HOA meeting and prayer that ends with "in Jesus' name"

[Jambalaya]

Where each group is insisting on their rights/needs, the majority vote rules. I think the OP should find out how negotiable the prayers are, and if the majority in her community wants them or not.

Sorry, but there are times when it doesn't matter what the majority vote says, you just shouldn't do it. At one time the majority of people thought slavery was ok. At another time, the majority of people thought it was ok that women not be able to vote. Just because that's the opinion of the majority doesn't mean everyone else should sit back twiddling their thumbs contently. I realize I'm comparing slavery and suffrage to an ultimately inconsequential home owner's association, I'm just not a believer that what the majority says makes it right.

And "tradition" is an even worse argument.

I would file a formal complaint about the Christian prayers. Suggest substituting it with a moment of reflection or silence. Or a general prayer for health and good fortune.

And I would circulate that complaint. And see if you can get others to sign off on it.

Then I would wait to see what happens. If after 4 months nothing has happened. I would file another complaint and this time state that you are not going to pay your HOA fees unless and until it changes. With that note being from a lawyer if needed.

First, she could simply ask the prayers to stop, and see what happens. She could point out that an HOA meeting is a civil proceeding and therefore prayers don't have a place. That might be all she needs to do to get them stopped. The difficulty will come if the spirit of the social grouping is quite strongly religious.

I really like the idea of a moment of reflection or a general prayer/wish for health and good fortune.

If the HOA says no, I really can't imagine filing a lawsuit about this. It seems such a tiny, minor matter to me, but perhaps I am wrong. Big injustices growing from little ones, etc. How would the lawsuit work? I'd assume NonieMarie would have to pay for it herself, or ask others from her community who felt similarly to all bear the cost.

It seems to me that there are much, much bigger injustices to fight for, but again perhaps I am wrong. I'm not well-versed in politics, law, or the ins and outs of civil rights today and where that intersects with religion. I think the people who discuss these things fervently on PS are much better educated than me in this regard. I just explain what I think as best I can and try to apply some common sense.

 

[kenny]

If you want to maximize your odds of good health and fortune do what the evidence proves works.

If you want good health then eat well, get exercise and manage stress.
If you want good fortune work hard and make good decisions.

There is no evidence that magic or moments of silence maximize your odds of good health and fortune.
Why bother doing things when there is no evidence that those things work?
And worse, why force others to listen to you go through these motions?

 

[Jambalaya]

No, but I think Gypsy's idea was meant as a compromise. And compromising is usually a good thing when trying to get along in a community with others who are very different from you.

 

[kenny]

No, but I think Gypsy's idea was meant as a compromise. And compromising is usually a good thing when trying to get along in a community with others who are very different from you.

Yeah, please stab me in the eye 5 times instead of 10.

 

[kenny]

FWIW, we went to my SO's parents house for Turkey Day.
About 30 family members were there, all ostensibly Catholic.

Before the meal one person said a prayer.
I remained respectfully silent because I was a guest in their home.
I'm not a complete @sshole.

... but at an HOA meeting?
No way!

 

[Jambalaya]

You said there is no evidence that good wishes work. There is no proof of any of the things we've been discussing, either way. And you know, this is very interesting, but I was reading a physics book about quantum mechanics (might be called the Quantum Enigma) published by Oxford University Press - so respectable and well-researched, not by VooDoo Press. It said that the laws of physics dictate that there is something fundamental about our universe that we don't understand (not necessarily something religious) but some missing piece that we are not getting, and that this is demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Basically, light waves behave completely differently depending on if they are watched by a machine or watched by human eyes. Our eyes, our human perception, make the waves appear to be different than how they actually are, and this extends to other types of particles. Since our universe is made up of waves/particles, the implications for the universe being very different in actuality to how we perceive it is far-reaching. The hut-couple experiment, also quantum physics, is equally strange and backs up this idea of the universe not only appearing a certain way to us, but our reality being created by our consciousness. So we still don't know or see what the universe is, because yes we can go up in a spaceship and see it, but that's our reality seen a certain way by human eyes and human consciousness. Apparently space goes on and on forever...At least, that's how we see it.

