"We, The Rich, White, Slave Owners of America..."

[alexmegami]

Time for your daily dose of Atheists vs. The States!

Council Splits on Atheist's Invocation (July 30, 2004)

The City Council's opening invocation is usually a quiet moment of peace.

People from all faiths bow heads to hear pastors, rabbis and even poets offer some inspiration.

But Thursday, three council members walked out rather than hear an invocation from a man who doesn't believe in God.

Mr. Kevin White tried to prevent an atheist from delivering the invocation, saying it was inappropriate; the mayor, Pam Iorio, said that the invocation should be reserved for those who believe in God.

The invitation was issued by the (Jewish) John Dingfelder, who "has also invited Baptist and Methodist preachers, as well as a chaplain from MacDill Air Force Base."

When Harvey (the speaker) arrived, White said that he was "going to make a political statement" and should wait for the audience portion, when he would have three minutes to address the council.

Three of the councillors (White, Alvarez, and Ferlita) walked out of the invocation.

The entire text of the speech can be found at the bottom of the page.

---

There have been arguments about whether or not Harvey's speech was appropriate, and whether the actions of the councillors was appropriate. Of course, you can guess which side of the line I fall on. It is not mandatory in America to believe in any sort of Supreme Being; to have called to dismiss Harvey on the basis of his atheism is horrifying.

As to whether the speech was appropriate, I suppose it depends on your view of the invocation as a tradition, and what you consider to be the message of the speech. Seeing as I think the invocation is a violation of church and state, I agree with what Harvey said. I do, however, think that Harvey's message is found in the last two paragraphs:

We therefore invoke this council and all of our leaders to be guided and inspired by the invaluable lessons of history, the honest insights of science, the guileless wisdom of logic, and the heart and soul of our shared humanity - compassion and tolerance.

So rather than clasping your hands, bowing your heads and closing your eyes, open your arms to that which truly makes us strong - our diversity. Raise your heads and open your eyes to recognize and fully understand the problems before you and know that ultimately, solutions to human problems can come only from human beings.

Comments

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

Hrm, think I'd have to side with the councillors on that one. The Harvey dude was doing well ("and the heart and soul of our shared humanity - compassion and tolerance") sharing his own faith until he told everyone else that they should drop theirs and switch to his ("So rather than clasping your hands, bowing your heads and closing your eyes, open your arms to that which truly makes us strong - our diversity.") That's exceedingly inappropriate in a gathering meant to respect everyone's beliefs - such an important event for the progression of faith in the world today. It'd be like going to someone's funeral and then getting up and dissing them when you're supposed to be giving an eulogy. I'd walk out too.

Some people are just so bloody intolerant...! People as inconsiderate as this risk ultimately giving atheists a bad name. ;_;.

[lilithchilde.livejournal.com]

I don't think he was insisting that the assembled "drop theirs and switch to his"--I think he was just suggesting a way of contemplating the world and being spiritual that was based on his faith. One which doesn't in the least go against the existence of a supreme being. He's not asking them to stop believing in God, or even to pretend that God doesn't exist in that moment. He's just asking them to focus on something (else), which seems to be within his role as speaker.

I'd imagine that every giver of an invocation before him also closed with the suggestion of a prayer, contemplation, or call for focus based on his or her faith. It seems reasonable--why would they invite speakers from different faiths, if they weren't expected to frame their invocations according to them? I've noticed that at many of the so-called "Interfaith" services I've attended, the speakers seem to think that they are all-inclusive when they use the term "God" without any denominational modification. Harvey strikes me as being much more inclusive (than the speakers I've just mentioned), and certainly far from intolerant.

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

I think I agree, in that, if he had just said, "Let us spend a moment and appreciate our diversity" or some such thing it would have been alright (good, even!).

It's more that he asked people who had bowed their head in prayer to stop praying - that's kind of rude. There's no reason everyone else couldn't think of the things he was asking with their heads still bowed. (In his case, there's no reason he can't reciprocate appreciating love and peace, etc. from the rest of them with his head up). A lot of faiths put focus on humility, and to bow one's head is a sign of this.

(My analogy would be going to a Jewish event and suggesting they appreciate humanity by saying that they should "take off their hats" (which would be interpreted as their kippas, given the people present) and spend a moment contemplating the race. It may be inadvertant on his part, but there is a significant religious implication to asking people to stop bowing their heads, and again, is in extremely poor taste.)

[lilithchilde.livejournal.com]

Hm. I see your point, but I don't really think the analogy holds. People speaking at prayer gatherings ask the assembled to pray in a particular way, or for a particular thing, all the time. While his suggestion was somewhat unconventional, I think it also could easily be seen as just another way to pray, one that (again) would not preclude anyone's particular religious or spiritual beliefs.

[alexmegami]

I would have to agree with lilithchilde on this one. I don't see it as being particularly different from asking people to bow their heads, which is frequently included in similar invocations. It also ties in with his other message - that the invocation is inappropriate in a place governed by the State.

Again, though, I don't see it as a demand to stop praying, right now.

And it still doesn't change the fact that the councillors left before Harvey had even begun his speech.

