Consistent Conservative: Delaware blogger opposes government-sponsored sectarian prayer

July 11, 2011 | Filed under: Christian Nation?,Government-Sponsored Prayer,Views | Posted by: Joseph L. Conn

A conservative blogger in Delaware has come out in support of Americans United’s lawsuit challenging the Sussex County Council’s weekly recitation of the Lord’s Prayer to open its meetings.

Frank Knotts, writing at DelawarePolitics.net, said he thinks the plaintiffs “have a good case.”

“As I have said,” Knotts continued, “I feel that as individuals we are guaranteed a right to believe or not believe in a higher power. To pray or not to pray. But I also feel that as a body of government, the Sussex County Council has no place in leading prayers at official government meetings. Where, I might add, they are elected to represent all citizens, of all faiths, or of no faith. To have the council supporting, condoning, or promoting any one specific faith, while it may not be technically establishing a religion, is not inclusive of all citizens and is dangerous to all citizens and their rights.”

To bolster his argument, Knotts cited an array of church-state separation quotes from James Madison, the Father of the Constitution.

Knotts seemed a little sheepish about his stance.

“Now I know that this opinion will not sit well with many of my fellow conservatives,” he said, “but it is my understanding of the original intent of The Constitution.”

Good for Frank!

It has always been a mystery to me why more conservatives don’t speak out in favor of church-state separation. Those on the right generally want smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation. If you really believe in those concepts, you have to be for church-state separation.

If we didn’t have that constitutional mandate, government officials could intervene in our lives, imposing any religious perspective they choose. They could raise our taxes to support churches, church schools and other ministries. They could regulate houses of worship in an arbitrary and intrusive manner.

The late Sen. Barry Goldwater, often called “Mr. Conservative,” strongly backed a wholesome division between the institutions of religion and government.

In a 1994 essay, Goldwater wrote, “I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don’t hurt anyone else in the process.”

Speaking in 1981, Goldwater said, “By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars…. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?”

Sound observations.

So Frank Knotts stands in a respectable conservative tradition with a sound ideological pedigree.

Stick to your guns, Frank! I wish more conservatives would be consistent on this issue.

11 Responses to Consistent Conservative: Delaware blogger opposes government-sponsored sectarian prayer

Don Ayotte July 11, 2011 - 3:20 am

I am also a conservative contributing poster on Delawarepolitics.net and I disagree with Frank Knott's assessment of the separation of church and state when it comes to prayer. The First amendment states boldly that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That is all the the Constitution or the Bill of Rights ever says about the issue concerning the so called "separation of the church and state." This is clearly a hands off position on the church and state. Our republic was formed primarily of a christian people and God's hand is clearly stamped on everything, even our money. I see no harm in a simple prayer before a County Council Meeting. The government clearly leaves it up to the people of that area, whether or not they want to pray and in Sussex County Delaware, they want to pray.

- Mike Daniels July 11, 2011 - 12:42 pm
  
  Hi, Don! As you are no doubt aware, many of our Founders were not Christian. A number were Deist. That is why you will find no reference to Jesus or to Christianity in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. As ed has pointed out, "In God We Trust" on all currency and "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were added in the 1950s under McCarthy, using religion to distinguish Americans from "godless Communists". How would you feel if a majority of the people in Sussex County were, for example, Muslim? What if the Council wanted to lead with a prayer to Allah? Would that be OK with you? Or would you be offended that your local government was leading official prayer in a religion which specifically calls out yours (I assume you to be Christian) as false? Would you not feel like a second-class citizen? That's how Jews, Hindus, humanists, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc. feel when their elected officials lead prayers to Jesus or Mary. I agree with you that government should have a "hands-off" position on religion. The only way we can all have religious liberty is if government takes no position on religion. That includes not having government-sponsored prayer to any deity. Councilors are free to pray to whomever they wish in their homes, in their churches, and even in the streets. When they are conducting official government business, they should remember that they represent ALL of the people, and some of ALL do not share their religion. The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (bjconline.org) is a Christian organization which campaigns for this position as well. You may wish to check them out. CLICK HERE for a good starting page on their site. A sample for you:
  
