Showing posts with label Lord's Prayer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lord's Prayer. Show all posts

Thursday, April 16, 2015

ON THE AVENUES: Say a prayer for NA Confidential as it conducts this exclusive interview with Councilman Cappuccino.

ON THE AVENUES: Say a prayer for NA Confidential as it conducts this exclusive interview with Councilman Cappuccino.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

It’s an election year in New Albany, and to prove it, tonight’s city council meeting will be devoted in part to a consideration of whether the Lord’s Prayer should be reinserted into its twice-monthly agenda.

That's right, reinserted, when naturally this particular variant of invocation is nowhere to be found within the ordinances defining council. Mind you, the non-issue of how council conducts its meetings is not destined for the top of the charts with a requisite bullet, but of course this isn't the reason for Dan Coffey’s latest diversionary tactic.

When Coffey demands a resolution on the Lord’s Prayer, or bemoans the absence of a crucial audit, or abstains from a vote immediately following his vicious denunciation or hyperbolic praise of the precise topic at hand, you can be sure he is doing so for the very same reason your cat purrs, rubs your leg or piddles on the blanket.

Which is: He demands to be fed … and fed right now.

For those just tuning in to the abysmal shambles of New Albany’s underachieving city council, this is hardly Coffey’s first dance. As Yogi Berra probably never said, it’s déjà vu all over again.

We’ve been following his self-serving antics since the very advent of NA Confidential, having dubbed this most conniving of all local ward heelers twice, both as Councilman Cappuccino and the Wizard of Westside, the latter nickname coming from awed recognition of his unparalleled ability to catastrophically inject himself into city-wide matters from his tin pot’s perch in the numerically tiny 1st council district, while all the sheltering his constituents from any trace of genuine progress.

Unfortunately, the same might be said of the city at large. Turning back the pages of NA Confidential to April 17, 2005, we find remarkable symmetry between the times of our New Albanian lives then, and now – so much so that the drinking lamp might be lit today well before lunch.

In New Albany, we coddle the anti-social dim bulbs and purge the creative, bright lights.

Decades pass. Our worthiest sons and daughters – the bright, capable and eager future leaders of the city – get away from New Albany as fast as they can, far away from institutionalized slum lord debasement not just tolerated but welcomed over a period of four or more decades, away from the overcrowded and down market Harvest Homecoming that is our sole and only claim to infamy, away from a place where any good idea, any sign of intelligent life, any revolt against the lumpy mashed potato norm is dismissed and derided as craziness emanating from a book-reading, un-American queer who can just move the hell out if he or she doesn't like it here.

Do you think this characterization of traditional New Albany is somehow unfair? If so, we submit with all due respect that you have a strong coffee, look around you, and face the unpleasant facts of the matter.

All of it is true, it’s inexcusable, it's embarrassing, and the inescapable conclusion is that we’ve been purging the wrong elements all these years.

Go ahead. Pour the java and have a glance ... if you dare. Disturbing, isn’t it?

Apart from the recent frenzied construction of numerous shiny campaign empowerment objects via the gleaming ATM known locally as TIF, nothing much has changed here in New Albany. Granted, the Wizard has a grand new role, portraying an ever-faithful Sancho Clemenza to Jeff Gahan’s power-crazed Godfather Quixote, but insofar as Coffey’s real political life renders satire nearly moot, we’re stuck in a time warp.

Following is an “interview” first published on April 18, 2005. We hope Sherreff Duggins will note the proper use of quotation marks, although breaths are not being held here in the office.

---

NA Confidential: Today in the studio we have a very special guest, the esteemed city councilman of long standing, Mr. Cappuccino.

Councilman Cappuccino: Thank you (preening) … now, where’s that red light? Citizens, just last week, as I spent quality time with my beloved hobby of antique furniture refinishing, which I’d gladly settle for doing in a heartbeat if not for the hopes and dreams of dozens of honest, salt-of-the-earth West Side families, who depend on me to bring home their bacon, improve their drainage, install their water heaters and protect them from the Ordinance Nazis – hah! Boy, that’s a real knee-slapper – I gotta thank my friend Li’l Stevie here (Cappuccino hoists a doll atop his knee) for coming up with the Ordinance Nazi phrase, right Li’l Stevie?

