Judy Dirks (left) read a statement at the open-mic portion of the Northfield City Council meeting tonight, criticizing City Administrator Al Roder and members of the Council for allowing a group of citizens to meet in Roder’s office during council meetings to pray. (Dirks identified herself as chair of city’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) but stated that she was not speaking in that role but just as a citizen.)
I took a photo of Judy’s statement (center, click to enlarge) and then briefly chatted with her outside the meeting. She said the prayer group had approached the HRC last fall to inform them about their efforts to get Northfield area businesses to allow employees to meet for prayer during the workday. (When I returned home, I found the minutes of that HRC meeting, and the minutes identify the group as the Northfield Transformation Team, described as “… an association of Christians in Northfield consisting of four churches plus a home church and individuals who belong to various other churches.” The Rejoice website has a Transformation Northfield page on it.)
After chatting with Judy, I went looking for the group in Roder’s office on 1st floor. It was open so I went in and but they weren’t there. I returned to the council meeting and asked Northfield News reporter Suzy Rook if she knew where they were and she said that Roder moved them. I went looking again and found them in a conference room on the second floor. Helen Medin (center in photo on the right) was there with two other women (apologies, I didn’t get their names), each with a Bible.
I asked them if they were part of any organized group or church and they said they weren’t, just a group of Christians from different churches who engaged in various prayer activities in the area, and that this effort was aimed at prayer for our local government leaders, especially during council meeting times. They didn’t seem to have a public awareness agenda to this particular activity, hence the praying in private vs. say, in the hallway outside council chambers. Why not pray for our leaders at their own homes or churches or a coffeehouse? They do, but they seemed to think proximity was important, though they didin’t express it that way and I don’t recall the exact wording of their rationale.
I asked several times whether they would pray for an outcome on a particular council agenda item and they said no. Their prayers are more along the lines of asking that our leaders open their hearts and minds to God’s wisdom and that our leaders seek strength from God to do the right thing… again, those are my words, but I think that’s pretty close. Helen read me a passage from the Old Testament that referenced leaders and seemed to support this type of praying.
I pointed out that it could easily happen that someone show up at their prayer who DID have a council agenda outcome in mind that they wanted to pray for, and that having unsupervised access to the city administrator’s office could be seen as an unfair advantage over those who might be opposed to that outcome. They seemed to agree that, although unlikely, that could happen and that it was fine with them to just meet in a conference room.
So unless there’s more I don’t know about, it seems like a judgment error for Roder to let them meet in his office for prayers, especially unsupervised. But I don’t see a problem with them meeting in a public conference room at city hall, as their activity doesn’t seem to meet the ‘attributed to government’ smell test that Judy cited in her statement. It doesn’t seem any different than a group who might meet on Bridge Square to pray for peace. Or am I missing something?
I told the three women that I would be blogging about this and invited them to comment. I’ve invited Judy, too. It’s not clear to me whether she had already approached Roder with her concerns about this, or if this was her first attempt to draw attention to the issue.
Aug. 7, 12:10 PM update: I asked for Judy to email the text of her presentation and she just did. I’ve put it here in the extended entry.
Aug. 8, 12:30 AM update: I captured 5 minutes of audio from the NTV rebroadcast of the end of last night’s City Council meeting where City Administrator Al Roder addresses the Council about Judy Dirks’ remarks.
Click play to listen. Mayor Lansing’s voice is heard initially for a few seconds, then Roder. At the 2:40 mark, Councilor Noah Cashman begins his critical remarks of Dirks, with Scott Davis voicing support for Cashman’s comments right at the very end.
My name is Judith Dirks. I live at 715 Highland Avenue. Although I Chair the Northfield Human Rights Commission, I am not here in that capacity this evening; I am here to speak solely as a resident of Northfield about a matter that concerns me.
Over the past few months I have become aware of a prayer group that meets in City Administrator Al Roder’s office during many of the City Council meetings. I have been told that they are there to pray for Northfield during the Council meetings. A Councilman confirmed this to me. I personally have observed members of this prayer group going into Mr. Roder’s office, staying approximately 1½ hours, or sometimes longer, then coming out and leaving the building.
It deeply disturbs me that people who are not employed by the City are in Mr. Roder’s office while he is not present. They have unsupervised access to anything in his office including files, his computer, papers on his desk … and so forth.
What is currently happening in Mr. Roder’s office appears to me to be an opportunity of access, and an opportunity not afforded other members of this community. It concerns me that a specific religious group may be exerting undue influence on a city official to their benefit.
It also deeply disturbs me that this it not public knowledge for all of the residents of Northfield.
It appears that this is deliberately being kept a secret and I wonder why? I have discussed this with several Northfield residents. Virtually everyone has expressed concern about “separation of church and state” as law in the U.S. Constitution. They are as concerned as I am that this is happening in a City government building and office. In researching this issue, I found a law review article from the Florida State University Law School that is also in a Minnesota Law Review. It states in part (and I quote) “For almost forty years the Supreme Court has limited the extent to which religious expression can take place on public property or in other circumstances in which the religious expression may be attributed to the government.” I have a copy of this document, which I will leave with Attorney Swanson.
