The serenity prayer being stricken from the city council’s agenda has caused some debate over the separation of church and state.

A handful of court cases have addressed the same issue, but no overriding decision has ever been made on whether prayer is permitted in the meetings of governing bodies.

In a case ruling in the California state Superior Court called Rubin vs. Burbank, a judge ruled in favor of the plantiff, Irv Rubin, who brought the case after a prayer before a city council meeting concluded with praise to Jesus Christ.

The case was based on the judge’s interpretation of the first amendment of the constitution.

However, the judge’s case document also pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has made judgments that protect a governing body’s right to have a prayer, citing that prayer has been a part of government history and that in some communities, worship plays a very large role.

The U.S. Senate and House as well as most state legislatures still have prayer at the beginning of their meetings.

But at Albert Lea city council meetings, there will no longer be a prayer. A decision by Mayor Jean Eaton to take the Serenity Prayer off of the agenda took effect Monday.

While councilor and pastor George Marin has argued that Eaton should have asked the council to vote on the matter, other councilors feel that the mayor handled the issue well.

&uot;I feel that Jean did what I feel she should have done,&uot; Councilor Al ‘Minnow’ Brooks said.

&uot;She asked the opinion of every council person,&uot; he said. He said bringing it up during a meeting could have made councilors uncomfortable about their faith.Bringing a discussion on faith to the council chambers wouldn’t be a good thing, according to Brooks.

Brooks had brought up the issue in mid-January. He’d spoken with other councilors about the issue, some of whom didn’t want the prayer on the agenda anymore.

Councilor Warren Amundson said he thought the issue was handled well by Eaton.

&uot;I believe she had the power to make that decision and I respect that power to make that decision,&uot; he said.

Amundson also said he thought the issue was solved in a democratic manner, contrary to what Marin had criticized Eaton’s decision for. He said Eaton has the power to change the agenda, but if the council didn’t like that decision they could put it to a vote. Marin’s motion to put the prayer back on the agenda was not seconded. Amundson said that process was democratic.

He also said he thought Marin &uot;lambasted&uot; the council on the issue, criticizing the way the council was handling it.

Councilor Jeff Fjelstad was for the removal of the prayer, and had told Brooks that he felt the prayer should be taken off the agenda.

&uot;I don’t think we should have prayer in government,&uot; he said, adding that there should be a clear separation between church and state.

He said he would also be supportive of taking the pledge of allegiance off of the agenda as well.

“The pledge should go back to the school system,&uot; he said. &uot;I feel I’m a loyal American.&uot;

He added that he was supportive of the manner in which the issue was handled by the mayor.

&uot;(City Manager) Paul Sparks said that Jean had every right in the world to do what she did,&uot; he said. &uot;He knows his local politics, so I think we went about it the right way.&uot;