Mayor Forces Man To Leave Public Meeting Because He Won’t Stand During Prayer

[Hari Seldon]

Actually, this town now is reviewing if they have to do just that, and may end up having to open with words from an atheist.

I can't find it now, but one of the stories on this says something about them having to look into allowing other religions to open their meetings, and they may have to also allow atheists to do so.

God forbid. I know , I know I'm going to hell. :lol:

 

[roguenuke]

God forbid. I know , I know I'm going to hell. :lol:

I'm all for it, but definitely think it would simply be easier to not open with anything or maybe something secularly inspiring, maybe a quote or something.

 

[Karl]

My husband and I both find this to be horrendously offensive.

What right does he have to declare 'it's not fair'.

My husband - while in the service and now that he is retired out - doesn't care. He'd rather someone NOT be pressured to STAND for anything if they don't want to. His position in the military shouldn't be used to bully or coerce other people to do things. Especially not over something so menial.

The 'patriotism card' is often played by fascists and/or authoritarians in an attempt to intimidate or coerce, which is what we see in play by the mayor.

More disturbing is that the police chief willingly played the role of 'enforcer'.

Had I been the man sitting I believe I would have held my ground... or my seat, as it was

 

[Karl]

Yes, we have freedom in this country, and once the mayor made his feelings known, he should have let the rest of the attendees observe what an America-hater looks and acts like, especially when our Flag is involved.

As far as the prayer is concerned though, I have to wonder if the man causing the problem would dare try something like that in the ME - not giving homage to Allah when expected to do so, for instance. I suspect his polite refusal to comply would be viewed quite differently, and I doubt simply being ejected from a meeting would suffice to smooth over the implied insult! Of course we're "civilized," so we should overlook things like that - political correctness is so important! It will be iInteresting to see if a lawsuit is filed..... [...]

I find the condoning aspect of your theocracy argument disturbing, among other aspects of your post.

 

[PirateMk1]

Noted - still frivolous. Hopefully the man has better things to do with his life than clog up the court system with another vanity suit.

As an American I disagree profoundly, if this situation becomes a lawsuit, its not the least bit frivolous IMHO.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Poppycock !

The man, very obviously, intentionally attended the meeting with the narcissistic goal of focusing attention toward himself; exemplifying his own "look at me, I am here to show you how special I believe I am" attitude. The previous statement being evidenced by the man sitting, very prominently where his actions could not be overlooked, in the front row and knowingly filming the situation. The chair of the meeting overlooked the man's disrespectful intolerance toward others during the invocation and then during the next stage of the opening turned that disrespectful intolerance back to individual exhibiting same by asking him to leave until the opening ceremony was completed. He was then cordially escorted from the room.

By what thought processes does one believe he should receive respectful tolerance for his ideals when he does not exhibit same toward others. ( blatant narcissism ? ). His own rude, crude, and socially unacceptable behavior created the situation; and was done so with malice and forethought. He should be embarrassed and ashamed but he probably feels a victory that, in his skewed mindset, allows him to feel offended and put upon. The gentleman' full intent was to cause a problem, while aware of the meeting ritual, refused to extend courtesy to others and initiating this circumstance proved himself to be a self aggrandizing, self indulgent, discourteous, and intolerable ass; that was probably not his goal.

A courteous man, a man not intent upon bringing attention upon himself, would/should have exhibited the same respect he wanted by waiting until the opening was concluded before entering the forum.

Because one may have the 'right' to do something does not always make it the correct action in every circumstance.

Where has simple common courtesy gone ? Does anyone know how to act with a modicum of propriety anymore ? Are people too busy looking for reasons to be offended ?

In this specific event the meeting chair acted appropriately; to have done differently would have been disrespectful toward balance of the forum.

my 2 cents

Thom Paine

So if I am understanding you right. You feel that a lack of interest in the religious views of the other people present is malicious?

 

[Thom Paine]

So if I am understanding you right. You feel that a lack of interest in the religious views of the other people present is malicious?

No, you are not understanding me correctly.

Good eve T

Thom Paine

 

[Slartibartfast]

No, you are not understanding me correctly.

Good eve T

Thom Paine

Then I am curious where you see malice. I see no indication that this person wished to harm anyone

 

[sangha]

No, you are not understanding me correctly.

Good eve T

Thom Paine

Then you did a poor job of expressing yourself. See where you spoke of this man's intent. Your words paint him as malicious.

 

[Thom Paine]

Then I am curious where you see malice. I see no indication that this person wished to harm anyone

Thanks for the pleasant response.

Did you read my post #51 ( I think )

I viewed the vid 3 times.. Ignore the vid headline about Prayer.. and watch it closely.. the situation was not about a prayer and did not occur at the prayer.

