God sends a Warning to America through a vision given to Oral Roberts

Roberts

 So why didn’t we know that these mighty vessels were moved by God to issue final warnings to the the church and the nation?  Because the American Church is now as David Wilkerson put it “the ultimate feel good church of all time,”  we want to filter out anything that disturbs our cool vibe.  Here now is the loving message from the great evangelist Oral Roberts himself.  He saw a vision and with a broken heart he delivers a final plea to the church.  -Mario Murillo

God sends a Warning to America through a vision given to Oral Roberts

“In the midst of the turmoil, the fear, the anxiety that’s in our nation and in our world, as I was walking and meditating, I heard the voice of God. I’ve heard that voice many times. It’s too familiar to me, and there’s no way that I can fail to understand it; His voice because I’m familiar with it. And instantly I heard that voice and I heard it and then I saw with my eyes something I’d never seen. Suddenly, in the clouds in the skies above New York City and the east part of the United States, and which hung there for quite sometime and then spread out across America, without touching the ground, and then God diffused it away from America and sent it out to the nations of the earth. And I saw and I heard. What did I see? I saw something coming down from above: Smoke and vapor and blood, or it looked like that to my eyes, to my spiritual eyes.

There it was hanging so huge until it almost blotted out the sky. Instantly I thought about 9/11, when the terrorists attacked the Twin Towers and through television all of us in America, and probably the world, saw those more than a hundred story high buildings crumple and heard the cry of thousands of people who were being either killed or wounded. I remembered the fear that struck my heart and knew that what I was feeling everybody else was feeling and remembered that never in the history of the world, and certainly not of America, that something of this proportion had struck the human race and was a preview of things similar to it that were going to happen through what we now call terrorists. First, I saw this thing hovering and great changes coming in it to where I couldn’t miss it. And then I heard, something came into my ears, and it reminded me of what a friend of mine had said when the first space capsule was released into the sky.

They told me that they made of all of them—he was a newsman in New York City—to be maybe half mile or more away from the capsule. And he said when that thing lifted off the earth, there was a sound, and the sound itself moved the weeds and the growth, and he said, “It penetrated my body.” He said, “As I talked to others, they felt the same thing.” He said the sound was so enormous that nothing had ever happened like it in the history of the world. Instantly, I thought of that because the sound that was coming into my ears was penetrating my whole being.

NYC

And then I heard God’s voice. {HE} said,

“I’M MAKING A SIGN.”

This is a sign according to the second chapter of Acts, where the Apostle Peter, upon the giving of the Holy Spirit, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, said there’ll be signs in the skies.”

He said, “This is one of the signs of the end time because the world is not ready for the second coming of my Son.” He said, “My church is not ready for the second coming of my Son.”

He said, “The Jews, with whom I’ve had the covenant for thousands of years, they’re not ready for the second coming of my Son.” He said, “The nations of the earth are not ready for the second coming of my Son.”
He said, “America has been set aside by a special covenant that I made with many of the people who came to found this nation several hundred years ago, that this was my nation and the gospel was going to go out from it unlike any other nation and there’d be more gospel going out from America.” And he said, not only would there be a powerful military presence in the United States unlike any other nation, but it would be the center of the gospel that I was sending out. And he said to me, “You remember that I said in my Bible to my disciples 2,000 years ago, ‘Go into all the world and teach all nations, and when that teaching has reached the nations then shall the end come.'” And then he startled me. He said, “With all of the widespread force of my church in the world, but particularly in the United States, which is the source of most of the gospel that’s being preached in all the world,”

Oral-Roberts-9460242-1-402

HE said, “THERE IS A WASTING OF MY POWER, THERE IS A FAILURE TO GRASP THE END TIME. AND THE CHURCH, THEY ARE COMING TO CHURCH ON SUNDAY MORNING MOSTLY FOR THEMSELVES. AND THE PREACHERS, FOR THE MOST PART, ARE NOT REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH.”

“THEY’RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LITTLE GROUP THAT IS THERE, AND THEY SING THEIR SONGS AND THEY GET UP AND PREACH. AND {HE} SAID, “WHEN 9-11 STRUCK, THERE WAS A FEAR THAT CAME INTO THE HEARTS, EVEN OF MY PEOPLE OF THE CHURCH AND OF THE PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. AND MILLIONS THE FOLLOWING SUNDAY OR TWO RUSHED TO GO TO CHURCH.”