  The separation of church and state, or the "wall of separation" talked about by Colonial Baptist Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson and the U.S. Supreme Court, is simply a shorthand metaphor for expressing a deeper truth that religious liberty is best protected when church and state are institutionally separated and neither tries to perform or interfere with the essential mission and work of the other. While the phrase "separation of church and state" technically is not in the First Amendment, and although there is no evidence that either Thomas Jefferson or James Madison used the word "separation" until the 19th century, the principles those words represent are there. Who would deny that federalism, the separation of powers and the right to a fair trial are constitutional principles? But those phrases do not appear in the Constitution either. And how could anyone read Jefferson's "Bill Establishing Religious Freedom" in Virginia and Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" without concluding that they unequivocally supported the concept?
  
ed-words July 11, 2011 - 7:42 am

The Constitution is not a straitjacket, but a framework open to judicial interpretation. For instance, the word 'religion's first definition in the dictionary is the practice of religion in general,such as prayer. God's "hand" wasn't "stamped on everything" until the McCarthy era. It wasn't stamped on the Constitution. Majority rule doesn't apply in the courtroom. "I see no harm in a simple prayer BEFORE a County Council Meeting" Right! BEFORE it begins!

Don Ayotte July 11, 2011 - 8:24 am

"Majority rule doesn't apply in the courtroom. " This is the first time I've been on this site but on this issue, I can see that we disagree. I believe that theocracies are not a good kind of government but I don't believe that the Sussex County County Council's motivation here is to start a mini-theocracy. I am familiar with the players in this situation and They just want to pray before starting county business. From what I've read the constitution and the Bill of Rights, (I've read and pondered it all) I know that the First Amendment never states or even suggests that the church and state be COMPLETELY separate. If taken to one extreme or the other, I would suggest something in the middle, which is what the Sussex County Council is doing. I am on their side and fully support them. I also know Frank Knotts. We are good friends but just disagree on this issue.

- ed-words July 11, 2011 - 10:39 am
  
  They can pray before "coming to order".No problem there. (Oops. Majority rule does apply in the jury box.)
  
Don Ayotte July 11, 2011 - 11:33 am

alright ed-words I know where you're coming from and I'll respectfully agree to disagree with you

Jonathan Arthur July 11, 2011 - 12:59 pm

The worst thing that religion does is exclude those who do not agree. That is the important function of the separation of church and state, to include all, no matter what their religious beliefs. Christians don't want that, they want to shove their disgusting "good news" down everyone's throat without impunity. I and millions like me don't want to hear their or anyone else's personal mythology involved in creating laws, teaching children the truth, choosing who's best for the job, etc. Why is that so hard to understand? I will never be a christian, muslim, jain, sufi, zoroastrian, or a member any other myth-worshipping anti-science exclusionary xenophobic cult. So stop trying, and get out of politics! Pray at your church, that's the place for it, not in the shared commons! It all boils down to, "There's more of us than you, so shut up and go with the flow, praise Jeebus!"

- Don Ayotte July 11, 2011 - 6:59 pm
  
  ''It all boils down to, "There's more of us than you, so shut up and go with the flow, praise Jeebus!" That's the trouble with people that don't believe in any higher power other than themselves, instead of debating they just tell you to shut up and go with the flow. Well that's not going to happen here. At least the others will offer a reasonable debate and with you it's "shut up and go away.
  
  - Mike Daniels July 11, 2011 - 7:32 pm
    
    Don, your generalization can be applied to Christians just as easily as it can be to atheists. I provided you a lengthy response above, including a recommendation you look into the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (bjconline.org), yet you only responded to a more passionately-worded comment. You responded with generalizations. Why is that? I thought you wanted "a reasonable debate".
    
  - Nancy July 12, 2011 - 5:31 am
    
    Don I think you mistook what Jonathan said. I think Jonathan was stating what we hear so much when trying to talk to christians about everyones rights. Consider this we have the right to have a pledge of allegiance that does not mention god and currency that does not state that we trust in said god but when we state as much to christians we are told to shut the hell up and deal with it or leave their country. Does that sound like truth loving christian people to you? We believe that the christians have a right to practice their religion and that is why there are churches. If you want to pray before a meeting go to your local church and pray before coming to any government sponsored event because we are not all christians and should and will not be silent anymore while you treat our buildings like your church.
    
ed-words July 11, 2011 - 7:42 pm

Don, I don't understand what it is you disagree with. Don't the Council's prayers reach God whether they're said before or after the meeting opens? Does it matter to Him?