We Know It's A Big Tent, But Will There Be A Circus Inside?

As "Big Tents" go, the City of Tampa is a fairly large one.

Many diverse people call Tampa "home." People of all ages, cultural backgrounds, political parties, races, and religious beliefs, as well as a large group of non-believers who do not believe in God or an organized religion of any kind all live under this Big Tent as Citizens of Tampa.

Our City government is managed by a City Council and a Mayor. We have tried to tamp down the political rhetoric (and to save money by not having primaries) in City elections by denoting the races for these elective offices as "nonpartisan."

But for some reason, Tampans can't seem to navigate a nonpartisan path toward a clear separation of church and state when it comes to expressions of religious affiliation at our City Council meetings.

I know it has been way too long since civics was taught in our public schools, but certainly we've all heard of the concept of the separation of Church and State? Remember how our country was founded by people who wanted to escape a situtation in which their governments in Europe were telling them what religion they had to follow or what prayers they had to say before meetings? (Sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself.)

It's long been said that if you want to create acrimony and divisiveness during a dinner conversation, simply bring up either politics or religion. There are just too many vervent views and passionate opinions attached to those subjects, and most people cannot sit idlely by when someone brings up a topic that offends their heart-felt personal opinions on religion or politics.

Nonetheless, in our non-partisan Tampa City Council meetings we begin the meetings with "Let Us Pray" and allow the Clergyperson du jour to say a group prayer for everyone in the tent.

Under this rotating visiting "preacher" policy, "Let Us Pray" really means, follow along with me while I pray out loud the way that I like to pray in my particular religion.

So, unless it's your particular religion's day to have your type of prayer delivered at City Council, you aren't really too happy, are you? Are the Jews in the tent offended when the prayer ends with "...in Jesus' name we pray..?" Or is the Muslim citizen or the Methodist quadriplegic offended by being asked to stand for the prayer? And if you are an atheist, this whole process makes you want to vehemently object to it at every meeting for the 3 minutes you are allowed for your public comment on City issues, until it stops. (Excuse me, but can someone at the dinner table please pass the salt for these wounds?)

Some say this topic is "the third rail" and cannot be touched by any politician for fear of committing political suicide. After all, members of City Council are politicians. They need to be liked. They need votes. They don't want to be labeled as anti-religious.

Our City Council members have been struggling with this prayer at the beginning of meetings issue for many years. The concept of having each Council Member take turns to invite someone to give the Invocation has led us to the current failed policy. And for those who need a history lesson on this issue, you may recall that on July 29, 2004, Michael R. Harvey of the Atheists of Florida was invited by a City Council member to give equal time to the atheists--essentially, to give a non-invocation for the non-believers. Well, that invitation so offended three Council Members (Kevin White, Mary Alvarez, and Rose Ferlita) that they walked out of the meeting and all City Council business had to be cancelled for the day. How can this not be deemed a huge policy failure?

The 2004 walk-out was clearly the "Jump the Shark" (Google it later) moment for our City Council. They should have recognized that this rotating Invocation policy is generally offensive to nearly everyone, on some level, at every meeting, because we are mixing someone's brand of religion with fixing potholes.

Signs that our Big Tent is turning into a Three Ring Circus include the recent dust-ups over the Pledge of Allegiance and the atheists' refusal to say "Under God" as part of the Pledge. They prefer the pre-1954 version of the Pledge that did not contain the words "Under God." In yet another Jump the Shark moment, they were chastized by an Assistant City Attorney and a Council Member for saying the Pledge without the Under God words. (Isn't it ironic that the words that follow "Under God" are "...indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?")

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is about last week's episode that is bringing us together or has in any way promoted liberty? Just asking....

So, what's the solution? Try this.

I make a Motion that the City Council no longer have an audible Invocation at the beginning of the City Council Meetings.

If you are on the City Council and you personally feel that you need to begin your day with a prayer in order to be able to bring your "A- Game" to the council chambers, please do whatever you feel is appropriate for you, personally, before you come to the public meeting. Phone your particular clergyperson for inspiration or guidance as necessary. Read from the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran, or from any other inspirational text; or perhaps read a whitepaper on the issues you are going to work on in the meeting. In other words, do whatever works for you personally, to help you best prepare for and perform the job you were elected to do.

The same advice goes for those citizens attending the meetings, both believers and non-believers. Let's commit to make these meetings solely about City Issues.

If (and only if) the City Council unwilling to end the failed policy of having each meeting begin with an Invocation, then I make an Alternative Motion: please stop the clergyperson du jour policy and the audible prayer and adopt a Three Minute Moment of Silence instead. (Three minutes is a long time in this context. Most moments of silence in public gatherings are less than one minute.)

Three minutes is the amount of time that is typically allowed to each citizen to address the Council on City issues and, in my view, it would be more than a sufficient amount of time for each person in the tent, in their own way, to either pray silently, or to meditate, or to rehearse silently their speech to the council, or to think about and commit to respecting the rights of others in the Tent, and to make a personal pledge that we are at this particular meeting to try to make our City a better place in which to live.

After all, we only have so much time allotted to solve the problems facing us in our City, and after this 3 minutes of silent reflection ends, we've got a lot of work to do. Why take up time at every meeting arguing about the prayer?

Think of it this way--a 3-minute quiet period of reflection, a cooling off period, followed by everyone in the Big Tent bringing their "A-Game" only on City Business. (Do I hear an Amen?)

It's time for a new policy. It's time to recognize that our Big Tent is leaking all over us in national media stories and is starting to look way too much like a Big Top. Circuses only stay in town a few days. We have to live here together year-round.

Council Members, please remember that the summer rains are soon coming and we have still not solved our street flooding issues. We have an unprecedented budget crisis and necessary City services are being curtailed.

In other words, we've got more important City Business to work on rather than arguing at each meeting about the Invocation. If members of the City Council still think the rotating Invocation policy is a good one, please re-read again the true meaning of what "Let Us Pray" means above...)

Dare I say, we have more problems than we can say Grace over?

It only takes 4 votes. Do I hear a second to my Motions?