Li’l Stevie (former 3rd district councilman Steve Price): Yes sir, Mr. Cappuccino, you’re dead right, just like always … hey, there they are! NAZIS! NAZIS! Hide the video poker machine!

NAC: He’s certainly well-tanned.

CC: Did you say well tamed? It runs in the family. Hmm, like I was piously intoning … anyway, my downtrodden westsiders need me, and as the Wizard I whiz only for them, even if it kills me.

NAC: All right. Here’s our first question, Mr. Cappuccino. Do you support ordinance enforcement in the city of New Albany?

CC: Well, Knack, when it comes to enforcing the prevailing laws, we have to be extra careful to avoid those questionable practices that might be conscrewed as discriminatory. We must understand at all times that there’s a higher principle involved than just the exterior design tastes and storage practices of fine, church-going, taxpaying people who have chosen to make New Albany their homes, and that’s because they have a right to expect a certain level of respect for the lifestyles they’ve chosen to lead.

NAC: Are you talking about the higher principle of fairness?

CC: (Rolling his eyes) Fairness? That’s what those godless Louisvillians are always pushing. Heck, we have plenty of fairness in New Albany, just so long as you’re normal. (Cappuccino strikes a theatrical pose) No, not, fairness, but the very lifeblood of the city itself, without which we’d have nothing.

NAC: The rule of law?

CC: (Exasperated) Law, schmaw. No, VOTES! Can’t live with ‘em when they’re cast by those hoity toity East Enders, and can’t live without ‘em if they’re my neighbors on the West Side! They don’t call me the Wizard for nothing, you know. At the same time, my world-famous barbecued bologna cookouts only go so far, and at some point, you have to earn the respect of your constituents, and one great way to do that is to protect them from the heat.

NAC: Wait -- did you say barbecued bologna?

CC: Yes, I can smell it and taste it right now. My neighbor Marcelene cooks it up right. Cube the bologna, cook some onions in oil, throw in your favorite barbecue sauce, let it simmer … man, let me tell you, that’s living. Right Li’l Stevie?

LS: And you can put it in Tupperware, Mr, Cappuccino! Save it for a rainy day! Save it for a rainy day!

NAC: Mr. Cappuccino, what were your thoughts last year when the city of New Albany began enforcing the right of way for street sweeping?

CC: Quite frankly, it was a blatant attack on our cherished West End way of life – family, church, iced tea and the ice cream social, all under siege by the Silver Hills elite and the book-readin’ snobs. You know, I’d call it discrimination, maybe even genocide … if I knew what genocide meant …

NAC: To be perfectly honest, that sounds somewhat paranoid.

CC: You book learners are all the same, and it’s a good thing I don’t have to read those books to know what’s in ‘em for me. Listen, just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean the pointy-heads aren’t out to get you. Every self-respecting ward heeler knows that ordinances are just like women – you’ve got to squeeeeze ‘em a little until they start making sense. Go and clean up the porno shop, and the people in the district love you. But when it comes to making them move the old appliances off the porch … well, that’s different. They’ll turn on you, vote against you, and all that tasty bologna’s wasted.

NAC: So, can you explain your vote in favor of ordinance enforcement?

CC: Of course I can. Like I said, I’m for it.

NAC: And what about your public statement that you are in favor of rental unit inspections?

CC: I’m for that, too.

NAC: But won’t you lose votes if such measures are adopted?

CC: There’s the rub, knacker. Being for 'em is one thing, but you didn’t hear me say anything about FUNDING them properly, did you? Or writing that ordinance so it'd have any chance of working?

NAC: Perhaps we’re beginning to understand the central equation.

CC: Don't you see? If we give the uppity East Enders and City Hall what they want, and then it doesn’t work out in the end … well, you just try and guess who gets blamed when it tanks – right Li’l Stevie?

LS: Right, boss!! My friends, I’m not anti-parks, and I’m not anti-progress … I’m anti-success!! No, wait, I mean I’m anti-egress!! No, that’s zoning-speak. I’m anti-Garner!! That’s it!! It's all his fault!!

CC: Yes it is. It’s kind of like the good spy, bad spy thing in Mad magazine.

NAC: Oh, so you read Mad magazine?