Are you Council members all aware that this practice is taking place here, and do you feel the public has a right to know that this practice is taking place during Council meetings? As individuals who are elected to represent all citizens of this community, your willingness to allow favored status to a select group of individuals conflicts with the oath you took upon accepting your elected position to this Council.
By far the most distressing, however, is the covert manner in which this activity takes place in City Administrator Roder’s office while he is not there. I don’t care if this has been just a couple of times or dozens of times, it is not appropriate. I would ask that the practice stop until a review of this practice can be held and a public discussion conducted. I am glad if people want to pray for Northfield’s City Council, just do it in homes or churches, not in our City Administrator’s office, and especially when he is not present.
I find it fascinating and concerning that we are repeating the same arguments on this topic when the threads covering the potential of huge misdeeds at City Hall and the future of the liquor store and the very real transportation issues around Woodley reconstruction languish.
200 laps are enough for me, unless we get off this loop and find some new ground to cover.
While some commentators have stopped at the question of a city employee making city property available to a particular religious sect, and a few people have suggested that this recent incident is only an additional chapter in a larger story about another city exporting their religious beliefs to our community through local proxies, most Northfielders have chosen to focus on the biggest picture topic of separation of Church and State. It was therefore of interest to me that today’s Sunday Magazine of the New York Times, that widely acknowledged bastion of Liberal Democracy, featured a cover story on the history of this current topic, The Great Separation.
The author, Mark Lilla, argues that the separation between Church and State is not only a relatively new idea, but one that didn’t take hold beyond the limited geography of Northern Europe and North America.
In the parts of the West where this idea had taken hold, it was fairly widely believed that there were mutual benefits: the State was spared from doctrinal decisions and the Church was freed from political interference. However, in the East the idea was never even seriously considered.
Lilla goes on to characterize the Separation as an experiment, a test that continues but is not necessarily permanent. He considers the fact that although in America we have an unmatched variety of faiths yet there is general agreement that our political issues are settled within the boundaries of the Constitution to be a miracle.
He then discusses Weimar Germany and contemporary Islam with the history of Western states after the Great Separation. His concluding argument is that there is a third path for religions in a secular state besides complacent liberalism and revolutionary messianism, that of the constructive renovator. He cites Calvin and Luther as examples. They used theological reinterpretations to facilitate temporal existence while demanding a renewed commitment to faith.
For those bored with scheduling suggestions for City Hall or unconcerned about zealots’ conspiracies for our community, The Politics of God may prove to be timely and fascinating reading.
Thanks for that, Ross. I’ve edited your post to include a permalink to the NYT article.
David L (#193) my perception is that most if not all the efforts of Transformation Northfield to date have been focused on the expression of faith in the workplace for owners/employees. That was the focus of Silvoso’s appearance, judging from the Nfld News coverage. And ‘workplace’ was the focus of the group’s appearance before the HRC last fall.
This city hall issue seems different to me. True, praying for an public policy outcome can be seen as no different than the lobbying than other groups do.
But it COULD become a case where their focus is affecting public policy in ways that aren’t available to everyone else who tries to affect public policy, eg, praying in a city leader’s office for specific outcome, especially if that leader is part of the same group.
A pastor in Elk River expressed her concerns about the mayor there, “… that she is using her secular office to further a religious agenda.”
I don’t know if that’s true but at least the mayor of Elk River is up front about her agenda, so others who have concerns can be appropriately vigilant. I’d feel better about this whole issue if our city leadership would do the same… hence, my wish for more transparency.
Asking Al Roder to reveal his religious affliation (or connection to Transformation Northfield) seem dead on square with the constitutional prohibition of requiring any religious test for public office.
Moreover, these ladies appeared fairly candid about their agenda -- they were silently praying that our city leaders receive wisdom and strength. Even if you object to their method, it is difficult to object to their motive.
While is is possible that Transformation Northfield’s relationship to Al Roder could affect policy, there are plenty of examples of advocacy groups in Northfield ACTUALLY affecting policy. These are the groups of which we must maintain a special vigilance lest their individual preferences alter public policy to the detriment of the rest of the town.
David:
“there are plenty of examples of advocacy groups in Northfield ACTUALLY affecting policy. These are the groups of which we must maintain a special vigilance lest their individual preferences alter public policy to the detriment of the rest of the town.”
I assume that you’re talking about the Chamber of Commerce…
Ross
Kiffi- You said, “Am I mistaken that this is NOT a peaceable statement? Who is perceived as “the dominion of our enemy”?
MY feeling is that are enough dangerous people in the world without adding to them those who believe they have a direct commandment from God to “Kick through the darkness until it bleeds daylight”.
