Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- President Obama's first year (45)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (44)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (34)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Lodi resident who started prayer debate comes forward
Council will vote on policy Wednesday
The person who started the debate over prayers before Lodi City Council meetings has stepped forward and said a lawsuit is still on the table.
Lodi resident Karen Buchanan made the original complaint about council prayers to the Madison, Wis.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation.
The complaint prompted the organization to send a letter to the city in May telling the council to enforce its own policy of "non-sectarian and nondenominational prayer" and eliminate references to Jesus Christ or the foundation would sue.
Buchanan appeared on the foundation's radio show on Oct. 12 to speak about the council's decision to continue invocations and allow uncensored prayers. She said the council's decision needs to be challenged in court.
"I didn't go to the council meeting to go to church, and so that whole arrangement seemed just totally out of place," Buchanan said on the show. "I felt uncomfortable with being in a church service and being asked to bow my head and to stand and to show respect to a God who is not part of who I am."
The council voted Sept. 30 to broaden its prayer policy to allow religious leaders to offer uncensored prayers and to be more inclusive.
The Lodi City Council will vote on a final policy Wednesday night. The proposed policy also includes opening up the invocation or "Call to Civic Responsibility" to all religious and secular groups.
The item is listed on the consent calendar, so it is possible the council will vote on it without discussion.
Buchanan, who has lived in Lodi for at least three years, had originally remained anonymous, but she decided to come forward after receiving support from groups in the area including Lodi United, which resident David Diskin formed to protest the council allowing prayers.
"I was just bowled over because I had felt as though I was alone," Buchanan said on the show.
Buchanan did not return a call for comment Monday.
She did speak at the meeting Sept. 30, which was held at Hutchins Street Square to accommodate the crowd.
During the invocations, one pastor has given a "bigoted rant" against a citizen who did not share the religious leader's views, she said.
"Invoking divine guidance has no place in meetings open to people of faith or no faith," she said at the meeting. "Please return council meetings to neutral grounds. Please stop government prayer."
The foundation does not release the names of members who file complaints for her organization to follow up on, Annie Gaylor, co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Gaylor said at first she thought Buchanan was concerned about the ramifications of the public knowing she was the one who contacted the foundation.
But she appreciates that Buchanan has stepped forward, especially because it might quiet some of the critics who accuse the "outside group" of unfairly targeting Lodi.
"I think that Karen just started to have a slow burn about it. ... Many people just feel like they can't come forward," Buchanan said. "She realized she could make a difference, and we've been very grateful to her for everything she has done."
Gaylor has said the foundation plans to sue one of the cities in California that has continued allowing invocations.
Before filing a suit, the foundation will watch the invocations in all the California cities the group has challenged — Lodi, Tracy, Turlock and Tehachapi — to see what would be the best test case, she said in previous articles.
After the council's Sept. 30 meeting, Schwabauer has worked on drafting a policy, which was released Friday in a city staff report.
"For me, it was trying to create something that was an opportunity for Lodi citizens to offer a 'Call to Civic Responsibility' in their traditional faith or belief system while at the same time preventing it from being used in claiming the primacy of a faith over other faiths or lack of faiths," Schwabauer said.
While he did read other cities policies, he did not base the policy off of any other one. He even created the name a "Call to Civic Responsibility."
He decided on the name to be inclusive and as a way to define the invocations he believes are the most effective. The best invocations remind the council they have serious business before them and need to be willing to listen and put aside prejudices, Schwabauer said.
"It is a term that felt right for what an invocation should do and to distinguish it from what it should not do. I've heard invocations over the years that have been preachy, that have been political ... and that's really not what the invocation is intended to be," he said.
He cannot say the policy is a guaranteed win if the city is sued because there are many uncertainties. But he does believe the policy is more inclusive, Schwabauer said.
"I think that what I've said before continues to apply. Just exactly where the courts are going to come down on legislative prayer isn't real clear."
Contact reporter Maggie Creamer at maggiec@lodinews.com or read her blog at www.lodinews.com/blogs/citybuzz.
Prayer policy at a glance
On Wednesday, the Lodi City Council will decide on a policy to regulate prayers before the meeting. Here are some of the aspects included in the policy:— Invocations will be given before the meeting is called to order at 6:55 p.m. No one attending the meeting will be required to participate in the invocation. Previously, the prayers happened after the meeting had been called to order and before the Pledge of Allegiance.
— The council will actively encourage all religious traditions, community leaders and non-religious leaders in Lodi to give a Call to Civic Responsibility. The city expanded this to include religious leaders who have to travel outside of Lodi to attend a place of worship, like members of the Sikh or Jewish religions.
The city clerk will compile a list of religious congregations and secular groups by researching online, consulting the Yellow Pages phone book and asking the Chamber of Commerce. The city will include all churches, congregations, other religious assemblies and nonprofit civic groups. Any group not included can request to be added to the list.
Every year, all the groups will receive invitations to come give the invocations, and the clerk will schedule them on a first-come, first-serve basis.
— The council will not allow invocations that attempt to convert anyone attending the meeting, advocate a political agenda or assert the "accuracy, inaccuracy or primacy of any religious belief or lack thereof."
Anyone who violates the requirements could have their prayer interrupted and terminated by the mayor, and the person will be barred from giving any invocations at future meetings.
— The council will add the following disclaimer to all agendas:
"Invocations may be offered by any of the various religious and nonreligious organizations within and around the city of Lodi. Invocations are voluntary offerings of private citizens, to and for the benefit of the Council. The views or beliefs expressed by the Invocation Speaker have not been previously reviewed or approved by the Council, and the Council does not endorse the beliefs or views of any Invocation Speaker or religious organization."
Source: Proposed policy in Wednesday's council packet
Foundation suing federal, California state government
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is currently working on another lawsuit in California relating to tax code benefits for ministers.The foundation and 21 of its California members, including Karen Buchanan, filed suit Friday, and the news release describe the case as "nationally-significant."