CC: NO! For the last time, I don’t read … but I know what people are writing. It’s a trick that Dick Nixon would have taught me if he would’ve been a Democrat … not that I was ever a Republican, mind you. Like I always say, be proud, be Democrat!

LS: NAZIS! NAZIS! They’re coming now, and they have books!!

NAC: But I thought the Nazis burned books?

CC: Who knows, but I’ve found that the biggest words tend to make the best open fire underneath that skillet of barbecued bologna.

NAC: But isn’t there an ordinance against open fires?

CC: Not where I come from, tenderfoot: The Wild, Wild West.

NAC: Unfortunately, that’s all the time we have today. Thanks to Mr. Cappuccino and Li’l Stevie for speaking with us today.

CC: Thanks, and just a quick reminder to my constituents – I have the keys to the crapper, if any of you need to use it.*

* At the time, Coffey was lobbying strenuously to be awarded the keys to the public toilet located at the park across the street from his house, so that he could lock it up each evening. The county parks department responded by demolishing it.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

What they're saying: On school buses, prayers and the Bard.

As the weeks go past in route to May's primary election, I'm providing periodic candidate statements of substance, mostly unretouched, as lifted from social media and news reports. Familiar gems such as "yard signs win elections, not people" and "donate to my campaign first, and maybe I'll have something of merit to say much, much later" will be omitted. That's because it is my aim to determine whether our declared candidates have anything to say at all, and I'll quote all candidates, from any and all parties, whether or not they're in a contested race. Just promising change and new ideas without divulging them won't cut the mustard, aspirants.


---

We begin with a housekeeping note. Incumbent at-large council members Shirley Baird and John Gonder, both Democrats, have updated their Facebook campaign pages. Gonder also still has his blog, and yesterday  -- perhaps in a nod toward this recent post at NAC -- he published a short piece about schools and public transit.

Food for Thought

Why not have an arrangement between the school system and TARC which uses TARC buses rather than school buses to transport students to and from school?

In a risky move seemingly designed to dissuade Dan Coffey from ever voting for her, Hannegan Roseberry (at-large council, Democrat) has chosen to speak publicly about ... Shakespeare.

Here is an excerpt; click through for the complete post.

Kentucky Shakespeare is bringing its parks tour production of "the Scottish Play" to New Albany's Bicentennial Park on Friday, April 24th at 8:00 pm. What a delight to look forward to! I am pleased that this event got scheduled as a result of a passing conversation between my family and a friend of ours who is an actor with Kentucky Shakespeare. We ran into him at a show in Louisville, he mentioned the tour, and my husband mentioned that the tour should come to New Albany, gave him some names of who he should talk to to get it scheduled, and voila: several weeks later, the schedule was released and we were thrilled to see New Albany had been added to the list!

Coincidentally, Coffey has his own Shakespearean prayer plot line coming tomorrow night, although screenwriting for The Dukes of Hazard comes closer to describing his resolution's overall intent. At-large candidate Al Knable (at-large, Republican) has thoughts on the matter.

It seems the current NA City Council is sailing into waters that have been charted many, many times before.

Like many of you, I have my religious beliefs. They are sacred to me. These beliefs, along with my parents, my life experiences and many secular readings have helped frame my personal behavioral codes. I take these moral and ethical bulwarks to work with me each day and would use them to guide me if elected to the City Council.

But as I would resist anyone imposing their religion upon me, I would not attempt to do so to anyone else.

The "moment for reflection" now held before Council meetings is a working compromise. I suggest leaving it in place and getting on with the actual work of governing our City.

A novel idea, this governing. Is that the same thing as ward heeling?

Democratic at-large hopeful Brad Bell provides today's coda.

The City Council will take up a resolution to re-adopt the saying of the Lords Prayer before every City Council Meeting. Dan Coffey brings the measure for a certain fail on Thursday's agenda. To say that i'm opposed to this resolution is an understatement. I personally think that the moment of reflection is a perfect compromise between the 2 sides. I do happen to agree with my opponent, John Gonder, that a Municipal building is not the place for a cross. I have no problem with organized religion, but there is, though greatly overlooked within the past several years, a separation of church and state in our country. Our founding fathers adopted this legislation for a reason and we have turned our back on it.