The hut-couple experiment is really strange. It was hard to follow, but as far as I remember, atoms can be simultaneously in two boxes at the same time - but your consciousness creates the location of the atoms, and the experiment is said to prove the existence of overlapping worlds. That's a really, really basic explanation.

Top physicists and scientific thinkers consider that whoever unravels this mystery will be considered greater than Einstein, greater than Isaac Newton, and all other scientists to date.

My point? You said that there is no evidence that good wishes, moments of silence etc work. Well, we don't know, and I guess that's why so many people do set store by religion or a non-religious spirituality (like worshiping a spirit of nature) or why people are superstitious. We just don't know. Our understanding of the universe is in its infancy. Quantum physics tells us that we have no idea what it really looks like or what it is. Physics thinks that our human perception is limiting our understanding of what actually is. According to the OUP book (Quantum Enigma) the experiments have been repeated in every top institution in the world, over and over, and they are the only experiments that have proven watertight always, every time they've been done. Their validity is beyond question. However, what they imply is so strange that it's hard to accept.

So, there's no evidence that good wishes work. But they might, if your mind can construct your reality. I swear I've wished for things and they've happened.

Here's more on the atoms being in two places at once:

Quantum theory has no atom in addition to the wavefunction of the atom. Since the atom's wavefunction occupies both boxes, the atom itself is simultaneously in both boxes until its observation in a single box causes it to be wholly in the box.

This is amazing. Rosenblum and Kuttner say it's akin to visitors entering a strange village where large objects obey the rules of quantum theory. They're shown two huts, with a man and a woman, holding hands, standing between the huts.

Then a hood is put over the head of a visitor. When the hood is removed she's told to ask, "In which hut is the couple, and which hut is empty?" Every time she does this, a door to one of the huts is opened and there the couple is, arm in arm.

Not surprising.

Nor is her experience when the experiment is repeated with her being told to ask, "In which hut is the man and in which hut is the woman?" Every time she does this, the doors to both huts are opened and the man is in one hut, with the woman in the other.

But now we come to the quantum enigma. The visitor is told that she will experience the final version of the experiments that is the crucial one. She puts on the hood, then is told to remove it and ask her question.

Visitor: "Which question should I ask?"
Villager: "Ah, my friend, you are now experienced with both questions. You may ask either of them. You may choose either experiment."

Here the weirdness kicks in.

If she asks in which hut is the couple, a man and woman are found to be in one or the other of the huts. If she asks in which hut is the man, and in which hut is the woman, the man and woman are found to be in separate huts.

The visitor is perplexed. She assumes that the man and woman had to be either together or separated immediately before she asked her question. However, the villager replies:

I see what disturbs you. In spite of your training as a physicist, and your experience with quantum mechanics in the laboratory, you are still imbued with the notion that a physical reality exists independent of your conscious observation of it. Apparently physicists find it hard to fully comprehend the great truth they have so recently gleaned.

Explanation of experiment discussed in "Quantum Enigma" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, Oxford University Press.

 

[Jambalaya]

No, but I think Gypsy's idea was meant as a compromise. And compromising is usually a good thing when trying to get along in a community with others who are very different from you.

Yeah, please stab me in the eye 5 times instead of 10.

I don't see why you're rolling your eyes at the idea of compromise being key to different people getting along in a community. Isn't that common sense?

 

[Jambalaya]

FWIW, we went to my SO's parents house for Turkey Day.
About 30 family members were there, all ostensibly Catholic.

Before the meal one person said a prayer.
I remained respectfully silent because I was a guest in their home.
I'm not a complete @sshole.

... but at an HOA meeting?
No way!