Under "the parsonage exemption," clergy are allowed to deduct mortgage interest and property tax payments from their taxes, the foundation's news release said. Also, housing allowances for "ministers of the gospel" are not treated as taxable income.
This can create a "double-dip" situation where religious leaders are deducing housing expenses even though those expenses were paid for solely with tax-exempt dollars, the foundation said.
"Only 'ministers of the gospel' may claim these benefits, so the statutes convey a governmental message of endorsement, unconstitutionally favoring religious employees and institutions over all others," the news release said.
Employees of secular organizations do not receive the tax benefits. The foundation argues that puts its organization at a "competitive disadvantage."
The defendants in the suit are the Internal Revenue Service, Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner, commissioner of the IRS Douglas Shulman and Selvi Stanislaus, executive officer of the California Franchise Tax Board.
News-Sentinel staff
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Lodian wrote on Oct 28, 2009 1:51 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 28, 2009 8:50 AM:
I feel terrible. "
rantraves wrote on Oct 27, 2009 5:22 PM:
Aimee wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:27 PM:
If I believe that illegal aliens are breaking the law when they come to work here and without the proper visas, is that intolerant or simply stating the facts of the situation, as viewed from a legal perspective?
If I believe that our society is immoral and becoming more so all the time, is that belief intolerant or simply a view developed as a result of personal life experience?
Is it intolerant to call someone else intolerant because you don't like what they believe in or think?
I would argue that it is. "
Aimee wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:21 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 27, 2009 3:42 PM:
" In LodiJoe's defense, Lodi has changed quite a bit in the past 60 years."
Being old isn't an excuse for being intolerant. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 27, 2009 3:41 PM:
Yes, you would say that. And you and others like you, can say it as loud and as often as you want. It won't make it true. This is not a Christian nation. "
Aimee wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:07 PM:
"There are no "rights" here. The LNS can do what they want with their blogs. We're just tolerated guests. lol! "
Uh, didn't I just say that? "
Lodian wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:26 AM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:25 AM:
Aimee wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:25 AM:
LNS may legally restrict this type of speech. The freedom to speak is not absolute where un-protected speech is concerned.
The other issue is that, historically, the first amendment applied only to actions taken by the government/state in restricting speech (as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. However, precedent has been that if an entity acts "as" a government/state actor, the 1st amendment will apply. I don't think LNS could be seen as a state action, possibly as a public forum. Regardless, they are able to restrict unprotected speech or offensive language. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:07 AM:
"Rich Hanner, You are aware that offensive speech is protected under the first ammendment?"
Sure, unless one disagrees with Jerome Kinderman. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:00 AM:
mike wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:28 AM:
I would say in a Christian Country as ours is, the Churches are mainly in the soul saving business. Those in competition with them, are really in what business?
For what ever reason, Americans tend to be a bit more benevolent than others, it might have a bit to do with the fact that benevolent societies get the tax break they do? Or could it be the Christian principles instilled in them that make them more giving? "
hicksvilianfromlodi wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:28 PM:
hicksvilianfromlodi wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:25 PM:
Aimee wrote on Oct 26, 2009 8:57 PM:
Lodian, you say that we improve and get better with time, learn to be different as a people. But isn't the idea that we have progressed a subjective phenomenon? The idea of progression could be related to political or religious views, and, therefore, up to the interpretation of the reader.
And the repeated use of "liveralism" is a bit childish guys, don't you think? "
Aimee wrote on Oct 26, 2009 8:35 PM:
Aimee wrote on Oct 26, 2009 8:32 PM:
The US Supreme Court visited the issue of separation of church and state in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). The court developed a 3-prong test to evaluate whether or not a violation of the "establishment clause" had occurred. The last test concerns itself with "excessive government entanglement" with religion, hence the idea of "separation of church and state". Constitutional law is a subject that is somewhat set apart from the others subjects since the majority of our modern Constitutional laws, the interpretation of what the specific provisions of the Constitution means, is judge-made. Thus, the fact that the exact words do not appear in the Constitution is immaterial, as our interpretation of just WHAT the Constitution means comes from the Court.
Some other examples of this concept would be the Court's holding that the provisions of the Const. allows the state to legally and morally sterlize a mentally disabled person. "
rantraves wrote on Oct 26, 2009 7:48 PM:
rantraves wrote on Oct 26, 2009 7:47 PM:
rantraves wrote on Oct 26, 2009 7:30 PM:
hicksvilianfromlodi wrote on Oct 26, 2009 6:15 PM:
1. Did you know Allah translates into God.
2. Did you know Christianities similar to Islam in many ways.
3. the bible has been changed were as Islam hasn't that's why it seems extreme to us the bible has adopted to modern times while Islam still remains the same. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:41 PM:
You are correct, the Constitution would not allow for the government to eliminate a tax benefit for a church, simply because it was a church. If the church otherwise qualified for the exemption, that was available to all organizations, then the government would have to grant it.
There are, however, exemptions that are ONLY available to churches, and their employees. These are unconstitutional, and these are what need to be eliminated.
"The parsonage exemption" and housing allowances for "ministers of the gospel" are the examples mentioned in the article, that apply only to churches, and therefore violate the establishment clause.
That's my interpretation anyway, we'll see what the Judges think. "
Rhodie wrote on Oct 26, 2009 2:07 PM:
The government is not favoring religion over non-religion. If ONLY churches enjoyed tax expemption status then you would have a point. But there are thousands of non-religious foundations that also take advantage of tax-exemption.
If the government were to take your stance that churches should not eligiable tax exemption then THAT would be in violation of the first ammendment since it is prohibiting the religion from operation in favor of non-religious organizations. "
LodiJoe wrote on Oct 26, 2009 2:06 PM:
"Ill conceived immigration laws? Why don't you take as many illegals as you can in YOUR house and YOU can pay for their food, education and medical expenses. Like a LOT of Amican taxpayers I am sick and tired of supporting them. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 26, 2009 1:44 PM:
The government should not favor one religion over another. It should not favor non-religion over religion. And it should not favor religion over non-religion.