You can not cater to one religion over another in a matter such as this. We would literally be sitting through prayer after prayer for hours on end to cover the vast cultural diversity of our city. My opinion stands, that a moment of reflection is perfectly suitable during the start of the City Council meetings. Should I get elected, and should this resolution pass, it would be first on the list for immediate repeal.

Happy voting, folks.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Nash: "I do not agree that it is important that a public meeting must start with a prayer."



Reading Nash's column reminds one of the fundamental ongoing problem: A council with no leadership.

Sitting supinely while Dan Coffey merrily hijacks meeting agendas may qualify as borderline presidential (the Wizard of Westside's contract with Mayor Gahan probably stipulates it), but it makes for the reinforcement of New Albany as regional laughingstock.

Hope you can make it next time, Matt. Sanity in the council chamber currently enjoys the same status as water in California. Witness this passage from the newspaper's coverage:

Coffey acknowledged some separation should exist, but added many people in New Albany are of Christian faith. “This is a Christian nation, with Christian values, and if people don’t like that, at least come out in the open to try and change it,” he said.

Groan.

NASH: The council and prayer, by Matt Nash (News and Tribune)

 ... The reason I had wanted to go to the meeting was that the council was to vote on a resolution denouncing Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and calling for its repeal. I wanted to be there to show my support and to hear what our council feels about the legislation. I would have never predicted that the final outcome would be 8-0-1 in favor, especially after some of the debate.

The debate is usually where it gets entertaining and where it easily takes off on multiple tangents. This week’s meeting was no exception. Somewhere along the way while they were discussing a state law that many people believed to be a license to discriminate in the name of religion, the subject of praying before meetings was brought up. As things tend to go it must have escalated from there.

Friday, April 10, 2015

Give each of our council members an invocation resolution, and they can waste a lifetime.


New Albany's obvious civic issues include economic development, police & fire, poverty, street grid reform, substandard housing, human rights, and an urgent need to take daddy's credit card away from Jeff Gahan before the budgetary pinball machine flashes "tilt," and yet next Thursday night, New Albany's city council instead will debate competing visions of meeting-opening prayers, moments of silence or rotating essay contests.

We already know that at least two of our council representatives don't accept their own "invocation" ordinance as currently written, with Dan Coffey and John Gonder leading the way in proposing alternatives -- but why not all of the council's members?

Just have the city clerk slap these ideas on the agenda, and there'll be enough foolishness to get council through November -- which is all most of the members want, anyway.

At-Large - Shirley Baird
Resolved: Let Develop New Albany decide what I should do. Don't they always?

At-Large - Kevin Zurschmiede
Resolved: I swear to God that "happy ending" describes my campaign for mayor, and not what any of my tenants are doing when I avert my eyes.

2nd District - Bob Caesar
Resolved: "See, the Lord is coming with fire, and his chariots are like a whirlwind; he will bring down his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire ... for anyone who wants two-way streets -- right, Irv?" (Isaiah 66:15)

3rd District - Greg Phipps
Resolved: Even if there were not a prayer, wouldn't an empty agenda be better than a crumbling dilapidated building? After all, it's not the role of the council to announce prayers, that's the role of the players who are involved. Or the prayers involved, and I can't imagine a prayer that would be worse that what's there now. So I say, tear it down.

4th District - Patrick McLaughlin
Resolved: Hey, whatever the mayor wants is fine by me. Isn't it always?

5th District - Diane Benedetti
Resolved: Truth be told, I had it right the first time.

6th District - Scott Blair
Resolved: My previous public rejection of resolutions needs to be placed into context, since in this instance, an independent must think alive with a copperhead, especially as it pertains to critical quality of life situations here in the council chamber. Can I see this on a spreadsheet? Without financial controls ... oh, what the hell: Yea. What did I just vote for?

Wednesday, April 08, 2015

ON THE AVENUES SPECIAL: The proper separation of church and council.

ON THE AVENUES SPECIAL: The proper separation of church and council.  

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

On Monday evening, city council president Pat McLaughlin meekly permitted 1st district councilman Dan Coffey to hijack the body's agenda. In itself, this is not unusual, for Coffey has caterwauled in this boringly predictable fashion for as long as your cat has shredded unsuspecting upholstery, and after all, it's an election year.

