As
if there weren’t enough things to divide Charlestown already
By
Linda Felaco
God
knows I’m no fan of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA). I honestly didn’t
think there was anything they could do to make me dislike them any more than I
already do. But damned if they didn’t go and do it.
Living
under complete CCA domination would be bad enough, but to have them injecting
religion into town government crosses the line. Why was it suddenly necessary
to have a religious figure give an invocation at the swearing-in ceremony for
the newly elected town council, something that hasn’t been done in living
memory?
It almost seemed like a deliberate slap in the face to the descendants
of Joseph Clarke, brother of John Clarke, author of the Rhode Island Charter
that established separation of church and state in the colony, who live in
Charlestown to this day.
“The swearing in ceremony was organized by the new Town Council. Although they were all sponsored by CCA, only one member[1] of the Town Council is a member of the Steering Committee.
“But whether this is a Town Council or CCA decision, Reverend Knost’s meditation was non-denominational, it did not exclude non-Christians or even athiests [sic]. His words were all inclusive. Unitarian Universalism’s defining characteristic is that its adherents are free to follow their own path in the search for truth. Belief in God is not even required to be a member of a Unitarian Universalist congregation.
“We find the words to have been meditative and inspirational, perhaps spiritual, but not religious.”
I’ll
leave aside the usual CCA obfuscation over whether the invocation was the
council’s idea or the CCA’s (is there a difference?). There’s just one slight
problem with that claim of nonexclusion, namely that Rev. Knost did in fact
explicitly invoke the name of God, which by definition excludes atheists as
well as adherents of pantheistic religions and those that don’t have a god. And
in fact I’ve been told by a member of Rev. Knost’s congregation that Unitarian
Universalists are not much fonder of references to God than atheists are.
The
other big problem is with that “we.” It’s not for the majority to determine
when a minority is being excluded but the minority itself. So if a member of a
minority is telling you they feel excluded, they are, and as a member of the
majority you should STFU.[2]
In
fact, I’m told[3]
that in his remarks during the swearing-in ceremony, Rep.-elect Blake Filippi
invoked Alexis de Tocqueville, who used the phrase “the tyranny of the
majority”[4] to
describe precisely these sorts of situations.
And
indeed, one of the critics of the invocation replied that “He calls it a
prayer. He directs it to a deity. He asks for blessings and offers praise. You
can kid yourself and suggest that this is inclusive of atheists, but we’re not
buying it.” To which Planning Commissar Ruth Platner then replied under her own
name:
“In an opinion written by Justice Kennedy on May 5, 2014, The US Supreme Court ruled that a prayer offered by members of the clergy in a town meeting does not violate the Establishment Clause when the practice is consistent with the tradition long followed by Congress and state legislatures, the town does not discriminate against minority faiths in determining who may offer a prayer, and the prayer does not coerce participation with non-adherents. Justice Kennedy characterized such invocations as an “invitation . . . to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends before they embark on the fractious business of governing.”
“I think the invocation offered by Jan Knost was far more inclusive and non-denominational than what the Supreme Court describes as permissible in their ruling. Meaning it was well within the law and Supreme Court guidance.”
Except
the town has no such “tradition” of religious invocations at town ceremonies as
described in Justice Kennedy’s ruling. Does the CCA plan to make this a
tradition? Was anyone else offered the opportunity to give an invocation, as
the ruling requires?
Though even if all religious groups feel equally included
under the “non-denominational” umbrella, it still excludes the nonreligious. Does
the mere say-so of Ruth Platner, who is not to my knowledge a constitutional
scholar, give the invocation the constitutional seal of approval?
Or did the
Council/CCA consult their new BFF, Rep.-elect Filippi, a self-proclaimed
constitutional expert, before proceeding with the invocation?
FOOTNOTES
[1]
Yes, but he’s the one that counts, namely Council President Tom “Boss” Gentz.
[2]
Shut The F*ck Up.
[3] I
didn’t attend out of deference to the proper functioning of my digestive tract.
[4] “The
one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of
that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in
carrying elections.” —The History of Freedom in Antiquity, 1877