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

I'd argue that. Asking someone to bow their heads can also be a way of asking to have a moment of silence to contemplate an idea - consider Remembrance Day. To raise one's head, when dealing with a person of authority, however (as religious types are when they bow them to begin with, as it's usually to speak with God), is a symbol of defiance. (No one should tell someone who has bowed their head to pray to raise their head save God). Another example would be being knelt before a Queen or King - you don't rise till they tell you to rise. Someone from the back row going "Stand up, over there!" while you're knelt would be pretty inappropriate.

(And, okay, you don't get typically told when to stop praying, but in general, it's consider a matter between you and God and not something others should interfere with).

I also don't think that a moment of reflection is inappropriate in a government building. If it was enforced that it be only one faith, okay, I could see the issue. But if it is multifaith, that anyone can pray to whoever or reflect on whatever, what's the problem? I think the world would be a better place if people took a moment to think before they start the day's work, whether it's to pray for strength and compassion or to reflect on the state of the world. Anyone telling me I can't have a moment to do so before work would have my letter of resignation before the day was out. Moreso, there is a right to the Freedom of Association - banning religion in an institute would go against that basic right. (And the Freedom of Speech, come to think of it, which I thought was typically held up by most Atheists? Or is it, "You can talk about whatever you want, provided it isn't God"? Hello? What is this, Animal Farm?)

Leaving before he began his speech, though, I agree, was /very/ wrong on their part - we all need to express tolerance for others and their beliefs, and I would be pretty ticked off with them if they were my city councillors. Jesus would sit and talk and listen to people of all religions - too bad they didn't learn from the example. ~_^.

[alexmegami]

See, this is why interpretations are such awkward things to navigate! *g*

I don't think a moment to reflect is wrong. I don't even necessarily think that public prayer is wrong. I think an institutionalized moment specifically designed to invoke a Supreme Being is wrong, because it carries an implication that there necessarily is such a thing. (Especially when referring to that Being as God, which carries an even heavier connotation of a singular, masculine being.)

And I don't believe in restriction of speech about God, otherwise I wouldn't consider you and Pete (among others) as close friends! *g*

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

*L* I guess there is some logic to that. ;)

Could we institutionalize a moment of reflection? I'd like that. :)

[alexmegami]

My middle school had one...

[lilithchilde.livejournal.com]

Lack of belief in "God" does not equal lack of spirituality. Yargh. Stupid people.

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

And on an after thought, the title of this post - "We, The Rich, White, Slave Owners of America..." - would I be correct in assuming this is an address to the councilors, and not the gentleman in question? (I wouldn't want to go off on a tangent if I've misinterpreted).

[alexmegami]

Actually, it's a reference to a Second City skit that amuses me, and only tangentially (at best!) relates to the topic at hand. It's 'Benjamin Franklin' talking to 'Thomas Jefferson' about how they started the Constitution with 'We the people' rather than the line in question.

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

Ah, that is good, then. I would be thoroughly disturbed if people were called slave owners for acting on their faith. (Especially since Christians have, by and far, been involved in the liberation of slaves to a great extent both in North America and Africa over the last century and-a-bit).

[alexmegami]

*nod* I'll give you that. (Though I'll admit I'm quashing urge to provide counter-examples. People are people, regardless of faith, and I have to remind myself of that.)

It was more in reference to the myriad of ways the Constitution COULD have been written - and wasn't. People don't like certain tenets of the Constitution, but I think that by and large its writers had the right ideas in mind - or at least on the page.

(I think my favorite story about faiths peaceably living together and conversing together is one I learned about in Spanish class - I'm fuzzy on the details, but I'm thinking I'll post it one of these days. One of the few handouts I saved. It talked about a Jewish/Muslim/Christian community that was surprisingly tolerant and open for its age, though.)

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

*nod nod* I know there are some things I don't like in the American Constitution meself... namely the right to bear arms!

If you could post it, I'd love to read it. :) I'm all about the warm fuzz. ^.^

[firstfaerie.livejournal.com]

"So rather than clasping your hands, bowing your heads and closing your eyes, open your arms to that which truly makes us strong - our diversity. Raise your heads and open your eyes to recognize and fully understand the problems before you and know that ultimately, solutions to human problems can come only from human beings."

Interesting. I agree with him (and I'm a Christian, so deal with that), but I can understand that it would come across as bludgeoning. I'd have to hear him SAY it, to understand how he meant it. But there is something extremely demeaning in the language, here -- the implication that people who are looking to their god/dess for guidance of any kind are ignorant or blind in some way. I think most people pray for strength and perspective and help in seeing a bigger picture -- and he seems to be saying that the very act of praying is to deny that human actions spell out human fate.

Like I said, I happen to agree with him. My issue is that I don't see why one should override the other. I always pray with my eyes open :)

[alexmegami]

I agree - I actually didn't see the potential issue until sasuran pointed it out. Bad Alex, no cookie.

I can think of a couple of better ways to have phrased it, now, but I wouldn't have even given it a second glance otherwise.

[nijikongirl.livejournal.com]

funny... I'm not an Atheist, but yet I seem to have more respect for them than I do my fellow Christians most of the time.