I don’t think you have an understanding of the principles involved here, and that is ok if you haven’t been exposed to them. If you compare adherants to Christianity to certain ones of Islam who are blowing up themselves and everyone around them, then living “dangerously” would certainly be a threat to you. Please let me explain my take on this. I am not a member of Rejoice, but I know many of the people there, and I talked to Pastor Dan about my opinion before expressing it in my post.
It is written that,”… our (Crhistian’s) weapons of warfare are not carnal (relying on natural strength, wisdom or gunpowder) but they are mighty through God (His strength and wisdom), to the tearing down of stongholds (areas in people’s lives that are under the influence of anti-God beliefs).” It is also written, “Do not be overcome with evil but overcome evil with good.” Also, it is written that “…everyone who would live Godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” The only person in danger here is the believer who wants to follow God, not just silently and privately, but openly and demonstratively. I think this is pretty evident in the reactions from many people against Al Roder, Helen, Jan, and Laurie.
As far as “kicking in the darkness”, this is not done politically or physically, but it is accomplished through living our faith openly. Just as many gay people have come out of the closet and said, “I will live this way openly and there is nothing you can do about it,” so are many Christians doing the same thing. If gay people are not a threat to you, then why should we be? Perhaps there is something to be afraid of, if you are not open to God and refuse to allow Him into your life when you are given the opportunity. Perhaps He does exist and is involved in the affairs of men. Perhaps He does really love us and is not wanting to bring the hammer down on us, but is longsuffering, not willing that any should perish. Perhaps He does listen to the prayers of His people and responds to them.
I am reminded of the account in the book of Acts about the Senate(the Jewish leadership council) and their concern about the early Christians coming out in the open. The Senate wanted to silence the new converts. A man in the council, Gamaliel, had this wisdom. He reminded them of other groups that had risen up and then disipated, and that how this group might do the same. He then said, “…and stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action be of men, it will be overthrown, but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them, or else you may even be found fighting against God.” The outcome of this doesn’t matter if you believe there is a God or not, if He is involved in the affairs of men, or if we have heard from Him. He will move in spite of us, but he is looking for people to stand in the gap (intercede) for others.
I would refer back to my original post. Who are any of you to tell me where or how to pray, as long as I do it respectfully and not threateninglty? And I would also point out, it is not illegal for any of us Christians to have “an agenda” to bring positive change to our society, be it on the personal, city, state, or national level.
Now, let us see what kind of policy our council is going to put into place for the equitable use of city hall.
The Chamber is an excellent example of a special interest advocacy group which is trying to affect public policy (although the Chamber is quite transparent in its efforts). But, would anyone think about calling the Chamber of Commerce before the Human Rights Commission? How much more transparent can they be?
to post #207:
Thank you for the re-iteration of Bible quotes, but since I was brought up in the Methodist faith, baptized and confirmed therein, and , as a matter of fact, when I was a child had a three-year attendance pin for never missing bible class, (even with measles, mumps, chickenpox) ……….. none of this that you quote is new to me.
I do not feel threatened by “Christians”, Rejoice church, praying ladies, or anyone who is civil, thoughtful, and peaceful toward other human beings,without passing judgement on them for their sexual orientation, or their need to control the physical or mental health of their bodies.
I asked whether the statements I quoted seemed those of a community of people which is committed to a peaceful, harmonius, and tolerant society……….You chose not to answer that question; instead lecturing me with bible verses.
And I do not need to ask anyone’s permission or confirmation to speak my mind; I have a strong core. Please do not presume anything about my spiritual beliefs; I do not display them on a website.
From post 207- I certainly did not want to offend you in my post, but I didn’t interpret your comments on the Rejoice website to communicate that you have an understanding of where they are comming from. From my perspective, with the understanding I have, their website does not imply a result other than a peaceful society. I don’t know you personally at all, so I can only respond to what you tell me on this site. Perhaps Anne Bretts was right in her earlier post. We may spend too much time trying to convert everyone else to our way of thinking rather than coming to agreement on policies and proceeding onward. You are certainly free to follow God in the understanding you have of Him, and I bless you in that endeavor.
From post 207, again- I didn’t respond to your comment about not needing anyone’s permission or confirmation to speak your mind. No, you certainly do not. But since I am not a part of Rejoice, I don’t feel I have any place to represent their beliefs on this site or respond to comments made about them on this site without first communicating with them.
David L./Ross, I’m all for groups trying to affect public policy/civic affairs. Even religious groups.
I’ve been whining about the LACK of engagement by Northfield area ministers on the heroin issue. As far as I know, only one minister has shown up for the public meetings on the issue. Have any of them preached about it? I don’t know, but it seems to me that they’d have an interest in bringing their perspective to the public problem-solving process since chemical addiction/recovery is so inextricably linked to our spiritual selves.
But those in a public policy leadership position have to be extra careful about their personal religious beliefs in that public policy process. I could be wrong, but from the little I’ve read, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have apparently handled this pretty well as current office holders as well as candidates.