“BUT THE PREACHERS WERE NOT PREPARED, AND MOST OF THEM DIDN’T EVEN PREACH ON IT AND DIDN’T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT BEING THE SIGN OF SOMETHING THAT’S COMING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES BIGGER.”

{HE} said, When those planes of the terrorists struck the Twin Towers in New York City and they gradually came tumbling down, it was something bigger than people had ever seen, but it’s nothing in comparison to what’s going to happen in the second coming of my Son.” And so he said, “My church was not prepared to deal with that, and people came to church and then nothing much happened and they dropped back and many of them went back to their bars,” as I heard Kenneth Copeland say.

“And there I was with my whole creation that’s alive in the earth, not counting all those who have died—millions who have lived and died, all of whom will be resurrected at some time in the future, having to do with the second coming of my Son, some to everlasting life, some to live forever in their new bodies and some to everlasting shame and contempt forever lost.” And he said, “I love people. I created them. I love them by creation. I love them because I sent my only begotten Son.” And instantly I thought of the great show that Mel Gibson made of The Passion. oral_roberts_1

When millions upon millions went to see it and are seeing it now all over the world. I remember when I sat there with my wife, watching it, and how my soul was stirred and the tears sprang from my eyes and my body trembled as I saw something about the sufferings of Jesus, the Son of God, to save the human race and so that the devil would not destroy God’s creation. He would not destroy men, women and children that God had created and for whom Jesus had died and rose from the dead that we might be born again—we might repent of our sins and have salvation and come into a readiness for the coming of Christ. And he says, “As you know in the Bible, the second coming in two parts. One is called the Rapture, one is called the revelation.

And first of all I’m going to rapture, or catch up, my people—the people who are born of my Spirit and filled with my Spirit and serving me. I’m going to catch them up in a moment of time and they’ll meet my Son in the clouds and come on into heaven, into my presence. And then not long after I’m going to bring that bride of Christ back with Jesus when he comes the second time to the earth, and that’ll be the beginning of the judgment of the nations.”

But he said, “The thing that is breaking my heart is that I commanded my people, I commanded my church to preach the gospel in all the world and to teach all nations. And while they are evangelists and pastors and prophets and apostles and all kinds of my workers in various parts of the world and in some of the nations of the earth, it’s just a drop in the bucket to what I commanded my disciples to do.”

praying for a boy

“And I love people so much I cannot afford to let people go on like they are.
And then he directed my attention to the book of Matthew, the 24th chapter, where he speaks in the 24th chapter and beginning at verse 35: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my father only. What I’m talking about is known only to the Father. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as the days that were before the flood that—there was eating and drinking— eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came; And the coming—so shall the coming of the Son of man be.”

Now, he reminded me in the 6th chapter of Genesis that the earth was filled with violence and it was so full it couldn’t be any more full and it grieved the heart of God that he had made man and he decided that he would destroy man and begin over, and he established a remnant and it was a family, Noah and his family. And he commanded him to build a huge boat that would take two of every living thing in it so when the flood came—and they’d never had rain before in the earth, it had been watered by a mist.

But when, he said, when the flood comes and this boat with this family and two of every living thing gets in it and the flood lifts them up from the earth that’s being destroyed, or from the human race that’s being destroyed, the flood that lifts the ark, or the remnant of my people, in Noah’s day, will come down in judgment upon the people of the earth.

oral-roberts-02

And HE said…

NOW, THERE’S GOT TO BE PREACHING WITH FIRE IN THE BELLY!

THERE’S GOT TO BE AN ANOINTING OF THE HOLY GHOST. MY CHURCH HAS TO WAKE UP BECAUSE WHAT I’M REVEALING IN THIS SIGN THAT “EVERY” EYE IS GOING TO, “EVERY” EAR IS GOING TO HEAR. THEY’LL SEE THIS THING. THEY WILL NOT NECESSARILY KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT IT’S A WAKE CALL ABOUT THE SECOND COMING OF MY SON!

