Charles Lynch Objects to Moment of Silence; Prefers Christian Prayer

Secularists will often regard a "moment of silence" during official government functions as an attempt to provide official status to religious prayer without quite saying so. For some Christian theocrats, though, a moment of silence is an affront because it doesn't go far enough in promoting religion. Few, though, will go as far as Charles Lynch who was charged with disorderly conduct for interrupting a moment of silence by loudly reciting his own prayer, as if it were somehow appropriate for him to take over a government function to promote his personal religious beliefs.

The new mayor, Rob Thoman, earlier said he would continue with the practice of official prayer as it existed under Nannette Tunget, his predecessor. Thoman appears to have had a change of heart, however, and does not see any place for prayer during official government meetings. Instead he went with the moment of silence as a compromise, but it wasn't a compromise that even everyone on the council was willing to agree to. They eventually went along with the plan, but clearly not all the voters are happy.

During the moment of silence, Lynch began reading a prayer out loud; when asked to be quiet, Lynch began to pray louder, according to the report.

Lynch was then asked to leave the meeting. He refused and grabbed a chair, prompting Southport assistant Chief Mark Myers to forcibly pry Lynch's hands from the chair, according to the report.

Lynch continued to resist Myers, according to the report, and refused to to place his hands behind his back. He was eventually removed from the building and handcuffed.

Lynch said he was released from jail at about 7 a.m. Tuesday.

"It didn't make me feel very good," he said about his first visit to a jail. "There are a lot of characters up there, I'll tell you that."

Source: Indianapolis Star

I'd hate to be the one to break the news to Charles Lynch, but I rather think that he's one of those "characters" now.

I'm sure Lynch isn't the only local Christian who believes that "traditions" like sectarian Christian prayers should be continued, but they'll be hard-pressed to explain why being a "tradition" is sufficient to render a practice legal and constitutional. The fact is, if some practice is worth doing and legal to do, it shouldn't matter how old or new it is.

Defenders should be able to come up with independent arguments for why a secular government body should be giving any sort of official status to any religious rituals, beliefs, practices, or traditions. When they can't, they fall back on arguments about "tradition" which even they can't possibly take seriously. Tradition is thus a cop-out used by people who recognize that they have no substantive arguments for defending their position.