(For meeting coverage, see New Albany council: RFRA should go away, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune)

Opponent or none, soon Coffey will be out on the hustings -- which is to say, he'll be schlepping a shitload of tracing paper and No. 2 pencils to Fairview Cemetery for another artful updating of the voter rolls.

Yes, Cappuccino is back. So is the Lord's Prayer, and as Yogi Berra insists he never said, it's déjà vu all over again. We have all been here before, and given that some among us seem to have averted our eyes from the chronology displayed on yonder teleprompter (paging meester Blair ... meester Scott Blair), let's revisit what by now should be ancient history.

October 2006: Why one prayer and not another?

December 2008: Council invocation reform? Too good to be true?

Since February in the Year of Our Wizard of Westside 2012, a "moment of reflection" has preceded the rote recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to begin city council meetings. As instituted by Diane Benedetti during her term as council president, this silent interlude is intended as a compromise, because unlike the Pledge, which is mandated by New Albany's code of ordinances, there is no statutory basis for a moment of reflection.

However, as the following column from 2012 makes clear, nowhere in the code of ordinances is explicit reference made to the Lord's Prayer. Rather, an invocation is to "be given by ministers, if present of different faiths." If it were up to me, Benedetti's compromise, which allows every person in attendance to freely exercise his or her personal choice of faith, would be written into ordinance, but this isn't likely to occur.

In fact, Benedetti's 2012 compromise is more in keeping with the plainly (if inelegant) ecumenical intent of the ordinance than Coffey's grandstanding proposal to "return" to something that wasn't ever there.

In the end, it all comes down to the core essence of Dan Coffey's career, which unsurprisingly is Dan Coffey himself, and as means of illustration, consider that on Monday night, Coffey lashed out at Shirley Baird's mention of her life experiences with sex-based employment discrimination. He claimed that he'd twice lost jobs to reverse discrimination in the form of affirmative action, abrasively asserting his victimhood as meeting attendees gazed at the ceiling and McLaughlin failed to remember why he'd been issued a gavel.

The most relevant facet of the current invocation compromise was that it was instituted by Benedetti, and was not Coffey's own idea. If it had been, we would not be having this chat about council invocations. But since we're already here ...

---

ON THE AVENUES: Separating church and council (February 9, 2012)

There will be a New Albany city council meeting next Thursday (February 16), and when the current council president Diane Benedetti calls the meeting to order, there will be no spoken invocation for the assembled crowd to hear.

Rather, there will be a silent “Moment of Reflection,” one inserted into the agenda by Benedetti in place of the invocation.

I never reckoned her an historic liberator, but presently I’m willing to give credit where it is due, whatever her reasons. I only wish she had Scotch-taped the agenda to the City-County Building’s front door – although upon further reflection, that’s a Protestant thing, isn’t it?

Benedetti’s common-sense reform of the invocation clause has some onlookers clamoring for a return to the immediate past, when the Lord’s Prayer was recited before council meetings. It is not known which temporal council kingpin first came up with this idea, which resulted in the dispiriting spectacle of meeting attendees rising like so many bashful schoolchildren in fear of the pedant, to mumble words many of them had long forgotten.

However, strictly speaking, the Lord’s Prayer was illegal.

The city of New Albany possesses a daily rulebook known not as the Bible, a term already overused elsewhere (i.e., “The Fresh-water Fisherman's Bible”, but as the Code of Ordinances. It explains the proper procedure for the council’s meetings, including a stipulated “invocation”, which in this sense surely was intended at formulation (in 1957) to be defined as “a form of prayer invoking God's presence, esp. one said at the beginning of a religious service or public ceremony.”
CHAPTER 30: COMMON COUNCIL ORDER OF BUSINESS.


The following order of business shall be observed by the Common Council at its meetings:


(A) Invocation. To be given by ministers, if present of different faiths.
We might quibble over the wording, as provided by the framers of this passage, but the placement of the comma seems to suggest this reading (paraphrased):

“There will be an invocation at each meeting, and it will be read each time by one of a class of ministers, which we needn’t define because you know one when you hear one, and if ministers of different Christian denominations are present, that’s fine, too, and the task can be spread around, but it is not necessary to spread it so long as one of them does it.”

It is clear to me that the ordinance as written mandates an invocation prior to each council meeting, and I’m also sure that citizen clergyman Steve Burks had resolved that he’d be the one to say it from now until doomsday.