It’s not going to come and touch the earth. It’s going to be seen, it’s going to be heard, and people are going to become aware of the drama of the end time, of the second coming of Christ. When He splits the skies and comes back with His bride and takes over the reign of the earth and He destroys the Antichrist, who will arise at that time. He will destroy the followers of Antichrist and He’ll establish His kingdom upon the earth. And He said, “I cannot let anybody live and die without knowledge that my Son is coming back the second time.”

AL SHARPTON DODGES RACISM DEBATE AT OXFORD

AL SHARPTON DODGES RACISM DEBATE AT OXFORD UNION, WILL DELIVER PREPARED SPEECH

This Friday, the Oxford Union in London will hold a debate about race relations in the United States. MSNBC host Al Sharpton accepted an invitation to the event, but after confirming he would be one of the participants to propose the motion that the United States is “institutionally racist,” he did an about face, shocking his esteemed hosts.

Sharpton was supposed to defend his proposition along with Black Panther leader Aaron Dixon and liberal blogger Mychal Denzel Smith, while SiriusXM host, Breitbart News, and Fox News Contributor David Webb; conservative commentator Joe R. Hicks; and BBC radio host Charlie Wolf would oppose the motion in a structured Oxford-style debate.

wolf-web-hicks

The Oxford Union has committed to continue with the debate, which will be held this Friday, January 23rd. The debate details are on their website at oxford-union.org.

Sources have indicated that Sharpton, who is an informal adviser to both President Obama and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, has asked Oxford for an opportunity to speak but not debate the counter argument. “He wants to control the event, because he won’t debate the facts and the real issues including how his own conduct impacts race relations in the U.S.,” stated Webb. “He doesn’t want to be exposed for what he really is – a shakedown artist and racial coward. After years of conning people into giving him money by fanning the flames of racism, he’s just too afraid to have a civil, fact-based conversation about the issues of race in America.”

Oxford will allow Sharpton to speak for 20 minutes before the debate but will also have to answer questions from the audience, Webb, Hicks, and Wolf. The Oxford union, to its credit, is attempting to keep its history of fair debate intact. Webb was assured by the Oxford Union president Lisa Wehden that the opposing side will have an opportunity to ask questions of the Sharpton following his structured remarks. “It would be wrong to allow Sharpton to get away with just his usual thin, inflammatory rhetoric when this is supposed to be a substantive discussion,” said Webb.

Sharpton had a rough year in 2014, with criticism coming from all sides. Most recently, Sharpton’s comments following the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases came under fire for creating a racially charged environment in New York and elsewhere that has pundits and citizens have alleged led to more violence against police across America. The New York Times investigated the long-rumored issue of tax evasion, claiming that Sharpton owes more than $4 million in back taxes. And, while Sharpton railed against law enforcement, The Smoking Gun reported that he was a paid FBI snitch in the 1980s.

The debate will be taped and aired on David Webb’s SiriusXM Patriot radio show Monday, January 26 at 9PM Eastern time. Additional coverage by Breitbart News, Fox News Network, and worldwide media is expected. The Oxford Union YouTube channel will have the full debate following its conclusion.

The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, research finds

The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, research finds

‘Counter-bias’ rooted in concerns over social and legal consequences

Despite national media fixation on white-on-black police shootings, a new study finds “significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned.” (Associated Press) 
 THE REAL RACIAL BIAS: COPS MORE WILLING TO SHOOT WHITES THAN BLACKS, RESEARCH FINDS
Published: January 9, 2015
 SOURCE: WASHINGTON TIMES

It’s widely assumed that white police officers are more likely to shoot black suspects as a result of racial bias, but recent research suggests the opposite is true.

An innovative study published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology found that participants in realistic simulations felt more threatened by black suspects yet took longer to pull the trigger on black men than on white or Hispanic men.

“This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group,” said the paper, which went practically unnoticed when it was published online on May 22, but took on new significance in the wake of a series of high-profile police-involved shootings involving black victims over the summer.

The results back up what one of the researchers, University of Missouri-St. Louis professor David Klinger, has found after independently interviewing more than 300 police officers: While they don’t want to shoot anybody, they really don’t want to shoot black suspects.

