This is video of my comments before the Escambia County Commission, after Galloway and in response to their awful, discriminatory invocation practices.
http://youtu.be/xSom5Cd860k
TRANSCRIPT (includes FULL comments):
How would you feel, as Christians, if nearly every County Commission meeting started by turning to Mecca and asking the room to pray-along to Allah? THAT'S how some of us feel whenever we arrive here in time for the invocation.
I believe this assembly has a problem with free speech, with respect for diversity, and with the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. We do NOT respect the separation of church and state, and it shows.
Since I last offered a rare inclusive invocation two years ago, citizens have been subjected to 44 consecutive Christian prayers. Almost all ended in a similar manner: "in Jesus name WE pray".
That may sound fine to you, but to a constituent who doesn't share your beliefs, it sounds like Escambia County favoring one particular religion. It's unAmerican.
At least half of us are not even church members, yet we're asked to tolerate a regular dose of the Christian god when we participate in our local government.
Some of these prayers are rambling and irrelevant. Last June, a man spoke of a prophetic end coming to Pensacola. Others have preached that we can all be saved by the blood of Jesus. Almost always it's "WE pray", as if in church... WE acknowledge only you, o' one male god, we pray YOUR will is done. That simply isn't true, any more than 'in God WE all trust'. WE, the citizens, may or may not pray, to different gods, or to none at all, whenever we want. That is our right. Why must this assembly give time to exalt one faith, ANY faith, above others? It's inherently divisive and it should stop - or at least change.
So please, I'm asking this board - out of respect for the others' beliefs - to make our county commission meetings NEUTRAL on matters of religion.
What we have now is a preacher-by-proxy system, whereby commissioners may not lead prayers, so they choose a minister of their liking to proclaim and to pray to the god of their choosing. That has created bias.
I refer you to the recent controversial Supreme Court decision in Galloway v Greece, NY. By a 5-4 vote, a body, like this one, IS allowed to continue its prayers, BUT it must welcome an invocation by anyone who wishes to give one, among other requirements.* That doesn't seem to be happening. I hope this council isn't trying to 'keep it Christian', but the result is the same:
This government's business always begins with a decidedly sectarian and intrinsically divisive religious ritual!
I'd like to offer two solutions and one consequence if we ignore this issue:
Solution 1: Drop it, Take it of the agenda and don't make it a big deal. It has been skipped during no-shows and lightning didn't strike.
Solution 2: Exercise respect for freedom of religion by inviting a moment silent prayer/reflection/intention to begin each meeting.
Consequence: If you do neither, the invocation MUST be open for ALL interested citizens (not just those of the dominant faith). More efforts must be made to bring diversity. Content must be appropriate and speakers should be aware of what is not allowed. These standards also apply to Wiccans, Muslims, Satanists, and atheists, who will surely step forward to offer their own invocations.
In conclusion, let's take a positive step to keep our government neutral and inclusive on questions of religion. You don't begin church with a message from your friendly government representative. Why start government meetings with a word from your favorite spiritual sponsor? Or mine, Goddess forbid.
Out of respect for ALL our citizens and for our Constitution, please take the time to consider ending or seriously revising this outdated and divisive way we begin our community meetings.
*SUMMARY OF RULING:
"The Supreme Court’s ruling, authored by Justice Kennedy, makes clear that local governments must make "reasonable efforts to identify all of the congregations located within its borders" and welcome an invocation by anyone who wishes to give one, regardless of their faith. The majority decision also states that the policy must be one of nondiscrimination. The opinion adds that the invocations must not "denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion."
No comments:
Post a Comment