000

I think what was said was well thought out and very valid. I am not a resident of Greensboro, NC, nor am I a member of any organization. However, I am a verteran of Afghanistan and Phillip’s brother, and I believe that a moment of silence is better than prayer. Please keep your religious views to yourself, nobody needs to, nor should have to share your faith. Whatever it may be.

By: Michael (SQFreak)

Michael (SQFreak) — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:36:51 +0000

It amazes me that this is occurring in the next county over from (and in the same federal judicial district as) Forsyth, where the practice of organized prayer in meetings was dealt a major blow. Admittedly, that was an as-applied challenge, but still, I don't know why the City of Greensboro would want to get involved in the controversy.

By: Heidi

Heidi — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:30:54 +0000

Nice job. Thanks to Phillip (and also, thank you for your service) and thanks to Calvin’s wife, Heather for speaking up for our rights.

By: Calvin Spealman

Calvin Spealman — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:14:01 +0000

One June 2, my wife gave a speech that we both wrote in protest, as well.

http://www.greensboroatheists.com/2010/06/city-council-atheist-voices.html

By: Armyrunner

Armyrunner — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:24:35 +0000

As a fellow atheist and retired US Army NCO I say Hoohah young SSG!

By: SpencerDub

SpencerDub — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 19:20:58 +0000

Honestly, the way I see it, the only substantial difference between a moment of silence and no moment at all is that a moment of silence can be agreed upon by more people.

I’m certainly no lawyer, but constitutionally, I see no difference between the two options. If a moment of silence is just that, a time for reflection, collection of one’s thoughts, and meditation or prayer for those who desire such action, then it’s not endorsing a specific religious/non-religious perspective. It has a secular purpose– to allow people to collect their thoughts. Not having such a moment at all is also obviously religiously neutral.

I would not consider a moment of silence a government endorsement of religion. I feel like pushing for no moment at all is no more constitutionally justified than calling for a moment of silence, but would be a more polarizing move, less likely to succeed. I would guess that moderate believers who might support a moment of silence would not support having no moment at all.

But that’s just my two cents.

By: Rob Caravaggio

Rob Caravaggio — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:48:44 +0000

I too see a problem with even a moment of silence.

Either the city council is a secular body, or it’s not.

If those present wish to pray, or meditate, or count to 10 in their heads, they can do so on their own time. Why do the personal religious practices (or secular practices for that matter) of individual persons have to encroach upon the time of the city council–even if it’s just a “moment”? It’s just so bloody unnecessary.

A moment of generalized silence is–I’m sorry–also silly (just not as silly, but still silly).

By: martymankins

martymankins — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:35:31 +0000

The moment of silence respects any person’s belief or non-belief. Wishing more elected officials would consider diverse beliefs instead of pushing their own personal beliefs when it comes to making policy.

By: Cybershaman

Cybershaman — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:17:47 +0000

I think he should evoke the power of the almighty Boot. (http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/05/27/the-boot-protest/)

By: Andrew Hall

Andrew Hall — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:48:26 +0000

A job well done! Clear, to the point, and respectful. If there was a tutorial on how to react to pandering politicians this would be in it.