“Across these 300 interviews, I have multiple officers telling me that they didn’t shoot only because the suspect was black or the suspect was a woman, or something that would not be consistent with this narrative of cops out there running and gunning,” said Mr. Klinger, a former cop and author of “Into the Kill Zone: A Cop’s Eye View of Deadly Force” (2006).

“When it comes to the issue of race, I’ve never had a single officer tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was white.’ I’ve had multiple officers tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was black,’ ” Mr. Klinger said. “And this is 10, even 20 years ago. Officers are alert to the fact that if they shoot a black individual, the odds of social outcry are far greater than if they shoot a white individual.”

In fact, he said, officers involved in shootings have told him that they were actually relieved that the person they shot was white, not black.safe_image

“The second things is, I’ve had multiple officers tell me they were worried in the wake of a shooting because they shot a black person, and I’ve had multiple officers tell me that they were glad that the person they shot was white,” Mr. Klinger said. “Because then they knew they weren’t going to have to be subject to the racial harangue.”

The interviews, which he conducted for a book he’s planning to finish this year, run directly counter to the prevailing view pushed by social justice groups, politicians and others: that shooting victims such as 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson were victims at least in part of racial discrimination against blacks among cops.

“Police officers — at least the ones I interviewed — are very sensitive to the race issue, but not in the way this popular narrative is running, i.e., cops are out there trying to find young black men who don’t have guns so they can shoot them down like dogs in the street,” Mr. Klinger said. “That just isn’t anything I’ve found in any of the research that I’ve done.”

The study, “Racial and ethnic bias in decisions to shoot seen through a stronger lens: experimental results from high-fidelity laboratory simulations,” was conducted by Mr. Klinger and Washington State University assistant research professor Lois James and criminal justice and criminology professor Bryan Vila.

For their research, the authors used a pioneering WSU simulation involving full-size, high-definition video instead of photos and handguns modified to shoot infrared beams instead of the “shoot” buttons typically used in deadly-force studies.

About a third of the scenarios in the study were “no shoot” situations in which perpetrators of different races held cellphones or wallets, while the rest were “shoot” situations in which suspects were armed with knives or guns.

The study found that the 48 participants waited longest before firing on black suspects in “shoot” scenarios, even though the participants exhibited “stronger threat responses” when facing black suspects than with white or Hispanic suspects.RACISM

Eighty-five percent of the participants were white, and none was a police officer. At the same time, a 2013 study led by Ms. James using active police, military and the general public found the same phenomenon: All three groups took longer to shoot black suspects, and participants were also more likely to fire on unarmed whites and Hispanics than blacks.

“In other words, there was significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned,” the 2013 study said, according to WSU News.

The findings challenge not only popular assumptions but also previous social science research suggesting that whites, including police officers, have an “implicit bias” against blacks. The drawback with such implicit-bias studies is that they use the push-button model and less realistic scenarios, said Mr. Klinger.

“That’s important research. It’s good research,” Mr. Klinger said. “The problem is it bears absolutely no relationship with actual shooting events. And people are not reading all the caveats that the authors put into the article saying, ‘This is not real life, this is a laboratory, we don’t know about external validity,’ and so on.”

So why are blacks shot more often by police? While the FBI’s national database has been widely criticized as incomplete, data compiled by Mr. Klinger in St. Louis over the past decade shows that 90 percent of police shootings involve blacks, even though they only make up 49 percent of the city’s population.

At the same time, he said, that figure is commensurate with the percentage of blacks involved in violent crime. Roughly 90 percent of those killed each year in St. Louis are black, and 90 percent of them are shot by other blacks, he said.

Lying

What’s more, he said, black SWAT officers make up about one-third of the St. Louis force — and they commit on average about one-third of the shootings each year.

“And this is consistent with every other study that’s ever been done,” said Mr. Klinger, who, as a rookie officer in Los Angeles, fatally shot a black man armed with a knife who had stabbed his partner, Dennis Azevedo, in the chest.