The power of the establishment clause, coupled with the free exercise clause, creates a neutral government, free to equally represent all of us. "
Rhodie wrote on Oct 26, 2009 1:30 PM:
And how exactly are current tax codes against the constitution? "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 26, 2009 1:02 PM:
If I were an illegal alien, or was on welfare it wouldn't change the fact that you are intolerant of people you perceive to be different, and therefore not welcome.
It doesn't further your argument, or cast a friendlier light on your bigotry to make accusations.
For the record, I don't condone people breaking the law. Even the ill conceived immigration policy we currently have. That doesn't mean I blame illegal immigrants for all of our problems like so many here.
Finally, not that your questions deserve answers, but I am a legal citizen, and I am not on any kind of public assistance. "
LodiJoe wrote on Oct 26, 2009 12:17 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 26, 2009 9:31 AM:
Well, helping to maintain the Separation of Church and State for starters.
Organizations like FFRF are necessary to help balance the Christian majority in this country.
The government should not be favoring the religious institutions financially the way they do.
It's unfair, it goes against the constitution and it ultimately erodes the freedoms of millions of Americans.
No more tax exemptions for churches! "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 26, 2009 9:17 AM:
Oh, right. I see your just oozing tolerance...
LodiJoe wrote on Oct 21, 2009 7:06 AM:
"She has a constitutional right to move if she doesn't like Lodi or what goes on here. "
LodiJoe wrote on Oct 23, 2009 11:59 AM:
"But we caved in to liveralism in this city and allow people to move here and ruin our very peace and personal security."
LodiJoe wrote on Oct 22, 2009 12:20 PM:
"I still say if you don't like Lodi or what goes on here, I will personally wave as you move elsewhere. "
That sounds like you have a very BIG problem with people you find threatening.
Well, like it or not Joe, this is America and we welcome all kinds. Even intolerant xenophobes. "
mike wrote on Oct 26, 2009 9:11 AM:
" the only reason people like you hate muslims is because of 9-11.
9-11 was the the govt's fault"
That is absurd! As are most your other assertions. Get some sleep man. "
Brian wrote on Oct 26, 2009 8:09 AM:
" the only reason the media is blaming muslims is because of yellow press to get idiot like brian to read there articles "
-I will pray that you rise above your ignorance of Islam. "
Brian wrote on Oct 26, 2009 8:06 AM:
I don't even live in CA. I work six days a week MR. Can you give me some evidence that Clinton didn't sign the Islam Partnership. "
LodiJoe wrote on Oct 26, 2009 7:46 AM:
LodiJoe wrote on Oct 26, 2009 5:28 AM:
hicksvilianfromlodi wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:21 AM:
hicksvilianfromlodi wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:20 AM:
hicksvilianfromlodi wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:17 AM:
hicksvilianfromlodi wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:17 AM:
The August 24th article quoted above unwittingly betrays the method by which the U.S. government's sponsorship of bin Laden is justified. When the U.S. openly supported bin Laden and friends, they were give a label ("resistance fighters") so they were ok. Now they have been given a new label ("terrorists") and thus they are transformed. The U.S. government is absolved of guilt because the people it supported in the past weren't these terrorists it is bombing today, they were those resistance fighters. Amazing. "
hicksvilianfromlodi wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:11 AM:
hicksvilianfromlodi wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:03 AM:
hicksvilianfromlodi wrote on Oct 26, 2009 2:58 AM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 10:41 PM:
"Brian Do you have ANY life at all where you live? You spend an awful lot of time obsessing about what goes on in Lodi. Who's doing what to whom and why."
OTH: I agree. "
Uncle Sticky wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:22 PM:
Brian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 5:03 PM:
Islam's 20 year plan for U.S.
-I keep going back to this. "
Godfather wrote on Oct 25, 2009 4:42 PM:
Brian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 4:27 PM:
Battleground: Public School
So just what DID President Clinton do? He "negotiated." Evidence shows Clinton cut a deal with Islamic leaders to legalize and protect Muslim indoctrination in our public schools. If Clinton could give Islam the conversion of our youth, Islam's resolve to destroy America would be appeased.
This was a tricky business with secular groups campaigning to strip all reference to the Bible and Christianity from schools. Therefore Clinton colluded with secular and religious-sounding groups and based his new Presidential Guidelines (2) on a document drafted by the American Muslim Council, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the ACLU which owns the copyright and many of the very groups attempting to censor Christianity today. This document can now be easily viewed (3) .
In the guidelines, every single "religious expression" that opens the door for Islam came equipped with a clause of escape, (2a) a backdoor for the ACLU to attack should anything Christian dare enter public schools under the same guidelines as Islam employs. "
Brian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 4:22 PM:
The Clinton and Islam Partnership
Evidence of Negotiations using America’s Public School Children
Much of this post researched and confirmed by Wes Vernon of NewsMax , Paul Sperry of WND and now Bob Unruh 10/19/06
Sources thoroughly provided
Abdurahman Alamoudi, President of the American Muslim Council, supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah and accused of ties with Osama bin Laden, helped develop "Religious Expression in Public School" which was launched by Clinton in 1995. These "Presidential Guidelines" greatly impact public schools today. Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, refers to these guidelines as the authority to support the ACLU’s lawsuits restricting Christmas celebrations and removing Nativity scenes from public schools. Meanwhile all practices of Islam are encouraged.
School districts are pressured to utilize these dubious guidelines, which Clinton sold to America as "issued by 35 religious groups," including the American Muslim Council/Alamoudi/suspected terrorist.
-Nice job Bubba.