It is equally clear to me that what a previous generation once viewed as fitting and obligatory cannot always be viewed with eternal inflexibly, given a fluid and evolving American society, and a living, breathing legal framework bequeathed to us in order to govern it.

The city council has an invocation rule, and the council president has chosen to ignore it so as to implement what strikes her (and me, and others) as a significant improvement. The Rev. Burks and others of his mindset strongly disagree, and likely will protest at the forthcoming meeting.

The only truly predictable outcome to the situation as currently framed is that the council will be distracted from considerations of reality impacting the lives of far more residents than those interested in theological or philosophical disputes, a situation of misdirection one might imagine running counter to the Rev. Burks’ recent political (as opposed to religious) activism.

I suppose matters of principle are like that, given that I’m just as eager to joust over it as he.

---

Why should any American, religious observer or non-believer, be compelled to listen to someone else's idea of prayer, recited aloud, as a prerequisite to begin a meeting being held by a governmental entity?

Whenever I ask this question, someone is sure to answer that really, Roger, it can’t possibly hurt you to sit still for a minute and honor the need of believers to observe their dogmas.

As a non-believer, does it actually "hurt" me to listen to public prayers like these? I suppose not, given that I’m an adult, secure in my worldview, and not susceptible to attempted persuasion that comes off as incomprehensible gibberish, often even less coherent than statements made by council representatives in the meetings to follow – if that’s possible.

But it remains that if one must mandate spoken prayer, there is a noticeable element of coercion at play. At the very least, these prayerful invocations are advertisements for a specific product in a society that functions best as a free market of ideas, not as a closed market for one. What “hurts” me as an autonomous, thoughtful adult is one thing, but how such obligatory public observances affect the cognitive progress of children is something else quite different – and purely intentional.

Of course, from a propaganda perspective, this mood of Christianity’s “inevitability” is the whole point of prayers being said aloud: The listener is meant to feel powerless to behave counter to the mores of the mob, especially when there is an added weight of solemn institutions (executive, legislative, judicial) demanding conformity by osmosis.

Apart from my secular humanist, atheistic, pagan proclivities, it never made sense to me to mandate public displays of personal religious commitment. Doesn’t it demean whatever value there is to the notion of prayer to require it being chanted aloud? How does it count for more that way than if observed silently? Does reverence multiply alongside audible volume?

---

At last Monday’s council meeting, during non-agenda item public speaking time, a stern and pious Rev. Burks departed from his prepared statement of praise for local miracle worker Vicki Denhart to chastise the council president for her own faith in the concept of moments of reflection, asking for a show of council hands as to how many members agreed with her decision.

Three, maybe four hands (of nine present) were raised, and quickly calculating, the Rev. Burks alchemically converted this bored display of tepid interest to politically quantifiable mathematics: See? The “majority” favors a prayerful invocation, so therefore the “minority” is persecuting the majority.

We may expect his petition campaign and subsequent antics to follow this line of non-reasoning, except when it becomes useful for the sake of argumentation for him to play the role of persecuted Christian minority, at which point his case will be seen spinning on a nickel or dime fully visible in the hand of one of Aquinas’ angels, dancing on the head of a pin, and reminding us that inquisitions always are a thrill.

But the notion of conscience is not an exclusive domain of the believer. If the Rev. Burks wishes to deploy religion as a diversionary tactic at a time when the city’s most pressing issues have nothing to do with an individual’s selected personal Godhead, he will find in me one perfectly willing to represent a different side of the coin.

Shall we start by rewriting the relevant invocation ordinance, thus sparing future generations all this pain?

Thursday, February 09, 2012

ON THE AVENUES: Separating church and council.

ON THE AVENUES: Separating church and council.  

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

There will be a New Albany city council meeting next Thursday (February 16), and when the current council president Diane Benedetti calls the meeting to order, there will be no spoken invocation for the assembled crowd to hear.

Rather, there will be a silent “Moment of Reflection,” one inserted into the agenda by Benedetti in place of the invocation.

I never reckoned her an historic liberator, but presently I’m willing to give credit where it is due, whatever her reasons. I only wish she had Scotch-taped the agenda to the City-County Building’s front door – although upon further reflection, that’s a Protestant thing, isn’t it?

