I like Grover, but he doesn't want the privilege of religious discrimination at the BOCC to change. I'm sure he's tried to include minorities. In fact, he said he invited a Jew about 3 years ago (and only Christians since).
His biggest falsehood: "We have a system that provides diversity and tolerance" Bullshit! It does the exact opposite. Still, what is the objection to changing the system in light of Galloway? Is this issue just too hot to handle? Well, then they shouldn't be leading the public in prayer at government meetings. Here is the latest email exchange, from most recent to oldest:
Grover,
I'm sorry, but your system does not allow equal opportunity for all religions. In fact, it discourages equality, since some commissioners refuse non-Christian minorities outright. This was evident when I was invited IMMEDIATELY on my first invocation... when it was assumed I was Christian. Once it was clear I am not, I had to lobby for months and months before I could even get a response. Luckily, Mr May (reluctantly, finally) allowed me - maybe because he is a minority himself... or just understands the 1st Amendment establishment clause. One Humanist was allowed (by an outgoing commissioner) because he was a Navy man. The other requests are still being ignored.
What's more, repeats have been VERY common, even while others are waiting. There is no coordination or tracking at all. You yourself repeated a speaker after he spoke at the previous two meetings. You haven't had a non-Christian in at least two years, maybe more. Meantime, minorities still get no answer. This is to say nothing of the content of some prayers, for which the speakers are offered no guidelines and which often strays into evangelism. This is all addressed in the model policy I emailed. Please watch http://youtu.be/JbkM6ZeJyf0 (who was invited back later) andhttp://youtu.be/EVg74iHzCcc ... and you don't need content guidelines?
Things changed in May 2014 (when SCOTUS ruled). Won't you consider adjusting your system to meet the dictates of the Galloway decision? Or is the question just too controversial for discussion? It seems to be. I think what AU has offered is a reasonable system that removes all favoritism, patronage, and potential for discrimination. Surely that's worth considering. If nothing else, our county needs to be able to deflect these (actually true) allegations of institutional religious establishment and discrimination. If you don't believe me, I can provide a list of repeats, speakers and inappropriate messages that paint an ugly picture.
When a fair system is implemented - one that does not allow repeats, rejections or personal discretion to influence the picking - I will respect it. Until then, I will continue to use the Public Forum to bring awareness to the inequity and to deliver minority prayers (from MANY unrepresented faiths). Our citizens need to know the legal peril and discriminatory nature of the BOCC invocation "policy" (which I am still waiting to see).
WILL YOU PLEASE SEND ME A COPY OF THE POLICY, as promised? And to FFRF and AU.
Finally, now you know how it feels to sit through a prayer not of your faith. Why would you want to make our religious minorities sit through government-led prayers we find just as offensive and out-of-place? Is that your job? I can't tell you how many people have stopped me or written me thankfully, saying this tradition feels like an intrusion of church on state matters. Some of these folks feel our government does not respect them. They don't want to return to meetings. I think a moment of silence serves ALL our citizens inclusively. That's a worthy goal, but seems unlikely here. Short of welcoming and including all via a MOS, the BOCC could AT LEAST take steps to remove any appearance or system allowing religious favor.
Please. Let's give a new, fair system a chance. Doesn't it deserve a discussion? Or do you prefer more minority prayers at public forum, more protests and scrutiny, and potential legal entanglements? Your choice.
My best,
David
From: "Grover C. Robinson" [GCROBINS@co.escambia.fl.us]
Date: 02/06/2015 07:37 AM
To: "wordsnmusic" <wordsnmusic@excite.com>;
CC: "Alison A. Perdue" <aaperdue@co.escambia.fl.us>;
Subject: Re: Invocation policy?
As always I appreciate you comments. However we do have a policy and we do create diversity that is representative of the population. You offering the pray every week is not a very fair an open way. Neither is a first come first serve list.
We have had yourself as well as a humanist and agnostic within the last year. You don't like certain prayers just as other citizens don't like yours. However if we are to have a proper functioning community that truly complies with the intent of the Constitution we need a community that respect the religious choices of its diverse citizens.
We have a system that provides diversity and tolerance. Just because it is not your system does not make it bad.
Thank you for comments but we really need your religious tolerance and respect.
Grover
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2015, at 4:37 PM, "wordsnmusic" <wordsnmusic@excite.com>; wrote:
> Commissioner Robinson,
>
> Thank you for your comments at tonight's meeting, though I wish I could have corrected them in real time.
> If this issue was brought up at another meeting, I am not aware. Can you tell me when that happened so I can look it up? Likewise, if the BOCC now has a written invocation policy now, I am not aware. Would you please forward it to me and to the attorneys at FFRF and AU?
>
> While I appreciate that YOU may reach out to different denominations, all commissioners are not as egalitarian. Some have NEVER had a non-Christian speaker. Mr Robertson has explicitly refused non-Christian speakers. To my knowledge, only Mr May has accepted a request from a minority. I also know of at least three others (non-theists, laypersons) who requested to give invocations - asking all five commissioners - but have not been accepted, despite being legally eligible. Most commissioners just ignored these requests. Some of those same commissioners allowed repeats of their favored speakers.
>
> In short, as long as each commissioner chooses who may speak (for him) and who may not, a minority will have a less-than-equal opportunity. That's why this should not be left to discretion and why an impartial, fair system is needed. There are myriad other legal issues too - including when the prayer is given, coercing the audience to participate, and illegal prayer content - all unaddressed. The model policy I sent addresses them all.
>
> This is not about me speaking again - though I will when (AND IF) my turn comes up. This is about a fair, IMPARTIAL system that does not allow personal religious discrimination and which comports with the dictates of the Galloway decision. More importantly, it's about welcoming everyone and maintaining a separation of church and state.
>
> I welcome your response by phone, email or in person. I hope we can put this issue to rest with a fair, legal written policy. If not, I'll be there at public forum with more comments, pleas, and minority prayers. As a pantheist, I have MANY to offer.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> David Suhor
Florida has a very broad public records law. Under Florida law, both the content of emails and email addresses are public records. If you do not want the content of your email or your email address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in person.
No comments:
Post a Comment