Lodian,
Do you dare try to explain this away? "
Brian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 4:11 PM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 2:17 PM:
------------------ "
Brian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 9:36 AM:
09/25/09 2nd ADDENDUM - Islamic Call to Prayer to be Broadcast at the USA National Mall - Sept 25
Now is the time for USA's citizens to question the President of the United States and his overt affinity for Islam. Now is the time to call your Representatives and Senators and the White House ask them WHY Islam is being allowed to subjugate a large portion of the 146 acres of the United States in an area that is the location of the USA's most patriotic monuments along with the Nations Capitol Building and White House.
"The Muslim Athan (Call to Prayer) will be broadcast from the United States Capital to the Lincoln Memorial, from the Smithsonian to the White House on Sept. 25 while an estimated 50,000 Muslims converge on the West Steps and lawn of the United States Capital."
For more information go to:
http://islamoncapitolhill.com/Home_Page.html "
Brian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 9:19 AM:
The dhimmis in the British government, in their endless quest to pander to muslims, have spent £1.3 million on a development of nine family properties designed to meet the needs of the muslim community.
The brand spanking new apartment complex has six, 3-bed, five person homes and three 4-bed, eight person homes which have been built to meet current Homes & Communities Agency Standards and constructed in line with Rochdale’s Asian Housing Strategy. Undoubtedly, the new homes are constructed to be like other "Asian" housing built to facilitate the Islamic lifestyle with such amenities as toilets that do not face Mecca and with beds that can easily be turned to face the southeast, more cabinets and ventilation to aid in "steamy" muslim cooking and shower heads, on the toilet bowl.
This exposes the statement - by Prime Minister Gordon Brown - that there would be "British homes for British people" - as a bold faced lie alongside his "British jobs for British workers" promise:
-Can anyone assure me this won't happen here? "
Brian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:48 AM:
POLICE DOGS TO WEAR BOOTIES TO APPEASE MUSLIMS
Well well another ludicrous example of just how far the British government and/or police will stoop in order to pander to muslims. This latest show of dhimmitude was most likely prompted by muslims declaring that airport police "sniffer" dogs are unclean and demanding that the dogs must not touch the robes of muslims - as described in a recent TheO post "Muslims Offended by Sniffer Dogs". - as well as the even more absurd muslim outrage over a police placard advertising a new non-emergency phone number - muslims were angry that an adorable German Shepherd puppy, a police dog in training, was pictured - the police response was an instant "dhimmi-apology"-of course. (TheO post explains all in Another Case of the Tail Wagging the Dog)
-Good Grief! "
Brian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:36 AM:
" Brian
Do you have ANY life at all where you live? You spend an awful lot of time obsessing about what goes on in Lodi. Who's doing what to whom and why. "
-Many of my customers are from England
and they are appalled by what the Muslims have done to their country. I also have customers from the Dearborn, MI area.
Just this week here in Phoenix there was an attempted honor killing of a young Muslim woman. Her father ran her down with a car because he thought she was too westernized. He's disappeared. How about that. Honor killings are becoming all too common in America. "
Brian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:25 AM:
If one tries to criticise the Qur'an today, many Muslims react with hysteria. Because they don't want to accept any criticism of their religion. But we should encourage people to criticise the Qur'an. We have to protect and support the scholars who are looking at the Qur'an as scientists. That is the only way to prompt a reformation in Islam. Or secularisation in Muslim minds. "
Brian wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:18 AM:
" brian 2:52/3:04
And what does this have to do with the little preschool children and their lunch? "
-It started with small little things like this in England. Lodian seems to be convinced that the Muslims here read from a different Koran than the Muslims in England. "
OTH wrote on Oct 24, 2009 10:35 PM:
Do you have ANY life at all where you live? You spend an awful lot of time obsessing about what goes on in Lodi. Who's doing what to whom and why. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 24, 2009 4:04 PM:
And what does this have to do with the little preschool children and their lunch? "
Brian wrote on Oct 24, 2009 3:18 PM:
Brian wrote on Oct 24, 2009 3:04 PM:
" Both Costamagna and Catherine Pennington, assistant superintendent of primary education, are working on solutions to be culturally respective of the parents' requests.
Then are we going to apply the same standard to every other child "For 3 Hours" for every other nationality, or just for the "Muslims"?
How absurd!
And to think we are talking about a 3 hour period of instruction.
Children should NEVER be used as pawns to "Further any religion!" "
-Lodian,
So you don't think it's madness for parents to further Islam by using their children as pawns? This just goes to show how ignorant you are about Islam.
And I suppose you'll just explain away
Taj Khan's absence even though some of his rhetoric was teetering very close to
Ibraham Hooper of CAIR. "
Brian wrote on Oct 24, 2009 2:52 PM:
" T&C:
The very belief system of many Muslims is if you are not a Muslim you must be subjigated to second class citizenry
or killed. Find me another religion that abides by these philosophies in modern times? "
-Lodian,
REALITY CHECK!!!There is no other religion that has these philosophies
in modern times. I feel an obligation to let people know that this madness still exists in modern times. "
middleground wrote on Oct 24, 2009 2:47 PM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 24, 2009 2:27 PM:
Brian: NO... YOU got blackballed/blocked from posting about the Muslim children at Heritage School (as did your pal, T & C, t jefferson and cmd etc). IMO, the LNS was right to do so. I never posted on that blog, and neither did Leonard or voter). YOU and your pals, with your hateful comments, got that blog shut down fast before most of us could even check it out. Stop trying to include others in your madness. Just more hate from Brian. Way to go, genius. "
Brian wrote on Oct 24, 2009 9:54 AM:
I didn't go to the council meeting to go to church, and so that whole arrangement seemed just totally out of place," Buchanan said on the show. "I felt uncomfortable with being in a church service and being asked to bow my head and to stand and to show respect to a God who is not part of who I am."
