Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
By a vote of 6-3, the Lowell City Council voted to adopt a non-sectarian prayer. Thus ends a 40-year tradition of the public recitation of the Lord’s Prayer prior to the Lowell City Council meetings. Two of the dissenting Councilors, CC R. Elliott and G. Ramirez, wanted to end the practice and CC A. Mercier wanted to continue reciting the Lord’s Prayer.
Many months ago, the Greater Lowell Interfaith Alliance approached the City Council to ask them to change the opening prayer which is a Christian prayer and is certainly not representative of the new Lowellians.
All of the Councilors spoke at great length. Seven of them felt compelled to tell us that they were Catholics and prayed. But the great majority understood that Lowell is changing and in that spirit, the City Council must change its tradition. The CCs, without exception, recognized the amount of time and effort of the Sub-Committee and expressed their appreciation.
Members of the Interfaith Alliance were present to hear the discussion. A spokesperson for the group briefly addressed the CC and reiterated the group’s initial desire that prayer not be eliminated but be made inclusive to represent Lowell’s rich and growing religious diversity.
CC Jim Milinazzo, chairman of the Rules Sub-committee presented the report and their recommendation by a 2-1 that the full Council adopt this new policy. CM Rita Mercier, a member of the Sub-Committee, used the correct word in explaining why she is recommending this change: “fairness.”
CC Armand Mercier, the third member, presented the minority point of view of the Sub-Committee. He does not get it; really, he does not get it. The Lord Prayer is a Christian prayer; and yes, it does offend those of us who do not follow that religion. I also think he indicated that he did not want to follow the City Solicitor’s legal opinion and urged the other City Council members to follow. He seemed to challenge City Solicitor Christine O’Connor’s opinion that the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer by the City Council was unconstitutional.
In my opinion, Mayor Bill Martin’s explanation best reflects the sentiments of most of the City Councilors. There is a clear opinion from the City Solicitor; the CC should respect the Constitutional principles that they took an oath to uphold.
Then he went on to explain that although all of the CCs were Catholics, the City is made up of many different types of residents. Perhaps 40 years ago all of the immigrants were from Europe and Catholic. Today, many new Lowellians are from Asia and Africa, representing a wide range of religions. And as elected officials, those people should be represented.
I do not think this is over because as some of the CCs expressed, there are organized groups as well as individuals who want to end “prayer” all together. But for now, this is a major change and the Interfaith Alliance should be thanked for their efforts to make this City more inclusive.
[powered by WordPress.]
42 queries. 0.757 seconds
April 24th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Very very sad.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Lame.
Why is this tagged “religious right”. Not exactly what i think of when I hear the word “Lowell City Council”. This is part of the problem, associating those who want to say the Our Father with those who believe Jeebas wills save them from the bite of snakes through terms like ‘Religious Right’.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Thank God!
Snark aside, has the text of this new “non-sectarian” prayer been drafted yet? I personally think that a moment of silence is the ideal compromise, but will reserve judgement pending whatever the GLILA (?)comes up with.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:09 am
I think they are going to rotate sects.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:12 am
And I do agree with Jacob that it seems a little disingenuous to tag this as “religious right.” Just because there are some Christians — I would guess predominately Catholic — in our community who are attached to the tradition of reciting the Lord’s Prayer does not automatically align them with the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and James Dobsons of the world.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Mr. Lynne:
I thought that option was off the table? It certainly doesn’t jibe with the idea of a single non-sectarian prayer, as suggested above.
Again my personal opinion is that rotating prayers is an absolutely awful idea. Who will be represented on the merry-go-round? Who makes that decision? It seems just as problematic to represent only a few chosen faiths: someone will always feel left out.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:21 am
There will be one non-secterian prayer that is appropriate for a legislative body. One of the CCs did read the prayer they had selected and I thought it was pretty good.
The City Solicitor is going to draft a set of rules. Apparently, this prayer will be read out loud, whether it is by the whole Council or just the Mayor, we will need to wait and see.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:28 am
In addittion to tagging it religious right I was wondering why it said “Seven of them felt compelled to tell us that they were Catholics and prayed.” as opposed to Seven of them stated they were Catholics and prayed.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Thom:
Well, a City Council meeting does seem a very odd place to offer public Witness, doesn’t it? “I am CC so-and-so. I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and saviour.” What exactly does this have to do with city business — even if the matter at hand is the Lord’s Prayer? It all seems a bit gratuitous to me.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
“There will be one non-secterian prayer that is appropriate for a legislative body. One of the CCs did read the prayer they had selected and I thought it was pretty good.”
Good news, Mimi; I look forward to seeing it… alas, the City website seems to be a few weeks behind on the Council minutes.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Whatever happened to the good old moment of silence? That way, you can pray, plot, ogle the honey in the balcony or mug for the cameras and nobody will know the difference.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Thom B, I would remove the tag because I think you are right on that one but I do not think it follows the blogosphere’s rules of the road; that is remove a tag once you have put in it.
If someone knows what he proper course is, please let me know.
But I still want to know why they felt “compelled” to tell me why they were Catholics and prayed. We did not elect anyone because of their religion or their religious habits; did we? I think the answer is when they made those statements they were talking to the Catholics in the City, not to the rest of us.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
“But I still want to know why they felt ‘compelled’ to tell me why they were Catholics and prayed. We did not elect anyone because of their religion or their religious habits; did we? I think the answer is when they made those statements they were talking to the Catholics in the City, not to the rest of us.”
I think this is an asute assessment. Certainly the greatest offense at the change in CC policy is likely to be taken by the Catholic population of Lowell, who do indeed make up a significant portion of the electorate here. It seems like a preemptive strike against the anticipated backlash.
By extension one can surmise that this profession of faith is as much a political statement as a religious one from Councilors not wanting to alienate a sizeable block of support.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Maybe I’m being picky but I think “felt compelled” as opposed to stated injects a bias also evident in the religious right tag. A woman said blah blah blah is a simple statement. A dirty rambling incoherent woman said blah blah blah injects more than a statement of facts. I don’t feel compelled but I will confess I do say the Lord’s prayer. Still I think it is a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the law to do so in the context the city council was doing it.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Tim… my mistake… I mis-remembered what I quickly glanced at in the Sun this morning.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Yes, Thom B I do have a bias.:-)
April 25th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
If you watch some of the city councilors when this subject has come up…yeah, they “do feel compelled” as opposed to “simply state something” on matters like this. It’s right there in their tone of voice which says “I know better than you do.”
April 25th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
“There will be one non-secterian prayer that is appropriate for a legislative body.”
I have a big problem with this. To me this smacks of a state sponsored prayer.
A moment of silence would be the appropriate move.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
What about the Wiccans?
Don’t forget the Wiccans!!!
April 28th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Go spaghetti monster!
April 30th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Here is City Solicitor Christine O’Connor’s 8-page report and recommendation that she presented to the City Council regarding the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer at Council meetings:
http://www.lowellma.gov/depts/officeofthecitymanager/responses-to-motions/2007-responses/2007attachments/Prayer%20at%20City%20Council%20Meetings.pdf/view