What did I miss Sunday when I posted the second part of my review of the resolutions and ordinances to be considered at the Agenda Fixing session?
First Dan
Damon accuses me of “taking a WHACK’ at the Council’s Agenda. Then Bill Kruse
sends this comment which is worth spotlighting me the body of a blog; no buried
in a comment.
Bill’s
comment was stimulated by the phrase in this paragraph: The
public comment period can now legally be part of the agenda session if the
Council is willing. Yes even the
superfluous flag pledge and prayer can be dispensed with. Neither
contributes anything to the business on hand. He wrote:
“Neither
contributes to the business at hand"; sad commentary. Even if one believes
that prayer is a futility because there is no recipient the prayer nevertheless
conveys a desire for the success of common purpose. The purpose being the
forthcoming matters. It is an interlude, a very brief interlude, in which
religious and irreligious might reflect on comity contrasted with conflict. For
those who have faith in Divine intervention it can provide an optimism,
optimism being a healthy component of living. As to the Pledge: There is no
compulsion to take it. It s an option under our form of government. An option
that historically was not available in many societies, and which remains
compulsory in others to this day. Having traveled and having been so fortunate
to have lived in the greatest period of American History, at least with regard
to prosperity of the population, and even though that prosperity in a large
measure has been squandered with remediation is uncertain, it is my conviction
that it is a privilege to repeat the oath publicly. Beyond that, there are
certain mores, threads of commonality that are the glue of a people, of a
society. Apple pie, baseball, motherhood, firecrackers on the 4th of July,
singing the National Anthem, a common language, and yes, offering the Pledge of
Allegiance at public gatherings. “Bill Kruse
First of
all, I am not against prayer. It is true that religion or the belief in a supreme
being(s) started in prehistoric times as a way to explain the unexplainable. Even
today with our great font of scientific knowledge there are certain basics that
that cannot be conceived as a possibility.
I for one
cannot accept that two electrons got together and decided to join and create a
neutron that met others and voluntarily formed a cell. That cell decided by itself that it needed to
be bigger and have certain “life functions" so it became an amoeba. And so it went on until a bunch single cells hit it off and became a creature.
Ultimately
the trail from a fish that decided it did not wish to live in water and to
creatures that developed brains just could not happen as a result of a simple
biochemical reaction?
Thus it is natural to appeal to some “deity” for help. But each one of us has our own or refuses to accept that possibility. Too often that prayer has been to a specific “god” and is offensive to those who hold other beliefs. That was the case in Plainfield through the 90s; I do not know when it became non sectarian.However I constantly expressed my objection to a religious prayer at the Council meetings before I stopped attending the rubber stamp circuses of the early 2000s.
But that is
not why I feel the prayer is superfluous. There is often such a degree of cynicism
by members of a debating body who have decided before hand that come hell or
high water; rain or snow etc. they are going to make certain decisions based solely
on their own agenda. They are only paying lip service to an audience of impressionable adherents.
Since too
many really don’t feel a need or care for a prayer for guidance; is it not obvious that
the prayer is without merit?
Regarding
the pledge; it is actions not words that have meaning. Supposedly all citizens have
taken an oath to our country. Why must it be repeated at the drop of a hat? What
makes a Council meeting a special venue for an oath? Are
there not those who recite the pledge with mentally or figuratively crossed
fingers? Could there not be anyone in
the room citing the pledge yet who is dedicated by religion or nationality to
the destruction of the country as we know it? Is it not wrong to condemn anyone who for some
peculiar personal reason does not go through the rite yet remains a dedicated
patriot?
I think that
an honest answer to those questions will demonstrate that the Pledge is only a
ritual that some believe makes us better persons. Since that is nonsense’s let
us dispense with it and the prayer.
Unfortunately
Bill at our own Council meeting an individual was public ‘whacked” by a city
official and a member of the audience for not saluting the flag. So for some it
is not optional but wrongly obligatory.
However if we do accept the premises of required pledge and prayer as long as neither is disturbing to even a sole individual; it does
no harm to keep others happy by their inclusion in the ceremonial portion
of the meeting.
