Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (72)
- President Obama's first year (67)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- Local business leaders say tourism, Costco, Home Depot may play roles in city's future (60)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (49)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (37)
- Police: Train victim was a Lodi teen (31)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
ADVERTISEMENT
Lodi City Council's new prayer policy is a wise move; tolerance should be embraced by all in Lodi
Monday, November 9, 2009 6:14 AM PST
What's more important to you: your right to worship — or not worship — as you wish, or your right to freedom of speech?
The people at Lodi United believe that prayer — which, by the way is a form of speech — in any way, shape, matter or form should be banned at all Lodi City Council meetings. This would then lead one to believe that Lodi United also should believe that prayer and religious symbols of all kinds should be stripped from virtually all taxpayer-funded public places.
Even if you agree with this train of thought, it is impossible to accomplish. Religion is, after all, from a totally philosophical perspective, much like art. One may be surrounded by it and not even know it, or one may see religious symbols virtually everywhere.
I mean, is it just me, or do those darn telephone poles not look a lot like Crucifixes? Do I even need to explain how potentially offensive the crescent moon may be to some in the Fort Hood area?
No rational person should really believe the invocations offered at the beginning of Lodi City Council meetings were ever meant to convert or offend anyone, though I will admit that even I have considered at least a few of them in the past to be a bit melodramatic and even overtly evangelical.
They, however, did not rise to the level of establishing an official state-sponsored religion, which in my view is the basic premise that Thomas Jefferson was alluding to in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists. Jefferson's 1802 letter is generally considered by scholars to be where the phrase "separation of church and state" is derived.
The council's decision to adopt the new policy — brought about through divine guidance, dare I say — and allowing just about anyone to offer up a few words of encouragement, is a wise move indeed.
But even if the council had decided to ban the invocations altogether, how would that stop a private citizen from quoting from the Bible if he believed it was relevant to whatever issue he had raised a concern? Would people at City Council meetings who are not Catholic have their civil rights violated by having to listen? How, in a free society, can you ban speech that you simply disagree with?
If I personally were in attendance at a council meeting, waiting my turn to address the council on whatever matter that I wished to discuss, and an imam, rabbi, monk, shaman or priest — yes, there are aspects of Catholicism that I respect but do not agree with — were going on some rant, I'd probably just roll my eyes. In extreme cases I may go to shaking my head or even resort to turning to the person seated next to me and quietly saying something like, "Who is this moron?"
But I really have a hard time thinking of a scenario where I'd threaten legal action to stop a short display that all but the most hypersensitive among us have no problem with.
"Tolerance" is one of the most revered and widely accepted concepts in virtually all matters, public and private, in use in the world today. It is a concept that should be celebrated as a way for us all to be able to work together towards a common goal. I truly believe that even the most devout atheists among us have within them the ability to tolerate a short prayer.
But if you are one who simply cannot handle being "subjected" to a short prayer or other affirmation for any length of time, there is a great likelihood that the issues with which you are dealing cannot be remedied by any vote or decision that the Lodi City Council could possibly make.
Tolerance is something that all residents in the little slice of Heaven we call Lodi should agree to encourage.
Yes, atheists, too.
J. Kurt Roberts can be reached at jkurtroberts@att.net.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
dogbark wrote on Nov 15, 2009 12:52 PM:
dogbark wrote on Nov 14, 2009 3:44 PM:
Likewise they concluded with "We ask in Jesus' name..." (which states we - being all in attendance - ask, which is condescending in the least to non believers and to the followers of other faiths.) Simply saying "I ask in Jesus' name..." would likely have prevented this from ever rising on the radar.
I believe it is Article VI of the Constitution which states no religious test shall ever be required of any elected official in the federal government and the states of our nation.
(That was from the founders, the people went even further and added the Bill of Rights to ensure that no state sponsored religion would ever be thrust upon the citizenry.) "
Scrutiny wrote on Nov 12, 2009 12:21 PM:
alumn95 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 7:36 PM:
pork chop wrote on Nov 10, 2009 9:10 AM:
OTH wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:37 AM:
If you or anyone else believes 10 minutes or less of prayer before a city council meeting is going to bring tolerance to this town you will say a lot of prayers . "
Comments on this story are now closed.