Well, again perhaps I am wrong to view it this way, but I can really think of a million bigger things to get hot and bothered about. The house next door to mine was condemned this week. A crew came to clean it up, and I overheard them talking about a very depraved sex attack they had committed on a woman. I went to the police station and filed a report on Friday afternoon. I know who they work for, so the matter will be investigated. I save my energy for things like that, not a few prayers at a meeting. Sure, I'd ask them to stop the prayers and perhaps ask others what they thought. But lawsuits and non-fee-payment, over a few prayers? This is JMO of course, but I do think it's overkill. I mean, who's got the time and the money to fight every tiny little thing? I hid behind my door for two days when these guys were working, to see what else they'd say. On the first day, they described the attack and the guy said it was the story of his first t-------. I couldn't make out the word. I stayed out of sight the next day - they knocked on my door to make sure the place was empty and they could talk freely (hah!) and I overheard the missing word. They said "If I make it through another test" - so the attacks are some kind of gang ritual, and there was another one planned. I get much more satisfaction from spending my free time doing my part to fight an actual crime that caused horrific harm to an individual than starting a lawsuit over a few prayers said at a meeting. I was pretty much trapped inside this week since I didn't want them to see me or to know someone was there and so clam up. Well worth the time. HOA prayers, not so much, in my opinion.

 

[VRBeauty]

When the civil rights of one American are violated it doesn't matter if 318 million Americans don't give a crap.
IMO the OP's civil rights are being violated.
The length of the prayers is not relevant.

Fortunately the US system of government is better than just ... majority rules.

Last year many states had anti gay marriage laws on the books because the majority of voters in those states wanted them.
But the highest court of the land ruled those laws were unconstitutional.
So much for majority rules ... thank God!

Here are the three branches of the US government:

Thank you for the civics lesson, Kenny.

Apparently the same U.S. Supreme Court that ruled on anti-gay marriage laws has addressed this question of invocations. In fact, the majority opinion was written by the same Justice Kennedy who wrote for the majority in the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling upholding gay marriage. Here's what the ruling said:

In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an ‘establishment’ of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among people of this country.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3753205298956949348&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

 

[Ellen]

For Kenny and those who think people praying in Jesus name is arrogant and/or shoving religion down someones throat, it's far from that. With all due respect, you and your religious standing is the last thing on that persons mind. They do that, in obedience to and respect for our Lord and Savior. I cannot post the verses that ask for prayers to be addressed in His name because I will be breaking PS rules. But there are a multitude that request prayers to be asked in Jesus name. So it has nothing to do with you, and no one is trying to push their religion on you.

And to ask that we keep our religion to certain places not is possible. The spirit of Christ lives in us, so wherever we go, He goes. He's not something we just turn on and off. He lives in us and we in Him, day in and day out. I know you won't really understand this (and I say this NOT to be condescending), but I felt it needed saying in trying to help you understand a little better why some Christians behave the way they do.


And I cannot stress enough how I wish more people could be like Jambalaya.

 

[OreoRosies86]

If it's time for public declarations and prayer, I should feel free to publicly ask my HOA if all have them have been touched by the glorious noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whilst wearing a colander.

Ramen.

 

[MarionC]

If it's time for public declarations and prayer, I should feel free to publicly ask my HOA if all have them have been touched by the glorious noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whilst wearing a colander.

Ramen.

I appreciate the humor and truth as well. Saying "In Jesus name"? ... they should either cut it out or include all deities. Only about 30% of the world is Christian.

I recently showed my art in a gallery and at the opening reception they said a prayer to the goddess [?] and tried to smudge everyone. It was a total turnoff to be forced to either cope or walk away . Inconsiderate!

 

[missy]

Where each group is insisting on their rights/needs, the majority vote rules. I think the OP should find out how negotiable the prayers are, and if the majority in her community wants them or not.