If only they
would work!
Government-sanctioned prayer is a form of coercion that violates the separation of church and state. I think that the prayer to open the city council meetings violates our constitution, which is why I do not participate. There is absolutely no reason for a diverse group of people from all walks of life and who hold all sort of religious beliefs (or none!) to publicly participate in a prayer. People can pray anytime, and anywhere. Why is it incumbent upon any governing body to open the meeting with a prayer? Our executive sessions do not open with a prayer. Our agenda-fixing sessions do not open with a prayer. The charter study sessions, the planning board, the budget meetings--all public meetings--none of these open with a prayer. Regarding the pledge of allegiance, please remember that our society is broad, diverse, and that many people do not hold that we are a nation "under God"--that the "under God" part also violates our Constitution. The hypocrisy exemplified by saying the prayer and the pledge and then witnessing the lack of civility, the blatant rudeness and disrespect, and the self-serving grandstanding on the part of some is stark. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." (Matthew 7:15)
ReplyDeleteFor our own city, I would rather we just convene and get to the business at hand, and let those who want to pledge and pray do it before the opening of the meeting, which is when it becomes a governmental meeting. No one is stopping anyone from praying--I know that when I look out at the audience during the meeting, I see folks who look as if they are praying even as we conduct the business of the city.
Rebecca
Thank you Rebecca. You will note that the prayer and pledge is in the meeting (business) format in the city code. I do not believe that the agenda fixing session is formalized.If it should be,let us have a public comment on upcoming items before you start.
ReplyDeleteDoc, I am with you on that. I like the idea of hearing from the public as we did under the 2012 rules of order--I think it is incumbent upon the council to get public feedback on the agenda items. I will be advocating for a return to that format.
ReplyDeleteRebecca
Rebecca, I totally agree with your last comment and as you know have consistently advocated opening public comment at agenda-fixing meetings before the council considers resolutions and ordinances. Sometimes public comment on proposed agenda items can actually be helpful!
ReplyDeletePrayer/Pledge Coercion? Words like coercion exacerbate sentiments. It has long been a matter of curiosity to me how those opposed to a non-sectarian prayer can explain how our founding fathers were compelled to introduce the justification for initiating a revolution on the basis of Man's unalienable rights? From whence were they derived? Our government, as are all democracies founded on principles which evolved from Judeo-Christian morality concepts. Concepts which are not unique to Judeo-Christian ethos, but are embraced by all the world's major religions: Equality, freedom ( to worship or not worship), charity, etc., etc. If this is coercion then it is a salubrious form of coercion.
ReplyDeleteOle Doc took an oath when he was commissioned in the Army. An oath to defend the Constitution and the United States of America.. Every person who has served in the armed forces takes the oath. I don't know of anyone who crossed their fingers..perhaps some did. It befuddles me that there are those who on some purported religious principle refuse. The abundance of freedom, privilege and opportunity with which every citizen...and most non-citizens in residence, is awash in as a consequence of their effort to get here, or the enormous good fortune to have been born here,suggests that an oath of allegiance is a privilege that should be embraced, not eschewed.
Neither Doc nor Rebecca responded to my point regarding custom. Custom has its value as cited in my blog. Young people need wholesome discipline, order( there can be no learning absent discipline and order). They need moral standards provided orally and by example,and a heritage which involves numerous components but in this discussion standards which "coerce' them to respect established institutions and good order. Children fly the nest soon enough. Children have a remaining lifetime to dissent. Those who advocate the additional one minute and twenty seconds of the proceeding in order to advance the agenda apparently never listened to our representatives vapor without effect and trash bushel baskets of valuable time.
I watch our once almost sacred institutions undermined and in many instances eliminated. If they are replaced by those of compensatory value then we have advanced...perhaps. Typically they are replaced by a vacuum. They are replaced with the "every man can follow the dictates of his conscience" philosophy which ultimately devolves into a moral anarchy. History remains a great teacher: Rome fell from the corruption, decadence and the loss of common purpose within. Bill Kruse