-Given the VAST majority of Humans on this Earth believe in a Supreme Being,
She and her ilk have a lot of nerve calling for the end of a 200 year tradition. "
Brian wrote on Oct 24, 2009 9:43 AM:
Brian wrote on Oct 24, 2009 9:41 AM:
" Jeff...I have lived in this town for 60+ years and have seen what liberal doctrines have brought us and it isn't in Lodi's best interest. Why don't you take a stroll about 11pm down S.Central street/east side area. I didn't worry about my kids 40 years ago. They walked everywhere without fear. But we caved in to liveralism in this city and allow people to move here and ruin our very peace and personal security. I don't have to tell you who does the VAST majority of the crimes in Lodi, I figure you are smart emough to figure it out for yourself. "
-Let's hope the eastside in Lodi doesn't turn into what the ghettos in France are like
where it's a wasteland of Muslims who don't want to assimilate. "
Brian wrote on Oct 24, 2009 9:37 AM:
" Brian looks to be up in Richard Hanner's face this morning. "
-Evidently you got blackballed from the Muslim article too along with voter, Leonard and others Rich felt shouldn't be part of the discussion. This article is the exact type of subject you all like to blogg on. I did get a chance to voice my opinion briefly. It seems Rich does not want a debate on how the Muslims in Lodi are trying to work their way into the fabric of public schools so they can have more say on guidelines in these schools. "
mike wrote on Oct 23, 2009 11:09 PM:
{as stated by their other frivolous lawsuit}
Employees of secular organizations do not receive the tax benefits. The foundation argues that puts its organization at a "competitive disadvantage." "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Oct 23, 2009 10:56 PM:
SportsGuru wrote on Oct 23, 2009 3:25 PM:
I'm a firm believer in fighting fire with fire. I was recently part of a group that pressured a local resident to rescind a frivolous ADA lawsuit.
If Ms Buchanan so much as sneezes in the wrong place, someone should sue her just so she knows how it feels... perhaps trip on her sidewalk... "
Lodian wrote on Oct 23, 2009 1:43 PM:
LodiJoe: Not sure if this deserves a response, but here it goes anyway...
FYI, sorry to burst your bubble, but some horrible things have happened here in the last 60 years. Lodi has grown just like any other town. Are you telling us that everyone that has moved here in the last few decades simply doesn't belong? Really? How that even close to being rational? "
Jeff wrote on Oct 23, 2009 1:06 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 23, 2009 1:05 PM:
Why don't you buy American, you liberals!
Then to the kids passing by... Why don't you get a haircut you hippie liberals... stay off my lawn...
Finally... to anyone who has lived on his block for less than 40 years... get out of town you liberal out-of-towners... Us REAL Lodians hate the liberal outsiders coming and stinkin up the joint...
Sigh... what a sad, culturally irrelevant character.... "
Jeff wrote on Oct 23, 2009 1:04 PM:
It defies logic (in the literal sense) to change the reasoning or basis of the arguement after it has been argued. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 23, 2009 12:53 PM:
It sounds like good Conservative LodiJoe (Stalin?) would have us barricade all roads leading into town with check points and guard shacks like they did in the old country. Curse those darn liverals and their need to enter and exit at will, it's all their fault.
I have a feeling that the answer he wants to his idiotic question, "...who does the VAST majority of the crimes in Lodi[?]" is not "Criminals". "
LodiJoe wrote on Oct 23, 2009 11:59 AM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 23, 2009 8:34 AM:
jeff wrote on Oct 23, 2009 8:33 AM:
Everything seems to be a comparison for you. It gets rather annoying and seems very juvenile. Get over yourself. Better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. "
Brian wrote on Oct 23, 2009 8:29 AM:
jeff wrote on Oct 23, 2009 8:29 AM:
Brian wrote on Oct 23, 2009 8:16 AM:
You are aware that offensive speech is protected under the first ammendment?
That being said. Being so bold that you are, perhaps you should take up a job in the Dearborn, MI area where the authorities are up in arms how to quell the hatespeech perpetuated by the Muslim community there. Or are you not aware that Sharia Law is an imminent threat to this country? You really need to pick up Robert Spencer's book "Stealth Jihad". "
Brian wrote on Oct 23, 2009 8:01 AM:
keep commenters from blogging on certain articles.
Rich Hanner,
I know a lot more about the Muslim culture than you do. Do you even know who Robert Spencer or Walid Shoebat is?
Your little game will only make people more enraged. "
Brian wrote on Oct 23, 2009 7:42 AM:
concernedmuslimcitizen wrote on Oct 23, 2009 12:07 AM:
concernedmuslimcitizen wrote on Oct 23, 2009 12:06 AM:
LodiJoe wrote on Oct 22, 2009 7:29 PM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 22, 2009 1:50 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 22, 2009 1:29 PM:
We are nation built on diversity. Different people, from different places, with different ideas.
We can either celebrate our diversity as a strength, or let it divide us as a weakness. Clearly you choose the latter. "
LodiJoe wrote on Oct 22, 2009 12:20 PM:
mp wrote on Oct 22, 2009 11:43 AM:
mp wrote on Oct 21, 2009 1:38 PM:
" "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Creator? It appears our Founding Fathers clearly referrenced a "Higher Power". To see the word "Creator" in the Preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence and say there is no place for God aka "Creator" in Government is a weak leg to stand on. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 21, 2009 5:47 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 21, 2009 5:42 PM:
So, uncensored isn't really uncensored after all? Once again the council finds itself in the position of being the "prayer police".
This weakens the supposed protections of the new policy and keeps the city in harms way. And it's a waste of time. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 21, 2009 4:08 PM:
Not free. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 21, 2009 1:52 PM:
" If anyone paid attention to the meeting, they would know the city council has FREE LEGAL REPRESENTATION all the way to the Supreme Court if required. No cost to the taxpayer! "
The offer of free representation means nothing if the city loses a lawsuit. Also, the ADF only promised representation if the council adopted their policy verbatim, which I don't think they will. "
mp wrote on Oct 21, 2009 1:38 PM:
Creator? It appears our Founding Fathers clearly referrenced a "Higher Power". To see the word "Creator" in the Preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence and say there is no place for God aka "Creator" in Government is a weak leg to stand on.