“Once you start looking at levels of violence, levels of threat, blacks are not shot in manners that are disproportionate to their involvement in illegal activity,” he said. “And it doesn’t matter if the cop is black, white or Hispanic, police officers presented with deadly threats use deadly force. Period, paragraph, end of story.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/5/police-officers-more-hesitant-to-shoot-black-suspe/?page=2#ixzz3P16eH0eT
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Holder and Obama are making race relations worse, inflaming hatred

Holder and Obama are making race relations worse, inflaming hatred

Attorney General Eric Holder insisted to MSNBC earlier this month that “we are in a better place than we were before” in race relations since Barack Obama was elected president.The president doubled down in an interview with NPR last week. Asked if race relations were worse since he took office, he said, “No, I actually think that it’s probably in its day-to-day interactions less racially divided.”But that’s not what the American people see.

A Pew Research Center poll found that only 40% of Americans approve of the way Obama is handling race relations. Black approval is down to 57%, while approval among whites is down to 33%.More young people under age 30, the age group who were most enthusiastic about electing the nation’s first African-American president, now disapprove of his performance on racial issues than approve. And Eric Holder has one of the lowest approval ratings of any public official.Law-enforcement officials are appalled at the way the Obama administration exploited tragedies in Ferguson, Mo., and New York City to appeal to its political base. David Clarke, a Democrat who is the African-American sheriff of Milwaukee, doesn’t mince his words.“The thing that disappoints me the most is some very powerful people in this country — the president of the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York — have created a pathway that contributes to an unjustifiable hatred of law enforcement officers across the country,” he told WMAL radio in Washington, DC. “They trashed an entire profession with a broad brush because it was politically expedient for them to do so.”

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton speaks at the National Action Network in Harlem, New York
Holder, who thinks we are “a nation of cowards” on race, has infused the Justice Department with the “racial justice” movement that falsely argues the police “subconsciously” discriminate through the use of “disproportionate” means such as traffic stops. It has forced 15 cities into consent decrees to end such practices, for which it has almost no evidence.Take Seattle, where Justice claimed that “Biased policing is not primarily about the ill-intentioned officer but rather the officer who engages in discriminatory practices subconsciously,” adding that even a well-meaning cop can violate the civil rights of black suspects by operating “on implicit biases that impact that officer’s behavior or perceptions.”Even though DOJ admitted it couldn’t verify the supposed bias, in 2012 it ordered Seattle to weaken its use-of-force rules while disciplining officers engaged in “implicit bias.”

A lawsuit by Seattle police officers against Justice charges that the new policies have led to “hesitation and paralysis” in officers being able to carry out their duty to protect the public from criminals. The suit notes that crime rates have climbed in Seattle — with aggravated assaults up 14%, car theft up 44% and murders up 21%. It is those trends that should scare New Yorkers about the Obama-Holder approach to law enforcement.

Even honest liberals agree that Holder’s Justice Department has been confrontational and polarizing. Juan Williams of Fox News, the author of “Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years,” laments that “the Justice Department has devolved into the heart of Washington darkness, the absolute pit of modern political polarization in my lifetime.”

One reason for that is that, thanks to direct support from Holder and Obama, Al Sharpton has now become the nation’s leading civil-rights leader. Far from becoming the “refined agitator” his apologists now claim him to be, Sharpton is the same racial charlatan and rabble-rouser of the past using slightly new tricks.

Sheriff Clarke says the Obama administration set a pattern early on that it would ignore bad behavior and bad actors if it suited their political purposes and their warped racial ideology.

King-Samir-Shabazz_thumb copy

In 2009, it dropped charges against the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place because the defendants were black. In 2013, the Inspector General of the Justice Department filed a report criticizing its Civil Rights Division for allowing the harassing and bullying of conservative employees. No disciplinary action was taken. And Holder has filled the ranks of the office at DOJ responsible for policing the police with radical lawyers hostile to law enforcement.

In 2013, a federal judge ordered a new trial for five New Orleans police officers convicted of a shooting during Hurricane Katrina because of “grotesque prosecutorial abuse.” Judge Kurt Engelhard slammed the “skullduggery” and “perfidy” of Justice Department prosecutors in engaging in a PR campaign to inflame public opinion and sway the jury through anonymous postings on a newspaper website. The judge suggested that Holder “seriously consider appointment of an independent counsel” to investigate the scandal. Holder has ignored the judge’s recommendation and instead recently moved to have the judge removed from the case.