Just to briefly tie up one loose end I created, I found this stopping distance to speed calcultor for the question of how far will a truck travel after breaking. It’s a very complicated formula, but just to give a reference, it takes a car going 55 mph, more than 250 ft to stop under I presume normal dry flat conditions including reaction time. See #189 and #190 above.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/stopdistinfo.html
Bright
Griff wrote that, “But, those in a public policy leadership position have to be extra careful about their personal religious beliefs in that public policy process”. That is not only accurate, but it also holds true for “personal secular beliefs”.
Al Roder’s job is to do what he is directed to do by the City Council. He also needs to counsel the Council when they are making poor choices. His personal opinions, whether on his belief in God, or his beliefs on non-motorized transportation, are not what he is getting paid for.
I just don’t see how allowing the ladies to pray in his office has spilled over into his job. We would have the exact same problem if Al had let the Chamber of Commerce hold a meeting in his office during City Council meetings. It looks bad; it would look like he is favoring the Chamber; but, it would have no effect upon his job performance.
Although I like what you are saying, David L, I don’t think people can really divorce themselves from at least long held beliefs. And I don’t think people really hire people and say, Okay you’re on, but you have to leave that 33-1/3 % of your thinking behind. It’s not black and white that way, it’s grey, very grey. And what if they
could, wouldn’t they be leaving behind part of what makes them who they are in truth? And if the employer doesn’t want the whole employee, he better find someone with no prior affiliations…I have
a 12 year old nephew who needs a job!
As for Mitt Romney, he never married more than once, so he can divorce himself easily from the religious belief of it, as he never practiced it and he can prove that. Had he been married numerous
times at once, he wouldn’t even be considered…no divorcing himself from that I’m pretty sure.
I won’t even address Obama’s issues until he finishes flipping.
Bright
David L -- Here’s a quote: “I just don’t see how allowing the ladies to pray in his office has spilled over into his job. We would have the exact same problem if Al had let the Chamber of Commerce hold a meeting in his office during City Council meetings. It looks bad; it would look like he is favoring the Chamber; but, it would have no effect upon his job performance.” It’s NOT exactly the same. You know that. The Chamber is a registered lobbying entity, and literally have business being in Roder’s office when he’s there. You’re once again glossing over/side stepping/weaseling around/ignoring/diverting (??) the gov’t support of religious activity/group with state resources. As an attorney you know or should know that there is a Constitutional difference between state dealings with lobbyists (also only appropriate when city employee is present) and religious entities. Once again, you’re an “officer of the court” bound to uphold the Constitution — instead this is obscuring it, conflating issues — more conflatulence! … sigh… I will continue to repeat this refrain each time this discussion goes down this path.
OK, just checking here…
The city is working on a room/office use policy.
There was no policy in place to violate.
There is no evidence any group has been refused meeting space.
There is no evidence any other religious group has even sought meeting space.
There is no evidence the city even tracks the purpose for using meeting space or how rooms actually are used.
There is no evidence Mr. Roder joined the women in prayer.
There is no evidence Mr. Roder announced or put signs up announcing the women were meeting in his office.
There is no evidence Mr. Roder encouraged anyone to join him or the women in prayer.
There is no evidence the women lobbied or prayed for any particular outcome on any issue.
There is no evidence anyone had complained to Mr. Roder or anyone else about the use of the space until the July council meetings.
As soon as the situation was mentioned, the ladies were moved.
There is no evidence any files, papers or data were seen or used.
Ms. Dirks never brought up the issue to Mr. Roder.
Ms. Dirks never attempted to file a complaint or file a request to the council to bring this up as an agenda item.
No one attempted to interfere with Ms. Dirks’ right to speak to the council.
If there are more facts, great. But strip away all the undeniable potential problems and the misdeeds of other congregations and individuals in other cities, and it appears that City Hall is secure, the Constitution is intact and the incident is over.
All that remains are two issues: whether Mr. Roder is disciplined (a closed personnel matter) or whether anyone or any group or the citizenry at large is owed an apology by anyone else. Since forcing anyone to apologize pretty much negates the effect of the apology, it seems the discussion now is how to develop ways beyond a room policy to deal with separation of church and state in all areas of city government. Perhaps some of the writers here who are most concerned about the potential for future incidents might like to explore the policies of other cities and make suggestions here about how we can prevent problems, rather than end up speculating on the causes or dealing with the consequences of them.
Just in time, Anne, I was going to suggest a little flexibility
intrerpreting the separation of church and state issue.
Bright
A mostly accurate list , Anne. One obvious correction: Mr. Roder was “tipped off” by someone before Ms. Dirks spoke, because he left the council chambers before the meeting started, went into his office, held the door for the ladies to exit, and led them upstairs.
Then when he spoke at the end of the meeting, I believe his saying the matter had been resolved, did not sound like resolved immediately before the meeting, but taken care of some time previously. I may certainly be wrong in my interpretation; that’s just what it sounded like to me.