Sorry, but there are times when it doesn't matter what the majority vote says, you just shouldn't do it. At one time the majority of people thought slavery was ok. At another time, the majority of people thought it was ok that women not be able to vote. Just because that's the opinion of the majority doesn't mean everyone else should sit back twiddling their thumbs contently. I realize I'm comparing slavery and suffrage to an ultimately inconsequential home owner's association, I'm just not a believer that what the majority says makes it right.

+1

One of the wonderful things about the US Constitution is it protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Freedom of religion is also freedom from it.

Hear, hear.

As Kenny and others said feel free to practice your religion in the privacy of your church, your home, your place of worship. Please don't force it on others at public meetings, work, public schools etc. where there are people who share different religious (or non religious) beliefs. It isn't right.

And as for majority rules I think we can all see where many times we need to be protected from the majority so that doesn't fly IMO.

Now if they want to end the meetings with some general words of gratitude without specific religious connotations great. I have no problem with that. But not everyone believes in Jesus and the HOA meeting is not a place of prayer. Anyone living there paying HOA dues should feel welcome to attend these meetings and not feel as if it is a hostile environment.

 

[missy]

Just spoke with my dh about this and he said he said what they are doing is not illegal. He also said it is ignorant and presumptuous but not illegal.

 

[ksinger]

Where each group is insisting on their rights/needs, the majority vote rules. I think the OP should find out how negotiable the prayers are, and if the majority in her community wants them or not.

Sorry, but there are times when it doesn't matter what the majority vote says, you just shouldn't do it. At one time the majority of people thought slavery was ok. At another time, the majority of people thought it was ok that women not be able to vote. Just because that's the opinion of the majority doesn't mean everyone else should sit back twiddling their thumbs contently. I realize I'm comparing slavery and suffrage to an ultimately inconsequential home owner's association, I'm just not a believer that what the majority says makes it right.

+1

One of the wonderful things about the US Constitution is it protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Freedom of religion is also freedom from it.

Hear, hear.

As Kenny and others said feel free to practice your religion in the privacy of your church, your home, your place of worship. Please don't force it on others at public meetings, work, public schools etc. where there are people who share different religious (or non religious) beliefs. It isn't right.

And as for majority rules I think we can all see where many times we need to be protected from the majority so that doesn't fly IMO.

Now if they want to end the meetings with some general words of gratitude without specific religious connotations great. I have no problem with that. But not everyone believes in Jesus and the HOA meeting is not a place of prayer. Anyone living there paying HOA dues should feel welcome to attend these meetings and not feel as if it is a hostile environment.

That would be great. But of course, no matter how kindly you point out that fact to them, it will likely be hitting them where they live. Hackles immediately go up. The recent realization among certain Christians that there are more and more people out in society who will no longer simply be politely silent and pretend that you are the only person in the room whose beliefs actually matter, in order to avoid conflict, can be very jarring. Speaking up and voicing objection to - if not their religion, then their manners - often does not go over very well, is taken as an attack, and often feeds into a defensive persecution narrative. (Thus, being made aware of the fact that some are now acknowledging that there are other groups that have other traditions in December, morphs into a war on Christmas)

Living in the religiously homogeneous state I do, in real life I long ago decided it was not worth my energy to fight that battle in most cases. Overt religious display permeates almost every facet of life here, so you have to pick your battles. Only when I feel that there really is that tacit, or sometimes not-so-tacit, demand to outwardly conform, do MY hackles get up and I will speak frankly.

That and I am sometimes annoyed into speaking rather pointedly when I someone refuses to accept my statement of disbelief as well thought out, or firm. And no, I do not go up an introduce myself as an atheist and here's why - I don't hold forth unless explicitly asked, or if the conversation goes to a place where talking about that would tie in. That happened not too long ago at our favorite pub. The topic rolled to death (not sure how, but it was a pub - topics tend to go where they will) and the young man I was chatting with asked what I believed about after death. I told him I thought you....died (somewhat less terse than that, but you get the drift), and he proceeded to condescendingly tell me that if I'd just think about it more clearly, I'd come to a belief in God. The arrogance of every assumption being made in this situation (I was a woman who needed mansplaining of how to think properly/atheist who couldn't think properly/that his beliefs were superior enough to mine that lecturing a strange woman old enough to be his mother was appropriate) made me shut him up in a hurry.