For Sheriff Clarke, all of this fits into a pattern. “I think these two [President Obama and Attorney General Holder] have indicated their dislike of the police even if it’s in coded language.” He notes that in the wake of the killing of two cops last weekend in New York, Mayor de Blasio and others are now issuing “contrite statements about how they respect and admire our law enforcement officers. I think it’s hollow. I don’t accept it.”

Since President Obama took office, “racial justice” ideology has been allowed to trump common sense. Saying we “are in a better place” when it comes to race relations may be true for the Al Sharptons of the world but not for ordinary Americans.

John Fund is the national affairs correspondent for National Review and Hans A. von Spakovsky is a former Justice Department official. They are co-authors of “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside), out now
.

High court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

High court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Monday – 5/5/2014, 12:46pm  ET

FILE – In this March 18, 2014 file photo, Pastor Mike Metzger, right, of First Bible Baptist Church, leads a moment of prayer at the start of the Greece Town Board meeting in Greece, N.Y. The Supreme Court said Monday that prayers that open town council meetings do not violate the Constitution even if they routinely stress Christianity. (AP Photo/Carolyn Thompson)

MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Prayers that open town council meetings do not violate the Constitution even if they routinely stress Christianity, a divided Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The court said in 5-4 decision that the content of the prayers is not significant as long as they do not denigrate non-Christians or proselytize.

The ruling by the court’s conservative majority was a victory for the town of Greece, N.Y., outside of Rochester. The Obama administration sided with the town.

In 1983, the court upheld an opening prayer in the Nebraska legislature and said that prayer is part of the nation’s fabric, not a violation of the First Amendment. Monday’s ruling was consistent with the earlier one.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the prayers are ceremonial and in keeping with the nation’s traditions.

“The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce nonbelievers,” Kennedy said.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court’s four liberal justices, said, “I respectfully dissent from the Court’s opinion because I think the Town of Greece’s prayer practices violate that norm of religious equality — the breathtakingly generous constitutional idea that our public institutions belong no less to the Buddhist or Hindu than to the Methodist or Episcopalian.”

Kagan said the case differs significantly from the 1983 decision because “Greece’s town meetings involve participation by ordinary citizens, and the invocations given — directly to those citizens — were predominantly sectarian in content.”

A federal appeals court in New York ruled that Greece violated the Constitution by opening nearly every meeting over an 11-year span with prayers that stressed Christianity.

From 1999 through 2007, and again from January 2009 through June 2010, every meeting was opened with a Christian-oriented invocation. In 2008, after residents Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens complained, four of 12 meetings were opened by non-Christians, including a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess and the chairman of the local Baha’i congregation.

A town employee each month selected clerics or lay people by using a local published guide of churches. The guide did not include non-Christian denominations, however. The appeals court found that religious institutions in the town of just under 100,000 people are primarily Christian, and even Galloway and Stephens testified they knew of no non-Christian places of worship there.

The two residents filed suit and a trial court ruled in the town’s favor, finding that the town did not intentionally exclude non-Christians. It also said that the content of the prayer was not an issue because there was no desire to proselytize or demean other faiths.

But a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that even with the high court’s 1983 ruling, the practice of having one Christian prayer after another amounted to the town’s endorsement of Christianity.

Kennedy, however, said judges should not be involved in evaluating the content of prayer because it could lead to legislatures requiring “chaplains to redact the religious content from their message in order to make it acceptable for the public sphere.”

He added, “Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy.”

Kennedy himself was the author an opinion in 1992 that held that a Christian prayer delivered at a high school graduation did violate the Constitution. The justice said Monday there are differences between the two situations, including the age of the audience and the fact that attendees at the council meeting may step out of the room if they do not like the prayer.

Kennedy and his four colleagues in the majority all are Catholic. They are: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In her dissent, Kagan said the council meeting prayers are unlike those said to open sessions of Congress and state legislatures, where elected officials are the intended audience. In Greece, “the prayers there are directed squarely at the citizens,” she said. Kagan was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Of the four, three are Jewish and Sotomayor is Catholic.

Kagan also noted what she described as the meetings’ intimate setting, with 10 or so people sitting in front of the town’s elected and top appointed officials. Children and teenagers are likely to be present, she said.

The case is Greece v. Galloway, 12-696