greed and death wrote:Neutraligon wrote:Greed here's the problem with the not forced to be there idea. A townhall meeting is a chance for the citizens to directly contact their representatives. By saying they don't have to attend you are also removing one more avenue for them to discuss their feelings and issues in a public setting. In legislative sessions, the public may watch, but they do not directly participate.
You can also write them a letter, or attend their campaign events, or make an appointment to talk with them in their office( really easy for municipal government). Attending a city council meeting is but one small way to be involved. If the prayer really bothers and you really need to be at the meeting you that much just attend the meetings a little late after the prayer is done.
If you were required to pray or listen to someone pray before voting I would be all with you. But you are not.
You're actually make a solid argument for why this was a bad ruling. You're explicitly explaining why this ruling limits the access to government for non-Christians, unless you want to subject yourself to preaching from another religion. One of two things happens. Either you're subjected to the preaching against your will, which you're arguing is a problem, or you are given less avenues to interact with your government or, as you pointed out, even join in the running of government.
That is a bad thing in every way and something that the separation should protect against. Otherwise, what is the point?
What could possibly be more coercive than a lack of inclusiveness in governmental proceedings?