 

[Jambalaya]

Thanks, Ellen, that's sweet. It crossed my mind that the pond-dwellers might come back once they'd realized it was someone in my house that blew the whistle, but I said to myself that I will not be intimidated by that, and the police have to know about it. Obviously the police aren't going to tell them who it was, but powers of deduction....The townhouses are close together and they were right outside my door. The clean-up crew isn't done yet. I really hope they send a different crew!

Regarding the issue we've been discussing, I just don't know why one group's rights not to hear the prayers are more important than the other group's right to hear them, and vice versa of course. It's impossible to say who's right, so it's in matters such as this that democratic process such as majority rule prevails. It isn't fair if 80% want the prayers and the 20% gets its way. This is not the same as serious human rights issues. It does not hurt you to hear them and you don't have to hear them and you are not forced to pray. You are perfectly free to turn up wearing a "666 I heart the devil" t-shirt and stuff earplugs in your ears.

I think such an unforgiving stance against a few prayers is very intolerant. Like Ellen says, the prayers aren't aimed at annoying you. Whatever happened to democracy, compromise, and flexibility, such as: Would you be OK with prayers at half the meetings and no prayers at the other half, if people can't agree? It sounds as if you wouldn't be OK with that compromise or any other, since I've suggested half-and-half twice upthread and no one has replied to that idea. Apart from me, only Gypsy was the slightest bit willing to think about a compromise. I agree that forcing religion down people's throats is wrong, but forcing atheism down people's throats is also wrong. That's where compromise and democratic process comes in.

 

[Jambalaya]

Ksinger, I'm going to write out what you said that I want to reply to, rather than quoting the whole exchange, which can make the thread a little messy.

You wrote: "..he proceeded to condescendingly tell me that if I'd just think about it more clearly, I'd come to a belief in God."

Oh man, that is awful. I cannot imagine saying things like that to anyone, or thinking such a thing. I guess he feels entitled to say those things because it's a very religious state as you say, and so he feels as if it's OK. I can see how that could be extremely annoying. Where I live is quite non-religious and I've never heard anyone say things like that.

You also wrote that your belief against are firm and well-thought-out. I've always found it impossible to take a firm view in either direction. I don't really understand the strength and certainty of positions on either side of the fence, given that we just don't know. I kind of envy people their surety, whether it's someone who has a rock-hard faith or a rock-hard certainty that there is nothing out there. For me, it will always basically remain a mystery. Since we don't know, I'm open to all possibilities.

 

[Amber St. Clare]

Eh, some people LIVE to be offended and feel victimized.

 

[monarch64]

Our HOA communicates mostly by Facebook page. Oh, and they just sent us the copy of the bylaws we requested 4 years ago. You ought to see the number of front doors that are painted non-traditional, non-earth tone colors. The hand-wringing, pearl-clutching, and prayers being uttered is probably through the roof. We don't even need meetings!

 

[Jambalaya]

Missy, I'm paraphrasing you in order not to quote that long exchange and make the thread somewhat messy. You said that people have a right not to feel that the HOA is a hostile environment. Why are a few opening prayers hostile? I don't understand that. You are not being forced to pray or forced to listen. You can put headphones on or wear your Proud Atheist t-shirt - no one will stop you. You have the prefect right to that freedom of expression and not to pray. How is that hostile?

If, to you, prayers make a hostile environment, perhaps their lack thereof would feel like a hostile environment to those do who want them. This sounds like a religious community where some brief prayers are customary and the norm, and most people there don't have a problem with them. Therefore, to get rid of them would feel like a very hostile environment to those want them and who might take comfort from them. And in general terms, the sheer anger and intolerance of some people who are really anti-religion could feel very hostile to religious people, don't you think? A lawsuit and non-fee-payment would make a hostile environment for the people who like the prayers. Whose right to experience a non-hostile environment is more important, and who decides?