Benedetti’s common-sense reform of the invocation clause has some onlookers clamoring for a return to the immediate past, when the Lord’s Prayer was recited before council meetings. It is not known which temporal council kingpin first came up with this idea, which resulted in the dispiriting spectacle of meeting attendees rising like so many bashful schoolchildren in fear of the pedant, to mumble words many of them had long forgotten.

However, strictly speaking, the Lord’s Prayer was illegal.

The city of New Albany possesses a daily rulebook known not as the Bible, a term already overused elsewhere (i.e., “The Fresh-water Fisherman's Bible”, but as the Code of Ordinances. It explains the proper procedure for the council’s meetings, including a stipulated “invocation”, which in this sense surely was intended at formulation (in 1957) to be defined as “a form of prayer invoking God's presence, esp. one said at the beginning of a religious service or public ceremony.”
CHAPTER 30: COMMON COUNCIL ORDER OF BUSINESS.


The following order of business shall be observed by the Common Council at its meetings:


(A) Invocation. To be given by ministers, if present of different faiths.
We might quibble over the wording, as provided by the framers of this passage, but the placement of the comma seems to suggest this reading (paraphrased):

“There will be an invocation at each meeting, and it will be read each time by one of a class of ministers, which we needn’t define because you know one when you hear one, and if ministers of different Christian denominations are present, that’s fine, too, and the task can be spread around, but it is not necessary to spread it so long as one of them does it.”

It is clear to me that the ordinance as written mandates an invocation prior to each council meeting, and I’m also sure that citizen clergyman Steve Burks had resolved that he’d be the one to say it fro now until doomsday.

It is equally clear to me that what a previous generation once viewed as fitting and obligatory cannot always be viewed with eternal inflexibly, given a fluid and evolving American society, and a living, breathing legal framework bequeathed to us in order to govern it.

The city council has an invocation rule, and the council president has chosen to ignore it so as to implement what strikes her (and me, and others) as a significant improvement. The Rev. Burks and others of his mindset strongly disagree, and likely will protest at the forthcoming meeting.

The only truly predictable outcome to the situation as currently framed is that the council will be distracted from considerations of reality impacting the lives of far more residents than those interested in theological or philosophical disputes, a situation of misdirection one might imagine running counter to the Rev. Burks’ recent political (as opposed to religious) activism.

I suppose matters of principle are like that, given that I’m just as eager to joust over it as he.

---

Why should any American, religious observer or non-believer, be compelled to listen to someone else's idea of prayer, recited aloud, as a prerequisite to begin a meeting being held by a governmental entity?

Whenever I ask this question, someone is sure to answer that really, Roger, it can’t possibly hurt you to sit still for a minute and honor the need of believers to observe their dogmas.

As a non-believer, does it actually "hurt" me to listen to public prayers like these? I suppose not, given that I’m an adult, secure in my worldview, and not susceptible to attempted persuasion that comes off as incomprehensible gibberish, often even less coherent than statements made by council representatives in the meetings to follow – if that’s possible.

But it remains that if one must mandate spoken prayer, there is a noticeable element of coercion at play. At the very least, these prayerful invocations are advertisements for a specific product in a society that functions best as a free market of ideas, not as a closed market for one. What “hurts” me as an autonomous, thoughtful adult is one thing, but how such obligatory public observances affect the cognitive progress of children is something else quite different – and purely intentional.

Of course, from a propaganda perspective, this mood of Christianity’s “inevitability” is the whole point of prayers being said aloud: The listener is meant to feel powerless to behave counter to the mores of the mob, especially when there is an added weight of solemn institutions (executive, legislative, judicial) demanding conformity by osmosis.

Apart from my secular humanist, atheist, pagan proclivities, it never made sense to me to mandate public displays of personal religious commitment. Doesn’t it demean whatever value there is to the notion of prayer to require it being chanted aloud? How does it count for more that way than if observed silently? Does reverence multiply alongside audible volume?

---

At last Monday’s council meeting, during non-agenda item public speaking time, a stern and pious Rev. Burks departed from his prepared statement of praise for local miracle worker Vicki Denhart to chastise the council president for her own faith in the concept of moments of reflection, asking for a show of council hands as to how many members agreed with her decision.