But , aside from the details……..is the final line “Ho HUm……so what!” ?????????? I s that what you’re saying.? In other words we should not seek to ever right past wrongs? And then each time a new “wrong” occurs, we say , “so what”?
Last night the “ladies” called their “Creator God” into prayer, at the open mic. I wonder how it would be received if I read a chapter from Sam Harris at the open mic….and then that could just go on and on ’til it became a venue for wasting the city council’s time with uncity -related business. Or do the business of the city and prayer have a relationship?
Anne- Phew!! Thanks for one more lap!
Bright- post #213. I would suppose the stopping distance of a truck after “breaking” would depend how many pieces it broke into. Ha, ha! (Blasted English language! SO many things sound alike! Just ask my Costa Rican son-in-law.)
Kiffi- Does city business and prayer have a relationship? Yes, unless one wants to separate church completely from our society. We Christians who belive this way are, after all, part of the city. Isn’t this part of being tolerant?
Kiffi, I have always believed you to be an amazingly bright and principled woman, with a lot of wisdom and a kind heart. I have been careful not to portray your posts as “blowing the issue out of proportion.” It would be great if we could assume everyone is speaking with integrity and good intent.
My feeling isn’t that the incident is ho-hum. There’s just a difference between righting a past wrong and beating a dead horse. I just feel that after 200 some posts where a few facts are stewed in speculation, nitpicking, blame and inuendo, here we are a month later with no real answer when people decide to use the open mic section of the meeting to pray…
Perhaps the Human Rights Commission should have a larger mission, or there should be some other person or agency assigned to tackle this issue. But we don’t know. By holding on tenaciously to the room issue, and whether Al should apologize to Judy or Judy should have told Al or whether Al moved the people because he wanted to solve the problem or because he was tipped off, we missed the bigger picture and the more noble challenge.
So my question is whether the point of these discussions is to seek common ground, improve communications and bring friends and neighbors together to have some fun and look for ways to make Northfield better, or whether they are just a way for Minnesota Nice folks to have a venue for venting their meanness toward each other in ways that wouldn’t be acceptable in person. Maybe it’s a kind of online paintball…so we all just keep shooting and get tougher armor and goggles…
I admit, I love sharp humor. And there is a certain fun in the gotcha of catching someone in an errant word or imprecise phrase, but this is beginning to be the adult equivalent of kids passing (texting) mean notes about each other in class.
It seems the people at City Hall, as messed up and impotent as many of you see them to be, aren’t an embarrassment to the city but a reflection of it…
Back to the issue I raised. An apology from Roder wouldn’t have kept the women in their seats last night, but perhaps a good policy might.
So as I asked many, many posts ago…are there any suggestions for a fair policy for the future?
Perhaps open mic comments should be limited to topics under city control but not on the agenda. That would eliminate God’s business, UFO investigations and resolutions to end the War in Iraq, all interesting debates but not germaine to the city’s charter. (That’s it, we can refer this all to the charter commission!)
Johhnie G., that’s eeezee for you to say! #219.
Fair policy for the future…I don’t think one that works perfectly is possible. There will always be someone who calls foul.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. How about that?
Bright
Bright- Great response. Please forgive me for having some fun at your expense. If you only knew how badly (I was going to use pourly, but I was afraid I might use it porely. Yes, that certainly was poor of me) I type and how dexlisic I am on a keyboard, you could have gereat humor with me! I would enjoy it along with you.
Johhnie G.
Anne, long post, much horse beating, but in the end a great idea! But I fear the Charter commission has got a lot on their plate right now, and in the end it is always the council’s decision…..unless of course, they can’t come to a unanimous decision, and then it goes to a public vote, entire community.
If you could go to the open mic, and ask the council to have a big ole fat discussion of the issue, at a work session, and they actually did have that discussion….I would not only thank you, I would buy you some B.McElrath chocolates! And chocolate gets no finer than that (if you’ve taken the local challenge).
The only thing is……it might take longer than the new rental code ordinance did…..and I am getting very old.
Here is some grist for you legal wonks regarding separation of church and state. If this is something we must adhere to strictly, where is the cutoff for governmental involvement in church affairs? For instance, in the recent past, there has been much ado about the pedophilia within the Catholic church heirarchy. Those priests involved in this have been brought before government courts and prosecuted using government laws and thrown into government funded jails. If there is to be a separation of church and state, where does this enter in here? Are churches allowed to deal with this through their own channels? And if they do, is this considered complicity in the criome? Does the separation gate only swing one way?
Now, before everyone gets their dander up, I certainly do not condone this type of immoral behavior, and I personally believe these perpetrators should be brought to account. My question is, if churches are liable before the court (a government branch) for their misdeeds, do they have a place for representation in the government and input into the laws enacted by it? And can members of the churches be part of government and petition the government for this very purpose? Surely, there is some type of precedent out there.