I was very non-religious for decades, and never felt a prayer as an affront to me, or hostile. I'd simply note that they were different from me. "Oh, so-and-so is religious. I'm not. What's for dinner?" I just cannot imagine getting so upset about a few opening prayers that I threaten lawsuits. For me, a lawsuit was appropriate when my mother's cancer went undiagnosed for five years despite multiple doctor's visits. But I've dealt with so much illness and bereavement in the last few years that all this energy wasted on a few opening prayers seems like such a waste of time because life is short and there are many more grievous injustices in this world to fight for than taking a few opening prayers away from people who might really enjoy them and draw comfort from them.

JMO.

 

[Jambalaya]

OK. I must stop being addicted to PS and get on with all my chores that I was unable to do in the last couple of days since I was keeping quiet as a mouse behind the door. House is a total mess. I've written a lot about compromise and how do you decide whose rights are more important in an issue like this. I don't feel I have anything more of value to add, since compromise is apparently not an option on this issue and I would just repeat myself from now on, because I do believe in compromise. The level of anger against the prayers - expressed in lawsuit threats and fee witholding and hostile environments - is very illuminating as I had no idea that people could get so upset about something like this. I still don't really understand the root of that anger or its strength, at all. If I were head of the HOA and it was solely up to me, I'd probably dump the prayers if a few people hated them so very, very much. I'd reason that it makes them so much angrier to have the prayers than it would ever make me to let them go, so let them have what they want. It would matter so much more to them than it would to me. Presumably, to dump the prayers would then make them as happy as having the prayers made them angry.

It's been an interesting and thought-provoking discussion. I never get to have conversations like this in real life.

 

[Maria D]

For Kenny and those who think people praying in Jesus name is arrogant and/or shoving religion down someones throat, it's far from that. With all due respect, you and your religious standing is the last thing on that persons mind. They do that, in obedience to and respect for our Lord and Savior. I cannot post the verses that ask for prayers to be addressed in His name because I will be breaking PS rules. But there are a multitude that request prayers to be asked in Jesus name. So it has nothing to do with you, and no one is trying to push their religion on you.

And to ask that we keep our religion to certain places not is possible. The spirit of Christ lives in us, so wherever we go, He goes. He's not something we just turn on and off. He lives in us and we in Him, day in and day out. I know you won't really understand this (and I say this NOT to be condescending), but I felt it needed saying in trying to help you understand a little better why some Christians behave the way they do.


And I cannot stress enough how I wish more people could be like Jambalaya.

Oh my goodness.

Ellen, if you were at my HOA meeting and felt that you just HAD to say a prayer, and it HAD to be in your deity's name, because he's with you wherever you go, and I had no business feeling put off by that because it has nothing to do with me, then I would insist on following up your prayer with some satanic worship verses of my own.* I'm sure you would understand.


Back to the OP - She's not thinking about filing a lawsuit, just wants to make sure, now that she's on the board, that the HOA is not liable in case someone else files one.

*I don't actually worship satan. But I would definitely find some verses and insist on reciting them at the beginning of the meeting if I had to sit through a christian (or any religious) prayer.

 

[Ella]

Everyone, please keep to the topic of the HOA and OFF of religious discussion or this thread will be closed.

 

[missy]

Missy, I'm paraphrasing you in order not to quote that long exchange and make the thread somewhat messy. You said that people have a right not to feel that the HOA is a hostile environment. Why are a few opening prayers hostile? I don't understand that. You are not being forced to pray or forced to listen. You can put headphones on or wear your Proud Atheist t-shirt - no one will stop you. You have the prefect right to that freedom of expression and not to pray. How is that hostile?