Spin it however you want, but our Founding Fathers clearly believed in a "Creator" whatever His name is. "
mp wrote on Oct 21, 2009 1:22 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 21, 2009 1:15 PM:
City policy should not favor you, over me, or me, over you. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 21, 2009 1:12 PM:
"Should the city be paralyzed with fear of lawsuit and not do anything?"
No, but the city council should always consider the liability of the city, under current laws, when making policy. If the council isn't doing that, then they are ignoring part of their job, and putting us all at risk.
Its not about picking what the majority wants and then standing behind that. Its about remaining neutral and keeping us from getting sued. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 21, 2009 1:11 PM:
"Should the city not cut any trees down just in case a "tree-hugger" might sue them?"
The "tree-hugger" in this example would only have rights if the tree belonged to him, or if there was gross abuse to the environment by the city. Otherwise there would be no case, and the city should have no legitimate fear of litigation. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 21, 2009 1:10 PM:
"if a vegan threatened a lawsuit because offensive meat was served at a city sponsored function, should the city stop serving meat?"
Well, a city sponsored function is a far cry from an official government meeting, so different rules apply. Also, there isn't a constitutional argument that the government would be required to remain neutral on the subject of dietary choices. In the case of religion, there is such a requirement.
That being said, I would hope that the city, in planning a menu for a function, would consider having enough variety that people with varying tastes, dietary restrictions and allergies would feel included and be able to attend. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 21, 2009 1:07 PM:
Great! Been there done that... and you? What ideas do you have? I'm serious. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 21, 2009 1:05 PM:
"There are a lot of more serious things going on in Lodi than someone saying a prayer. Why don't these groups do something about the drugs, drinking and gangs in this town. Why don't they stop children from being abused by adults."
jnnym: Please tell us how you know that this is not already being done. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 21, 2009 1:02 PM:
I think it would have taken a heck of a lot of courage and strength to stand up to the vicious threats and attacks on character by those that were trying to strong arm the city council into keeping prayer at the meetings. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 21, 2009 12:59 PM:
jnnym wrote on Oct 21, 2009 12:34 PM:
Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Oct 21, 2009 12:04 PM:
Lodifree:
So if a vegan threatened a lawsuit because offensive meat was served at a city sponsored function, should the city stop serving meat?
Should the city not cut any trees down just in case a "tree-hugger" might sue them?
Should the city be paralyzed with fear of lawsuit and not do anything?
In today's society lawsuits are too common place. Lawsuits have become a strong-arm negotiation device, "do it or we'll sue you". Do you really want to support a system that responds to every lawsuit by caving? I'd rather have leaders who are stronger than that.
And since there is no "official" religion represented by the prayer/call to service at the city council but rather open to any religion (personally I think it should be only those INSIDE Lodi city limits) then there is no state sponsored religion so the issue is moot, other than that it is offensive to some. "
galtguy wrote on Oct 21, 2009 11:15 AM:
Yes there is a word for that. It's called the Majority. "
galtguy wrote on Oct 21, 2009 11:13 AM:
God could cast plague upon them. Or has he? Hmm... H1N1? HIV?
No one ever answered my "In God we trust" comment. And don't sit there and say they didn't specify which God, that's moronic. You're better than that arn't you? Don't sacrafice your credibility by saying that this Government wasn't founded in Christianity. Find a new argument because that one isn't going to fly. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 21, 2009 9:41 AM:
"She has a constitutional right to move if she doesn't like Lodi or what goes on here. "
LodiJoe thinks everyone who is different from him should move out of town. Isn't there a word for people like that? "
OTH wrote on Oct 21, 2009 9:20 AM:
Please tell us you don't believe everything you see depicted on tv. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 21, 2009 9:02 AM:
"Separation of church and state was for the sole purpose of protecting churches and pastors from government intrusion."
You are correct that the subject of that letter referred to the protection of churches from the government.
I disagree however, that the "sole" purpose of the separation was to protect churches. Separation goes both ways, government is protected from religion and religion is protected from government.
I cited that letter in response to a post that put forth the argument that since the words "separation of church and state" don't exist in the constitution, the concept doesn't exist. Its just a silly argument, and Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists where he uses the term is the most obvious example of the amendment being interpreted that way. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 21, 2009 8:50 AM:
"Does this also mean that you agree with other facets of Jefferson's life and leisure. Iligitimate children? Alcohol abuse? Slavery?"
Your argument is infantile, don't be a child...
I didn't say, I agree with Jefferson on this point, therefore I hold him up as a perfect example of humanity and agree with 100% of what he did and said... I didn't say that. If I had, then you would have a point. Instead, you are just being ridiculous. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 21, 2009 8:47 AM:
Well, if the city's policy is determined to be illegal, it will be the city council's fault that we are in trouble, not the people that called for inclusion, neutrality and adherence to the Constitution.
Also, if "normal" folks remember the people on my side as leeches, then I am very glad that I am in the minority. If normal means being a close minded, xenophobic zealot... then I'm glad I'm not that.
I should think most people would hope not to be that. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 21, 2009 8:39 AM:
An individual can choose whether to put their money or their beliefs first. The city council, on the other hand is not an individual. Their job is to represent all the citizens of Lodi.
I don't think all, or even most of the citizens of Lodi would want their tax dollars being spent on lawsuits.
The city had a clear opportunity to eliminate this risk entirely, in this case. They chose not to. They are being reckless with my money, and I don't appreciate it. "
rantraves wrote on Oct 21, 2009 8:31 AM:
DarwinLives wrote on Oct 21, 2009 8:23 AM:
If the shoe fits.