Here is one example and there were others before him…
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/29/
congressman_priest_drinan_dies/
Bright
David:
Actually, the Chamber of Commerce asked for and received a private, behind closed doors, unrecorded meeting with city staff about the Comprehensive Plan revision process. Wearing my Planning Commission hat, I am still uncomfortable about this one exotic cult receiving preferential treatment not extended to any other group in town. We’ll never know if there were prayers, the burning of sacred herbs, or the ritual slaughter of a chicken involved.
Putting on my NDDC hat now, I think that it is always clear to anyone and everyone when the Knights of the Downtown are lobbying on an issue or pursuing a heroic quest. We’re noisy, not shy, and, for better or worse, pretty much in-your-face not behind-your-back. We never try to hide our beliefs, practices, or objectives behind closed doors.
Personally, I believe that when a group, let’s say the Chamber, speaks up at a public meeting or publishes their views in the paper, their actions are admirable and should be setting a standard for all groups, business, political, or religious, in the community which seek to influence the decision-making process. Conversely, I believe that when a group tries to avoid publicly sharing their views or goals and works only behind closed doors, their motives are, in my mind, highly questionable and their actions, at least in my definition of a democracy, should be criticized if not condemned.
Thank you for speaking up at public meetings and publishing your views in writing,
Ross
Ross- Exotic cult?? I thought a person had to dress wierdly, pierce various parts of one’s anatomy, live off the land somewhere, and share one another’s respective spouses to fit this discription? Also, they usually don’t pay their taxes and withdraw from society in general. Too bad Helen and Jan don’t live up to your expectations.
Maybe you should reread post #217, or do you have some heretofore untold facts regarding what went on?
You also said, in post #227, “…I believe that when a group tries to avoid publicly sharing their views or goals and works only behind closed doors, their motives are, in my mind, highly questionable and their actions, at least in my definition of a democracy, should be criticized if not condemned.” It seems that this group has an open web site, has been before the NHRC, and is daily accessable to anyone. Would you have the same reaction to them if they had brought a drum into city hall, circled it, pounded out a rythm and chanted during the council meetings? It seems you keep assailing them without cause.
Anne, I’m insulted. You wrote:
I don’t like your put-down. This is not a task-force that needs to come to some resolution or action plan. It’s primarily a place for pleasurable conversation, a way to get informed. If it’s gone on too long for you, it doesn’t mean it has for everyone else. Just unsubscribe from the alerts or just ignore it.
If you had a salon at your house and at the end of a 3-hour discussion, I said what you said to the participants, I think you’d be insulted and would not want to have me back.
Your content contributions here and on many other topics are usually valuable but comments like this are a major detriment to the conversational climate we’re trying to foster here. It’s not perfect, but it’s working reasonably well.
Griff,
Point taken. Humble apology submitted. Draft/5-hour hold policy on comments enacted to deal with frustration. Unsubscribed. No salon planned.
Brilliant commentary, Ross. (#227) This one was of the most brillantly aligned, and eloquently stated arguments I’ve seen. Write a book!
And to john george, re # 225: IMHO, you’re mixing concepts of ideology and concepts of crime, in your quest for “the door” to swing both ways.
In this country, you are not allowed to commit a crime based on your personal ( even if institutionalized ) belief system.
Example: it is not allowable to practice ritualistic torture of animals or people as an expression of your religious beliefs.
Having said that, I ask why does our gov’t. allow prisoner renditions to other countries, or for that matter establish our own Gulag/Guantanamo?
I think the answer is that most laws will be bent if there is no challenge by those who respect “the rule of law”.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment
I think you will find here that, and I am no lawyer, but I have two cousins who are, grin, if there is a religious belief, and the three ladies, I am told, said the proximity of prayer to the prayed for is an important part of their belief, and the state must prove compelling interest for overriding their religious practise. Again, I am not a lawyer, but it looks like something worth looking at.
Bright
You’re right, Bright, you’re not a lawyer, nor, I believe, are the others confusing/distracting first amendment “establishment of religion” issues with first amendment “prohibiting free exercise thereof” issues. It’s a pain to wade through these repeated conflations, and I’m getting cranky about it. Please do some homework. For a rough explanation, just google “establishment of religion” and you’ve got the issue at hand. Then, if you don’t understand the distinction between that and freedom to practice religion, google “religion” and “prohibiting free exercise thereof” and compare. If you want tutoring, it can be had for a fee. I’m struggling between the need to clarify and the need to retain my sanity through hitting the “delete” at so many off point statements/arguments.
GJ is conflating, as Kiffi noted, criminal behavior/law and establishment of religion (though there are times I’d argue establishment of religion is indeed criminal).
As for David, Esq.’s conflation of lobbying with establishment, saying it’s “exactly” the same, well, I’ve already addressed that one.
Somebody pass around the Bean-O, it’s getting a bit thick in here! And I’ll go back to nailing Excelsior Energy on their ex parte contact.
I should have said, “Thank God I am not a lawyer!”
