Henry Raymond
Fairfax News => Current News & Events => Topic started by: Henry on March 06, 2010, 10:23:00 AM
-
Emerson Lynn, Editor of The St. Albans Messenger wrote an editorial on the Franklin Prayer Problem and covers everything pretty well as to what was planned and what actually happened:
A teachable moment
Franklin resident Diane Gates was correct, Town Meeting Day this year did include a "teachable moment."
That teachable moment was what began the day, the decision to recite the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a Christian invocation; a practice that has been part of Franklin's Town Meeting Day for as long as Town Meeting Days have been happening.
But of late, the prayer has been said over the objection of Franklin resident Marilyn Hackett who has stated her opposition to an explicitly Christian prayer being offered at a government meeting. Ms. Hackett's objections are grounded in state as well as federal law, rulings that govern matters of separation of church and state, known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Ms. Hackett is considering a suit against the town for the alleged violation.
If she does sue, the odds are on her side. Federal and state legal rulings weigh heavily on her side. The framers of the constitution were clear in their belief that neither the state nor the federal government could impose their religious beliefs on another. There have been countless legal confirmations of Thomas Jefferson's observation that the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state."
Ms. Gates again was correct when she said the controversy was a "sad, ethical dilemma"...
"How to function in a diverse society, that's the challenge for our country, isn't it?"
Yes, it is. It always has been.
But what's sad is that the solution had been proposed, but then rejected. The selectboard could have observed a moment of silence, and the issue would not have materialized. The board could have allowed a non-denominational invocation and Ms. Hackett would have had no grounds upon which to object.
They created a controversy, where one didn't need to exist. When this happens, people are then forced to take sides, as if one side is right, the other is wrong. And then it becomes an issue of numbers, with defenders saying it's a democracy and the majority should prevail. Period.
But laws are built upon what is just, not something that survives the 50 percent plus one majority rule. If a majority had decided that gays could not be married in Franklin, would the same defense be used?
The majority's frustration is understandable, but not defensible. Tradition is a powerful force, and, truth be told, those who attended might have been aware that a prayer was being offered, but it's a safe bet that they would not have known the difference between a non-denominational prayer and the one that was delivered.
And that's the point. The observance is in the moment. It's the fact that time was set aside to show the power of their faith.
That has been the balance courts have sought in rulings which stipulate that if government meetings are to include prayer, that they should be non-denominational, or that all religions be given equal opportunity. Offering equal opportunity to all is a practical impossibility in almost any government setting, and particularly in a small, rural community.
What is a non-denominational prayer? Is it stripped of any sense of faith, or belief in the creator? Here's one of many used by Rotary Clubs: "We are thankful for this day that you have given us, for its blessings, its opportunities, its challenges. May we appreciate and use each day that comes to us. We pray for strength and guidance for each day as it comes, for each day's duties, for each day's problems. May we be challenged to give our best always, and may we be assured of your presence with us. Amen."
Is that lacking?
What's regrettable about this particular case is that it's become personal. It's Ms. Hackett [and some of her silent supporters] against the rest. To capitulate to Ms. Hackett means, to some, that prayer would be sacrificed and tradition lost. They would rather fight.
And they did. Prior to the meeting, it had been agreed that a moment of silence would be observed, or that a non-denominational prayer would be offered by local minister Jason McConnell. Rev. McConnell refused to read the non-denominational prayer and the board eventually fell back to its original script.
Rev. McConnell is not to be blamed. He has his own faith and beliefs. But it would have been a simple matter to find someone who would have delivered the non-denominational invocation. Ms. Hackett's objections were well known in advance.
Yes, it was a teachable moment. This is precisely why we have a separation of church and state. When we co-mingle the two, we invite disruption.
For the board, the direction is as simple as it is obvious. Keep the tradition of prayer at Franklin's annual Town Meeting Day, but do it in a way that is legal and does not offend.
Then focus on the Town's business.
by Emerson Lynn
-
I am not a religious person as much as I am a spiritual one but I believe that what is is, what has been has been and leave it alone. I believe that if god was part of the original dollar bill than god should still be part of it. Why change it. That is how the majority was back then and so be it. If it does not pertain to you than leave it alone. I am not gay so therefore I would not vote for or against it. I do not raise my kids that way but who am I to say they can not be that way. Just because I am spiritual does not mean that they can not be christian or catholic. Why can't she just go to town meeting and ignore it if she does not want to hear it. I get tears in my eyes everytime I go to school and they say the Pledge of Allegiance. Not all schools do that anymore either. There are so many more important things in this lfe to worry about the money spent on legal fees could be spent on many more important things. Acceptance is a great asset to master in life. My mind is open but that is how I see it.
-
so sad this occurred; I believe in God; but I strongly believe in separation of religion and politics. They don't belong together. One doesn't fail without the other.
Two topics that are sensitive on their own . . . religion and politics. Keep them separate.