Also: No one has been able to state how "God" will help our City Council do the business of the City? Mostly because "God" cannot do a damn thing about the City Council! "
LodiJoe wrote on Oct 21, 2009 7:06 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 21, 2009 6:04 AM:
Perhaps reading some of Jefferson's work might clear up some of the ridiculous pap you have repeated, crazycitizen. Remember the Kimono Bloggers' Rule; when you repeat things as blatantly untrue as you have, you must be either ignorant or dishonest. You don't want to be known as ignorant or dishonest, do you? "
ordinarycitizen wrote on Oct 20, 2009 11:30 PM:
ordinarycitizen wrote on Oct 20, 2009 11:10 PM:
Aarinaga wrote on Oct 20, 2009 10:56 PM:
Aarinaga wrote on Oct 20, 2009 10:39 PM:
imadog2 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:32 PM:
davidd wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:53 PM:
For more information, check out http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp "
reading wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:46 PM:
I have no dog in this fight, nothing to get over, my opinion is neutral on this entire circus, other than the ending dollar cost. Most citizens don't care if you chant vodoo or have a moment of silence. This is all between you people on both sides, and a few bloggers. You have all collectively made a mockery out of yourselves and Lodi, trying to blame the CC in the process. (Albeit, yes they do have their problems...but that's another issue.)
Just understand, that as you and your lawyers continue to push this horsedung, thus costing ALL OF US in the long run....you come across to most as nothing more than leeches. You will be a hero to a few, but most normal folks will remember you as leeches on our tax dollars.
Good luck. "
ael1969 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:35 PM:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp "
Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:30 PM:
Correct me if Im wrong, as I'm not a legal scholar, but I don't believe anyone has ever sued their city for NOT having prayer... whereas cities have been sued many times because they HAVE prayer."
Lodifreethinker: Are you saying that people's beliefs and faith should be a secondary consideration to monetary considerations? "
voter wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:14 PM:
voter wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:09 PM:
voter wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:08 PM:
LodiEye wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:02 PM:
"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
James Madison "
LodiEye wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:59 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 20, 2009 6:00 PM:
" The people of this City with open minds to other religon's are not fooled for one second on this issue. It has never been about RELIGON... it has been about RACE. "
Caliwings, Lodi is not without it's race issues, but I think your wrong about this one. It is a turf war based on religion, not on race.
Do you have any evidence or reasoning other than the "SUB-TEXT and UNDERLYING meanings"? "
dogs4you wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:56 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:55 PM:
Our city cannot afford this, but they will have to find a way if the council insists on putting us in harms way, the way they have.
Correct me if Im wrong, as I'm not a legal scholar, but I don't believe anyone has ever sued their city for NOT having prayer... whereas cities have been sued many times because they HAVE prayer. "
Caliwings wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:52 PM:
Southern Bapist churches... anyone see many of those around? How about Muslim temples... not many of those either. What about a Buddhist temples... yeah... but tucked away in a small part of El Lodi. Trust me ladies and gentleman... RE-THINK what this argument is really about (and get your brains working on SUB-TEXT and UNDERLYING meanings). It isn't just what, who, or how it is said... it is also WHY it is said. Why is the council and members of this city truly opposed to removing "Christian" prayer? "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:51 PM:
The fact that I think your beliefs are silly, DOES not mean I disrespect your right to hold them. "
voter wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:51 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:50 PM:
I am a Freethinker, meaning I choose what I believe based on my own reasoning, and not according to any dogma, except perhaps my own.
The fact that I think your beliefs are silly, just not mean I disrespect your right to hold them. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:47 PM:
You are incorrect. The term "separation of church and state" is not present, but in fact the 1st amendment to the Constitution says everything it needs to on the subject.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This means, like you said, that we cannot have an official state religion.
It also means our government cannot favor one religion over another. It cannot favor non-religion over religion, and it cannot favor religion over non-religion.
Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, called this "building a wall of separation between Church & State."
So, you are correct. The words separation of church and state, are not in there, but the meaning is definitely there. I agree with Thomas Jefferson's interpretation a bit more than yours. "
ra wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:37 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:14 PM:
Actually it says neither, and means both.
Have you read it? "
Lodian wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:11 PM:
stinkey: If you think prayer is no big deal then why worry about it. Just pray on your own. And who says we don't make a fuss over the drug problem in our schools, on our streets, in our neighborhoods? Just because someone is taking issue here does not mean that is THE ONLY issue they ever address. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:08 PM:
I agree with you. And the city should have thought ahead, and done the right thing, so as to not end up in a lawsuit. "
Stinkeypete wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:06 PM:
When are we going to get a clue as to what is truly important?
The First Amendment states "Freedom OF Religion", not "Freedom FROM Religion". It was designed to keep the government from demanding that it's citizens belong to a specific church as England had done. It was designed to allow all religions to worship in the USA, something that never would happen in England during that century.
We sure have turned it into something the farthest from our founding fathers minds..... "
jay dubb wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:02 PM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:00 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:24 PM:
A "bigoted rant"? From a Lodi pastor? I'm shocked!! "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:21 PM:
The meeting is not supposed to be about what the majority wants. Its supposed to be neutral and inclusive of everyone. Why is that so hard to understand? "
4CivilRights wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:00 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 20, 2009 3:34 PM:
"This is similar, IMO to a few disabled people purposely seeking out non ADA compliant business's and sicking the attorneys on them to make money."
Yes, she purposely sought a town to live in based on the fact that it wasn't following its prayer policy, and that its actions violated the law.
Get over yourself...