If, to you, prayers make a hostile environment, perhaps their lack thereof would feel like a hostile environment to those do who want them. This sounds like a religious community where some brief prayers are customary and the norm, and most people there don't have a problem with them. Therefore, to get rid of them would feel like a very hostile environment to those want them and who might take comfort from them. And in general terms, the sheer anger and intolerance of some people who are really anti-religion could feel very hostile to religious people, don't you think? A lawsuit and non-fee-payment would make a hostile environment for the people who like the prayers. Whose right to experience a non-hostile environment is more important, and who decides?

I was very non-religious for decades, and never felt a prayer as an affront to me, or hostile. I'd simply note that they were different from me. "Oh, so-and-so is religious. I'm not. What's for dinner?" I just cannot imagine getting so upset about a few opening prayers that I threaten lawsuits. For me, a lawsuit was appropriate when my mother's cancer went undiagnosed for five years despite multiple doctor's visits. But I've dealt with so much illness and bereavement in the last few years that all this energy wasted on a few opening prayers seems like such a waste of time because life is short and there are many more grievous injustices in this world to fight for than taking a few opening prayers away from people who might really enjoy them and draw comfort from them.

JMO.

Quite simply because the HOA meeting is NOT a prayer meeting or place of worship or in that person's private home. The HOA meeting is inclusive of people from all different religious backgrounds. So to just pray to Jesus certainly can be a hostile environment to those who do not share that same belief. In a nutshell jambalaya the difference is it is not a meeting for religious purposes. Do you understand what I am saying. There is a clear distinction. My compromise is to say a general thanks but keep it non specific and keep religion out of it.

 

[VRBeauty]

I cannot post the verses that ask for prayers to be addressed in His name because I will be breaking PS rules. But there are a multitude that request prayers to be asked in Jesus name. So it has nothing to do with you, and no one is trying to push their religion on you.

Actually, I believe that's where the Supreme Court would draw the line, and for precisely that reason. The court's ruling sanctions thanking God, and invoking a higher power to lend wisdom and guidance to the proceedings, etc... but would not sanction doing so in such a way that it is exclusive to the practices and mandates of one specific religion or scripture, thereby excluding others. That still leaves a lot of room for respectful that are inclusive of many spiritual practices. If you look at the Legislative Journals I cited earlier, those prayers are (to me) lovely and respectful ways to open a meeting.

*I don't actually worship satan. But I would definitely find some verses and insist on reciting them at the beginning of the meeting if I had to sit through a christian (or any religious) prayer.

And if you did actually worship Satan and were to invoke his power at the beginning of a meeting, that would also violate the spirit of the Supreme Court's ruling.

 

[kenny]

No, but I think Gypsy's idea was meant as a compromise. And compromising is usually a good thing when trying to get along in a community with others who are very different from you.

Yeah, please stab me in the eye 5 times instead of 10.

I don't see why you're rolling your eyes at the idea of compromise being key to different people getting along in a community. Isn't that common sense?

It depends what exactly those people expect to do (get away with).

You don't compromise when people are doing something this inappropriate.
You fix what's broken.
You work to end the inappropriate behavior regardless of what has been the tradition or what people, even a majority, have gotten used to.

People had gotten very used to the traditions of slavery and to voting rights being given ONLY to land-owning men.
Slaves didn't like it so much but society then was less developed than it is today.
It was about the powerful dominating the weak and keeping them weak ... same with who got to vote.

This all boils down to power and control.

Losing their control, privileged status and power had to be very upsetting to the slave owners and to male land owners.
Too bad!
Equality is a beautiful thing and a powerful force for good.
Society, hopefully gets better and better, which means equality and respect for all citizens.

An HOA meeting is a public event where everyone has a right to feel equally comfortable.