Carol, your tone is indicative of your stance, which sounds very harsh and belittling of anyone else’s view. I don’t recall requesting your input at all, and don’t much care how guilty you are trying to make us all feel that you are offering your opinion.
These issues have gone back and forth over the years as different
people come into power with different points of view. That’s all it is.
Furthermore, if you would like me to follow your points via online research, at least provide the URLs to which you refer…cuz I am not going on a fishing expedition to help you prove your points.
Bright
Here’s what I’m talkin’ ’bout:
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20061027_brownstein.html
Bright
And I say, Bright, “Thank Dog I am a lawyer.” “Establishment of religion” is a very different constitutional animal than “freedom of religion.” Please note that was not my first post pointing out the many conflations of “establishment clause” with “freedom of religion” issues, and in the prior two I did some explaining and urged people to do homework. Uninformed confusion does not serve the discussion and just gets it offtrack. With google, it takes what, 3.5 seconds to type in “religion establishment Constitution” and a couple minutes to scan some pages to get a feel for it (hours or a lifetime only if you really want to dig in). It’s very easy in this technoage. This is the Constitution, for Dog’s sake! It’s important! It’s something every citizen should have a handle on.
Freedoms come with responsibilities. Freedom of speech engenders the responsibility of education and duty to speak out!
Perhaps locallygrown could sponsor a short series on Constitutional Law, bring in some experts and have at it? And set up an after hours boxing ring to “discuss” the finer points? How ’bout it Griff?
I think it’s a great idea to have an expert or two come in on this, good suggestion, Carol. However,as Griff says in #228, this is primarily a place for pleasurable conversation, and although what you say is true, that these are serious issues and that Americans should understand the US Constitution, it is also great to hear what others
viewpoints are. This is not confusing the issues as you claim, as we will never come to certain agreement and action here. I certainly hope not anyway.
In the meantime, my own humble opinion, perhaps based too much in idealism, is that laws of the Constitution were meant to hold together this land in peace and harmony, not to divide and conquer, but to promote thoughtful discourse.
Bright
“Establishment and free exercise were correlative and coexistent ideas, representing only different facets of the single great fundamental freedom”. Supreme Court Justice Rutledge in 1947.
Both Al Roder and Transformation Northfield have the constitutional right to be free from government inquiries into their religious practices unless it implicates a compelling governmental interest.
David said #237 “…unless it implicates a compelling governmental interest.” That is a good point. So, what are we so worried about? What is the harm? Granted, they are not in Roder’s office, which I think has been solved. Is there an issue if what David said is the case? Is there anything the prayer ladies are doing that “implicates a compelling governmental interest”?
I would like to hear from anyone who can answer that last question for me. Believe it or not, I have been following all 237 posts on this topic. Whew! That last question seems to be the one we have not addressed directly.
Also, Roder’s actions were probably “politically incorrect” but were they more than that based on the information we have?
David L, what you wrote helps:
I don’t see any reason for a gov’t inquiry, and evidently neither does the council since they struck it from the ‘list of 14′ items to ask the auditor to look into. So I’ll just keep a teeny bit of my radar tuned for anything to be concerned about just in case…
Hold on. My radar is picking up a blip…
Kiffi wrote:
Holy Moly! I didn’t attend or see it on NTV but this is nuts.
I don’t know what the City Charter says about open mic but prayer ain’t what it’s for IMHO. Can I use open mic to tell jokes, read my poetry, do a puppet show, sing while playing air guitar? Even tho I’m fabulous at all of those, I think not.
I’m guessing Mayor Lansing was caught off guard by this, as it’s probably never happened before. If they attempt to do it again, he should stop it immediately.
But it does makes me wonder if someone on the Council or city staff knew about it ahead of time.
No, it’s not worthy of a gov’t investigation but I think I’ll keep my radar lit.
I don’t believe the auditor’s office would deal with church/state issues. They are accountants who make sure the books are balanced. It makes sense for them to review the TIF District books and annual reports (which they do routinely, compiling lots of interesting info.)
The prayer issue questions probably would go to the Attorney General.
I have googled many cities in Minnesota and most, sadly, are as vague as Northfield about their open mic policies. The League of Minnesota Cities probably has a sample policy for all these incidents, but there aren’t any on their website.
It would seem, as I noted earlier, that it might be simple just to change the policy slightly (or put one in writing) to say that comments can be on an item not on the agenda but under the authority of the council.
Brother. We can’t pray secretly, as we might have a hidden agenda and appear to be a cult, and now we can’t pray openly, as some people find that offensive. Is that what I’m hearing?
I suppose as long as the issue was on the agenda as being a possibility of City discussion, they have as much right as anyone else to get up and speak. Without an open mike policy, I don’t see how Mayor Lansing can stop it. Then, it would be content based speech suppression.
An open mike policy is long overdue. I spent two hours one night at the Council meeting listening to people complain that they didn’t like to live next to college kids.