Three, maybe four hands (of nine present) were raised, and quickly calculating, the Rev. Burks alchemically converted this bored display of tepid interest to politically quantifiable mathematics: See? The “majority” favors a prayerful invocation, so therefore the “minority” is persecuting the majority.

We may expect his petition campaign and subsequent antics to follow this line of non-reasoning, except when it becomes useful for the sake of argumentation for him to play the role of persecuted Christian minority, at which point his case will be seen spinning on a nickel or dime fully visible in the hand of one of Aquinas’ angels, dancing on the head of a pin, and reminding us that inquisitions always are a thrill.

But the notion of conscience is not an exclusive domain of the believer. If the Rev. Burks wishes to deploy religion as a diversionary tactic at a time when the city’s most pressing issues have nothing to do with an individual’s selected personal Godhead, he will find in me one perfectly willing to represent a different side of the coin.

Shall we start by rewriting the relevant invocation ordinance, thus sparing future generations all this pain?

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Council invocation reform? Too good to be true?

Just in time for Christmas, Freedom to Screech is reporting a miraculous occurrence.

(No, Erika's not going to start using her real name. Some things are simply beyond the scope of providence.)

Rather, in her usual syntax-challenged manner, the nutty transgendered professor says that "some City Council members plan to remove saying the Lords Prayer before council meetings."

WE CAN'T BELIEVE IT...

The New Albany City Council said the Lords Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance for over 25 years. We have heard some City Council members plan to remove saying the Lords Prayer before council meetings.

President Gahan has stated he feels uncomfortable standing there saying the prayer. Has he told his Catholic Priest about this problem with the Lords Prayer?

We have been told that Councilman Bob Caesar also stated that the Lords Prayer should be removed. Where does Bob Caesar attend church?

We have also been told Councilman Dan Coffey agrees that the Lord's Prayer should be removed. Where does Dan Coffey attend church?

Freedom Of Speech would like to ask, "Why are these Councilmen listening to the Atheist?"

Will their next move be to remove the "Pledge of Allegiance" from council meetings? ...

... Freedom of Speech feels that we need to say "GOD BLESS AMERICA" and pray for God's help more so now... than ever!


I can't believe it, either. "The Atheist" is utterly flabbergasted if, in fact, this long overdue step is even being contemplated, much less slated for timely implementation. Naturally, we should be wary, because Erika's red herrings are the stuff of local legend. As ever, she's surely entitled to her opinions, but not to facts that have been conjured from thin air, and the facts in this case are simple.

Nothing in the city's code of ordinances specifically mandates the rote recital of the Lord's Prayer as a prequisite for listening to Steve Price drone endlessly about grammaw's cookie jar, Pandora's Box and the importance of nickels and dimes in the lives of the unambitious.

Ear plugs and blindfolds would be helpful, though. Here is the relevant ordinance snippet.

§ 30.22 ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The following order of business shall be observed by the Common Council at its meetings:

(A) Invocation. To be given by ministers, if present of different faiths.
(B) Pledge of allegiance.


Clearly, there is no mention of the Lord’s Prayer. Just as clearly, the Pledge of Allegiance is required. Whether the Pledge of Allegiance in a broader sense is coherent or even necessary, or whether it should encourage the veneration of brightly colored cloth and include the words "under God," are subjects for earnest discussion on another day.

Even the otherwise clueless ex-councilman Kochert understood that to properly observe the ordinance is to ask if a minister is present before saying the Lord's Prayer. If this appreciation for the rules had extended elsewhere, Kochert might possess a legacy. But I digress.

It has long been my view that the "invocation" clause in our fat volume of typically neglected ordinances is best construed as an opportunity to bring cultural diversity within eyesight of our elected officials, who haven't always shown a recognition of such matters.

Locally profuse Protestant denominations alone certainly would be sufficient to provide personnel for 24 invocations each year, but more significantly, numerous non-Christian perspectives are available for thoughtful consideration, from Muslim to Native American, from Jewish to Wiccan, and everywhere outside and in between.

As for the "Atheist's" invocation, I have a brief passage from H.L. Mencken that would do quite nicely.

If Erika's rumor is true, kudos to councilmen Gahan, Caesar and Coffey for being, er, progressive about something.

Man ... that was really tough.