 

[Jambalaya]

Missy, as I've said a few times in this thread, an HOA meeting probably isn't the time or place for religious prayers, and I agree with that. But in this case, it sounds customary for that social grouping and isn't illegal according to your DH. If I were head of the HOA I don't think it would occur to me to open the meeting with prayers, it's true. You wrote: "My compromise is to say a general thanks but keep it non specific and keep religion out of it." I agree. Compromise is good. Gypsy also had a nice compromise similar to yours. But Kenny didn't like that, so obviously that compromise didn't suit everyone. You know, I'm not someone who attends a lot of community/group/political meetings, but the impression I get is that opening invocations of some type are somewhat customary, whether they are religious or non-religious. I once attended a non-denominational church. I know that sounds weird, but it was a church which had no set religion; all were welcome. So perhaps opening invocations can be non-religious too, maybe spiritual but without invoking any particular religion or deity.

There must be other strong feelings against invocations at meetings too, in other places across the country. I wonder if eventually invocations at meetings will just die out.

 

[Jambalaya]

Regarding everything in your post above Kenny, yes, I do see exactly what you're saying, and I agree with those principles.

Actually, until VRBeauty posted that link, I had no idea that invocation prayers were such a thing, since I don't go to these kinds of meetings. See what I wrote above to Missy - that is, it'll be interesting to see if invocation prayers at meetings die out. And if so, how long it will take for society to go that way.

It's true that people who are religious can worship at home or church and don't need to do it in an HOA meeting. I'm pretty laid-back about these things so I probably wouldn't make a thing of it myself, but it's hard to argue with the logic that an HOA meeting is not a place of worship.

 

[Jambalaya]

Man, I really need to do that housework - I've been saying that since yesterday - but this is such an interesting discussion. For research purposes, perhaps I'll attend a neighborhood residents' association meeting and see if they had opening invocations. I went to one once, two years ago, and I'm pretty sure they didn't have them.

 

[Tekate]

I lived in a fairly liberal part of Texas (Austin, Travis Cty)... how this was solved in my kids schools was the moment of silence thing. My kids didn't even do silence to the best of my knowledge... If we cannot agree, we agree to disagree and we do the best we can to accommodate everyone, which would be allowing time for those who have to pray and those who don't.

The OP should just ask for the prayers to be stopped and see what they say. If most people don't mind but a few mind vociferously, then they probably should be stopped. The issue would be if there are an equal few who vociferously oppose the stopping. It's hard to argue that an HOA meeting is the place for prayers, I see that. I'm guessing it's more a reflection of the spirit of the social grouping in that community.

I don't understand why they're such a big issue unless they're longer than brief. They are just words and you don't have to listen, and there are no negative consequences to not listening. No one is forcing anyone to pray, as far as I'm aware. For most of my life, I would have rolled my eyes inwardly at their saying but I wouldn't have felt oppressed by brief prayers. Some people are religious. Some are not. Takes all sorts.

You would't feel oppressed.
Fine.
Others do.

When the civil rights of one American are violated it doesn't matter if 318 million Americans don't give a crap.
IMO the OP's civil rights are being violated.
The length of the prayers is not relevant.

Fortunately the US system of government is better than just ... majority rules.

Last year many states had anti gay marriage laws on the books because the majority of voters in those states wanted them.
But the highest court of the land ruled those laws were unconstitutional.
So much for majority rules ... thank God!

Here are the three branches of the US government:

Kenny, I meant the majority rules in small matters like HOA prayers, since that's what we're discussing, when no one's human rights are realistically under threat. It hurts no one to sit in the same room as a few brief prayers, even if those prayers are not liked or appreciated. Yeah, they probably shouldn't be at an HOA meeting and hopefully the board would agree to stop them, but if not they are just a few brief prayers and yet lawsuits and refusal to pay fees have been mentioned. That's really intolerant, IMHO.

So, what would you suggest? What would you do in the following situations?

55% for the prayers, 45% against.

45% for the prayers, 55% against.

What would you do, if not majority rule? How do you make everybody happy? I did suggest prayers at half the meetings and half not.