John George said:
“Brother. We can’t pray secretly, as we might have a hidden agenda and appear to be a cult, and now we can’t pray openly, as some people find that offensive. Is that what I’m hearing?”
John,
Again, you are mixing expression with government entanglement / sponsorship / implicated involvement in that expression. This is NOT about free expression, but rather as David L. points out (although in trying to defend the group and Roder) this is about implication of a compelling government interest.
I would say Roder sponsoring / allowing this to go on for a year represents a compelling government interest. Absent that, then I would say he was creating and recreating for a year a big error in judgment. What sort of top-level municipal professional doesn’t see the easy implication / entanglement / sponsorship difficulties inherent in allowing a group of one religion to pray in a space that I can’t imagine the city or any other group would ever consider an open meeting space?
How many times do I and others have to write that the group has a right to pray in the city hall as long as government isn’t sponsoring them or denying other groups the same public access?
It feels to me that you want to see that as some sort of persecution or unjust suppression of Christianity, as your exasperated tone implies. It’s not.
In fact, you could go down to city hall today with a couple like-minded individuals, sit down and pray. Provided you are not disrupting anything, you have that right. That’s free expression. Asking the city hall to stay open longer, requesting recliners for your group, etc… and having those requests granted by government would probably cross the line of governmental entanglement.
Do we take this to the Supreme Court? Not necessary. A simple policy for use of meeting space and the open mic would suffice in both cases being discussed here.
Not speaking for John, but I can understand his sentiment based on what people here have expressed, not on what the Constitution says.
Bright
Bright,
I can too. Some comments have unfairly labeled the prayer itself, or the prayer group, as wrong.
I think most of the contributors, however, have been careful to separate the two issues of religious expression and government sponsorship of that expression.
I get frustrated with what I feel is an attempt to paint any opposition to this year-long “incident” as some sort of diabolical suppression of religious freedom.
I think that’s an easy trick to demonize those with whom you might disagree. I would prefer that the disagreement remain rooted in the actual arguments being made.
Truth be told, I have great differences with religion in general. Most people who know me, or who read my blog, know that. However, I have been trying very hard to keep my opposition to this issue embedded in the very real constitutional issues and principles involved.
Even though I disagree with this religious group and pretty much all other religious groups on religious grounds, they have a right to practice in private and public venues, provided they are not being sponsored by the government.
I will defend their right to practice their religion precisely because, if the government can outlaw one religion, the same government can turn around and mandate another religion.
OK, I’m confused. At the meeting the other night, were the women actually praying, or talking about praying in City Hall? If they were talking about praying, then they have as much right as Ms. Dirks to speak. If the issue was on the agenda, however, they should have spoken to that item at the appropriate time. If they were praying to their Creator God, than the policy change would have allowed the council to rule them out of compliance.
Two of the “prayer ladies” spoke about their intentions, and reasons for wanting to pray in City hall, and their lack of desire to disturb anyone. That’s generalized, paraphrased; I don’t have direct quotes.
One of the ladies then invoked her “Creator God” in prayer. I call that actively praying; many others, who bowed their heads, must have felt that was the case.
There was no response from the council.
Brendon and all,
I too have problems with following organized religion, and I also will defend everyone’s right to be free, as long as it doens’t injure another. But, I think that people made up rules for this
conversation and didn’t let everyone know about them til later.
I’m only sticking to the Locally Grown rules until I can’t, and then I’ll leave the vacinity, or get kicked off, whichever comes first.
While it is good to stay close to the letter of the law, it is also important to see what the perceptions are regarding it. Empirical evidence and intuition often arrive at the same place at the same time, each by it’s own path.
And I might add, there’s often more than a bit of salt in the pepper and pepper in the salt.
Bright
Bright- You did well in understanding my frustration. I have read many opinions expressed on this blog, but no one, and I mean no one, has given me any evidence to back up their opinions of what happened for a year. I agree with the Constitutional Separation argument, because that has allowed us to live civilly with one another. What I don’t agree with is the baseless accusations that continue to come out in this discussion. Even Ms. Dierks’, in her presentation, did not give any evidence of impropriety. She only raised questions as to whether it happened or not.
Just when I thought things were getting down to the real need, a clear policy for use of city hall defined by the city council, which appears to be glaringly absent, Ross comes along with his post #227, refering to, “…exotic cult receiving preferential treatment…”. Good grief!
I have no problem with your desire to separate state and religion. I wholeheartedly agree with you that each and every religion, however “exotic”, must have the same access to our governing authorities. But no one has come up with any shred of evidence that any religion has been denied access in this case. And no one has given any evidence that this “exotic cult” was given any preferential treatment over any other religion, in spite of everyone’s perceptions of what appears to be inappropriate (I would not call it unconstitutional) actions. That is the dead horse that is being beaten.
Now, before we all drown in delirium, does anyone have any idea when the council is going to come up with some policies that will actually allow the city government to operate without having to look over their shoulder to duck or take aim at anyone behind them? That is all I’ve been asking for all along.