The city needs to be sued. It had a chance to make a policy that was inclusive and neutral, and it decided to cave to the majority opinion. The only course of action at that point is the court system. "
Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 3:14 PM:
I look at it this way; using Matt 6:6 as some do here then then by their interpritation of scripture Jesus himself was wrong for praying in public as he did so many times. He talked about God the Father infront of the ruling government of the time before his cruxifiction. So if it is wrong to pray in public as Lodian keeps bringing up, then why did Jesus do it? "
Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 3:07 PM:
Matt 18:20
20 For where two or three meet in my name, I am there among them.'
I guess it comes down to that I would rather celebrate my faith with friends, family and strangers than, as Lodian encourages, hide in shame in a closet. It's a good thing the early leaders of Christianity were more like me and outgoing than afraid to be seen as Christian in public like others here. "
pooreastside wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:51 PM:
T & C wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:43 PM:
pooreastside wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:41 PM:
T & C wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:38 PM:
T & C wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:36 PM:
"HERO" is Not the "First word" that comes to my mind about Ms. Buchanan! "
T & C wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:34 PM:
T & C wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:33 PM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:04 PM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:03 PM:
Inquisitor wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:02 PM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:00 PM:
"Lodian, Mazie's comment was incredibly ugly and ignorant. In other words, a typical Mazie post."
I figured as much. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:58 PM:
Are you equating Lodi city business with being on ones deathbed? "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:48 PM:
ael1969 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:47 PM:
The founders were hardly religious, more to the point they were enlightened by humanitarian principles not religious ones. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:43 PM:
Personally, I don't think of prayer as a little thing. If it is such a little thing to you then why get all crazy upset about Ms. Buchanan's opinion and desire to keep church and state separate? "
ael1969 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:40 PM:
God does not imply Christianity. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:39 PM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:36 PM:
Wow, LodiJoe, is this your best attempt at rebuttal? lol! "
SportsGuru wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:20 PM:
She said she did it because she "felt uncomfortable" being around a prayer.
There is not Consitutional Right to avoid feeling Uncomfortable.
This is a symptom of the mealy mouthed, softies that our culture has raised into semi-adult-hood. "
galtguy wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:16 PM:
You sound like a smart guy, so how do you explain all of the references to God in many forms of American Government (currency, etc...)?
"In God We Trust" how do you folks get by that one?
Darwin- Easy buddy, don't be so hostile. I'm neither a big fan or a big opponent of either side. But you can't deny certain very simple facts that this country is based and founded on Christianity. Our founding Fathers were very religious folks, to deny this fact is being intellectualy dishonest. "
iambic grape stomp wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:05 PM:
ael1969 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 11:44 AM:
When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not once. "
DarwinLives wrote on Oct 20, 2009 11:36 AM:
There you go again...making all "non-believers" a unit. For the record, I'm as sure of myself as much as you are of yours. I know it may be difficult to grasp, but just THINK first...
Jihad is bad, too. But, as I have said before, I'm focused on the article that we are commenting on... "
Galtguy wrote on Oct 20, 2009 11:03 AM:
You stated, "There is absolutely, no place for SANCTIONED prayer before meetings" Do you think this should have been the case when this country was founded? Because we both know it wasn't (look and read our currency).
Also you non-believers are pretty sure of yourselves arn't you? So I have to ask, are the Muslims wrong too? What about the Buhdists? And all the other religions out there?
One more thing, instead of focusing on prayer in a mild mannered council meeting, why not have this lady protest the Muslims and their Jihad? "
Galtguy wrote on Oct 20, 2009 10:51 AM:
So what this argument boils down to is why those in favor of ending the prayer want to change the status quo. So why is that? "
DarwinLives wrote on Oct 20, 2009 10:40 AM:
If you want to pray and go to church and believe in the tooth fairy, I don't really care; that's a personal issue. I don't go around calling you an idiot or say you are wasting your time. If YOU believe, great. I'm glad for you. But the CITY is not a "person". The CITY does not have a religious belief. There is absolutely, no place for SANCTIONED prayer before meetings.
Though, I suppose it would be comical if the council started doing some low, murmuring chanting before the meetings...
Just do the business. the City is a business. Make it work. Keep your religion at home. "
alumn95 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 10:30 AM:
wsdavis wrote on Oct 20, 2009 10:27 AM:
reading wrote on Oct 20, 2009 10:04 AM:
This is similar, IMO to a few disabled people purposely seeking out non ADA compliant business's and sicking the attorneys on them to make money.
They should all be ashamed of themselves. "
DarwinLives wrote on Oct 20, 2009 10:03 AM:
And, we could have a LONG debate on your statement that "nobody was ever harmed by it", but that's not the point of this article. "
pooreastside wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:49 AM:
I agree with Silver1sprg, commentator, and Gail 1 totally. As far as DarwinLives, you had one good idea. Prayer before work. Think I'll start a foundation for that. Give me a break. A little prayer may do you some good, nobody was ever harmed by it. "
DarwinLives wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:40 AM:
ael1969 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:38 AM:
gail1 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:30 AM:
commentator wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:21 AM:
Silver1Sprg wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:15 AM:
My hopes of living in a smaller community where everyone knows each other and there is much less political bull**** going on. I guess Lodi has the same issues and problems as a big city. There is always someone in the crowd that will get offended for any little thing. The kind of society we've become is sickening. SO WHAT if you don't like prayer being said in a town hall meeting. No one is dragging your butt to church, nor do you have to stand up and bow your head in reverence. You don't like it, step outside. Ms. Buchanan, your a big girl, you can handle it, I'm sure. Like LodiJoe said, what's next? Singing the National Anthem?
Stop wasting the city's time and gaining publicity for yourself. The Lodi City Council has enough problems to deal with, namely themselves. "
davidd wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:42 AM:
Seeking attention? Really? She's remained anonymous since May and only came forward after the council made their decision. "
BrendaF wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:39 AM:
Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.[1] The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[2]
Reflecting a concept often credited in its original form to the English political philosopher John Locke [3], the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept. "
Jenn H wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:33 AM:
LodiJoe wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:31 AM:
yeah you wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:04 AM:
davidd wrote on Oct 20, 2009 6:21 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.