Indexes
February 9th, 2010
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- President Obama's first year (45)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (44)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (34)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
After council prayer, will we have to think before saying 'Amen'?
Saturday, October 3, 2009 7:18 AM PDT
Imagine a witch offering the invocation before the Lodi City Council meeting. Imagine an atheist or a Satanist imploring the city's leaders to set aside religious prejudice before voting to widen a street or deny a zoning change.
What will Christians think when a Muslim goes before the council and offers a prayer to Allah?
The council decided this week on a new prayer policy that opens the invocation to everyone. The issue was debated for months and made national headlines. Council members faced public anger, some political pressure and a ghastly, even comic, threat of extortion. The Pray in Jesus Name Project and its outsized figurehead Gordon James Klingenschmitt threatened to erect a billboard scolding council members for their votes if they didn't line up his way.
But we don't think the council was intimidated. We think most council members voted to keep the invocation because they come from religious backgrounds. Their gut instinct was to protect unfettered religious expression. They didn't want to censor the word "Jesus." Fair enough.
Instead of the easy way out, they hung their hats on the First Amendment. And that protects all religions and all speech, not just the expressions and worship we're used to. We think this decision obligates the council to find some non-traditional thinkers to make the invocation.
Why? Well, for one, Annie Gaylor of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the bellicose equal to Klingenschmitt, is threatening to sue. And she probably has a strong case. Of course, we hope she gives Lodi a chance to succeed before picking a legal fight with local taxpayers.
We were more impressed by the conciliatory words of David Diskin, a local computer whiz and atheist who formed Lodi United to fight sanctioned prayer at council meetings. He acknowledged that the new policy is rightly pluralistic. Diskin was correct when he said, "It's not the policy itself. It's the actions that take place because of the policy."
And for the policy to succeed, we will have to tolerate some surprises before council meetings begin.
Lodians may be predominantly traditional Protestants, but an open forum that reflects the community will bring forth more than the occasional Catholic, Adventist or Mormon. The surprises may go beyond Buddhist, Muslim, Sikh, agnostic and atheist thinking. In our years in town, we've met Lodians who profess all those beliefs.
We've also met a smattering of Unitarians, Christian Scientists and Scientologists. We even know a Baha'i or two, and a Wiccan. And we don't know everyone.
During the debate, we heard some Christians say that religious minorities can't expect protection from being uncomfortable. But the First Amendment cuts both ways.
The Christian majority will now have to squirm some, too.
A nation that protects freedom of religion tolerates a lot of unconventional speech. And a town that welcomes everyone's prayers will have to listen to a great deal of prayer it doesn't agree with.
Honoring the First Amendment means sticking up for the unpopular as well as the popular. We'll have to meet that test — or answer for it in court.
— Lodi News-Sentinel
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Calladus wrote on Oct 17, 2009 5:53 PM:
This is a hard road for them to take, but if they stay truly neutral toward all religion, I will be happily impressed. "
Brian wrote on Oct 11, 2009 9:18 AM:
" Lodian wrote on Aug 1, 2009 2:31 PM:
" Brian: You and RF look to equally hate other good human beings just because they are different and have different views from your own. "
-This takes the cake. Only an insane
and troubled person would put Hitler
in the category of "Other Good Human Beings". And to say that we shouldn't be critical of Hitler is about as proposterous as one could be. "
-This is an example how Lodian thinks.
Of course Leonard will run to defend her because he feels only the conservative party was not critical of Hitler before WWII. "
Brian wrote on Oct 11, 2009 8:35 AM:
movie. OOOOOOOK. I might find her hypocracy almost comical if I thought she had a rat's chance in making a living out of it. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 10, 2009 11:37 PM:
Brian wrote on Oct 10, 2009 7:27 PM:
How about a lawsuit against people digging into Lodi business that do not live in Lodi. In other words, get out. "
Hmm,
One could conclude that the Freedom
From Religon Foundation is welcome in Lodi but not anyone opposed to their agenda. I think it's fair to say Mainframe wants to limit my constitutional rights. "
Mainframe wrote on Oct 10, 2009 3:51 PM:
" Now can we move on to other frivilous
lawsuits. I'd still like to file my
complaint about women's bright nail polish"
How about a lawsuit against people digging into Lodi business that do not live in Lodi. In other words, get out. "
Mainframe wrote on Oct 10, 2009 3:50 PM:
Brian wrote on Oct 10, 2009 10:37 AM:
lawsuits. I'd still like to file my
complaint about women's bright nail polish. :) "
Brian wrote on Oct 10, 2009 10:33 AM:
" Maybe Reverend Wright ( Obama's former spiritual leader ) will lead a prayer here some Wednesday evening. "
-And I'm sure Mr. Diskin will be shouting with him in unison "God Da*n
America". "
Lodian wrote on Oct 9, 2009 12:10 AM:
Mainframe wrote on Oct 7, 2009 10:46 PM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 7, 2009 2:11 PM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 7, 2009 2:08 PM:
I totally agree. "
rantraves wrote on Oct 7, 2009 10:03 AM:
dragonfaire wrote on Oct 6, 2009 9:08 PM:
dragonfaire wrote on Oct 6, 2009 9:03 PM:
Cogito wrote on Oct 6, 2009 7:50 PM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 6, 2009 11:29 AM:
Cogito wrote on Oct 6, 2009 8:21 AM:
4CivilRights wrote on Oct 6, 2009 7:41 AM:
dogs4you wrote on Oct 5, 2009 4:36 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Oct 5, 2009 8:55 AM:
We've made our perilous bed, now we have to sleep in it.
I still wish the council would have avoided all this mess by leaving religion out of it, and getting down to business. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 3, 2009 8:50 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Oct 3, 2009 7:38 PM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 3, 2009 1:52 PM:
Indeed. We sure don't need anymore distractions from city business right now. "
Lodian wrote on Oct 3, 2009 1:50 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Oct 3, 2009 10:46 AM:
Who knows, Lodi may have a relatively unknown attorney in its midst that could soon argue before the United States Supreme Court. Win or lose that's one valuable feather for any lawyer to stick in his/her cap. "
smokeater8 wrote on Oct 3, 2009 7:48 AM:
lodidian wrote on Oct 3, 2009 6:15 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.