Sioux City Journal

No good reason to change

Posted: Sunday, January 20, 2008

We aren't surprised one of Aaron Rochester's first proposals on the City Council involves a matter of faith - opening each council meeting with a spoken prayer delivered by a member. A devoutly Christian man, Rochester's faith clearly is an important part of his personal life.

But that's where it should stay. He was elected to the council, not the pulpit.

City Hall is the people's house. The voices, concerns and needs of agnostics, atheists, Jews, Muslims and others should be as important and welcome there as those of Christians. No one should feel otherwise.

Rochester argues the vast majority of Sioux City residents believe in God and would not object to council members praying out loud. In both respects, we agree with him. The results of an unscientific Journal online poll last week showed 61 percent of 626 respondents favored having the council open its meetings with a spoken prayer. That the views and feelings of the minority on this issue among the citizens and taxpayers of Sioux City are not subjugated by those of the majority, however, is precisely the reason the council would be well-advised to avoid taking this step.

Would anyone protest? Would anyone feel intimidated or in some way disenfranchised? Would the proposal, if challenged, even pass court muster? That's unclear, but such potential dilemmas easily can be avoided by exercising proper restraint.

The idea of having clergy representing each of the community's major, recognized religions offer the prayer on a rotating basis, something the Des Moines City Council does, has some merit because it would diminish or eliminate the potential for protest and litigation, but in the end we simply find it unnecessary for the council to pursue this idea at all.

Council meetings today open with a moment of silent prayer or reflection or thought, whatever you want to call it. Every man and woman in the room can do with that time what they deem appropriate or necessary for them personally. They can seek strength and guidance from their God, they can simply clear their mind.

That provides both freedom from and freedom of religion. We see no good reason to change.

Story Comments

Doug Blatchford wrote on Jan 29, 2008 9:05 PM:

" Respectfully, the journal's editorial board is wrong. The constitution was not designed to stop any kind of expression of faith by any council members. Plus, who wouldn't want to have someone greater then themselves at work in our lives and city. Prayer is the answer. Look around and you'll see the need. Mr Aaron Rochester, you'll get my vote again. "

dearest Kent, wrote on Jan 27, 2008 7:49 PM:

" How the heck is silent prayer NOT a prayer at all? Who would think that? Not anyone who has read the word of God, that's for sure. Get on it. "

Dick wrote on Jan 26, 2008 1:26 AM:

" Ryan, have you ever been to Afghanistan? "

Idea wrote on Jan 25, 2008 11:51 PM:

" How about alternating silent prayer with out loud prayer every other meeting. Then every one could be happy. This is such a ridiculous thing to be debating when there are so many other more serious issues to consider. Whether you pray out loud or silently certainly is not a matter of life and death. Everyone involved needs to keep things in perspective. "

to vultron wrote on Jan 24, 2008 8:47 AM:

" If you protest out loud while someone is trying to pray - you will prove to the world that you are an intolerant, disrespectful, and biggotted fool. And your current alias will have to be changed as your REAL name will make the paper. I hope you do it, but then, it's counter-intuitive for one who blogs with an alias to make a public display of hate isn't it? "