I thought I was done with this thread but since you've always been pleasant to me, if you want me to further elaborate, I'll give it a go.

eace

Thom Paine

 

[Thom Paine]

Then you did a poor job of expressing yourself. See where you spoke of this man's intent. Your words paint him as malicious.

My words were specifically chosen , intentionally, and with forethought appropriately utilized.

 

[sangha]

My words were specifically chosen , intentionally, and with forethought appropriately utilized.

And they portray the man as having malicious intent.

 

[Thom Paine]

And they portray the man as having malicious intent.

He did ..... Sell the indignation somewhere else.....

 

[Slartibartfast]

Thanks for the pleasant response.

Did you read my post #51 ( I think )

I viewed the vid 3 times.. Ignore the vid headline about Prayer.. and watch it closely.. the situation was not about a prayer and did not occur at the prayer.

I thought I was done with this thread but since you've always been pleasant to me, if you want me to further elaborate, I'll give it a go.

eace

Thom Paine

From what I can tell the official wanted him to stand up, which I don't believe he is obligated to do. Nobody became belligerent or even raised their voice. At no point is anyone or any property harmed. At no point is there an attempt to cause harm. I see no intent to cause a disruption or any actions causing a disruption as he was not making noise and from I can tell from the lack of camera movement, still.

I simply cannot find the malice.

The use of the camera was interesting and suggests there is s history here that we are not privy to, but I don't see malice in that given the evidence shown

Thank you I like civil discussion as well.

 

[Thom Paine]

From what I can tell the official wanted him to stand up, which I don't believe he is obligated to do. Nobody became belligerent or even raised their voice. At no point is anyone or any property harmed. At no point is there an attempt to cause harm. I see no intent to cause a disruption or any actions causing a disruption as he was not making noise and from I can tell from the lack of camera movement, still.

I simply cannot find the malice.

The use of the camera was interesting and suggests there is s history here that we are not privy to, but I don't see malice in that given the evidence shown

Thank you I like civil discussion as well.

Hang with me T,

from dictionary .com : desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness:

I know this is some type of Karmic retribution for the times I've been hung up on semantics ... I really dislike this ....:lol:

The gentleman exhibited no acceptance, respect, or 'tolerance' toward others that he demanded for himself.

The malice is shown by his intent to disrupt (harm) the meeting with a personally combative attitude exhibited by his location, his verbal responses, and the filming of his attempt to cause a hostile response.

His refusal to stand, in respect of others, for the opening of the meeting may have been excused had he not stated "I don't have to" .. He was initiating a confrontation; He wanted an attempt to force him to stand or require him to leave. He wanted a verbal and possibly physical altercation; he might have responded many different ways if he did not want a confrontation.

Maybe I can stop here.

Personally, I think the narcissistic ass is looking for a way to extort the city via law suit.

Hope that helps T

eace

Thom Paine

Edit: obviously, (maybe).. I don't view this as a legitimate protest but an extortion attempt.

 

[sangha]

He did ..... Sell the indignation somewhere else.....

Indignation?

You see emotions where they don't exist.

 

[Your Star]

I could be from Mars and it wouldn't change the fact that a lawsuit related to this would be frivolous. Perhaps, being American, and easily offended, you've lost an understanding of the concept.

The first amendment is something worth fighting for. If he doesn't sue, then he is doing our country a disservice.

 

[CanadaJohn]

The first amendment is something worth fighting for. If he doesn't sue, then he is doing our country a disservice.

Not every matter needs to be taken to a court. Not every slight requires a financial reward. There are ways to express your rights without clogging up the courts with this nonsense. And it's a uniquely American phenomenon where every sideways glance, every bumped shoulder, every cross word becomes a lawsuit with a potential jackpot at the end of the rainbow. Perhaps it's a glut of lawyer leeches that has caused the problem, but it's a serious problem.

As stated previously, if the man has an experience with this previously, which his filming of the beginning of the meeting seems to indicate, he simply has to register to speak before the meeting as a delegation, expressing his concern with the way the meetings are starting and reminding the Mayor and Councillors that he is not required to stand for either the opening prayer or the pledge of allegiance. Who knows, perhaps the matter would be easily solved in that manner and an apology may be forthcoming. But rushing out to the courts only makes numerous lawyers rich, potentially financially harms the citizens of the area, and real matters requiring judicial review get delayed.

As I stated originally, I think the Mayor was wrong to make an issue of the one person not standing - he created the only disruption. But one mistake doesn't require a court case as a result.

 

[1750Texan]

That really puts to shame having a religious invocation then removing someone from a public forum...

 

[1750Texan]

Not every matter needs to be taken to a court. Not every slight requires a financial reward. There are ways to express your rights without clogging up the courts with this nonsense. And it's a uniquely American phenomenon where every sideways glance, every bumped shoulder, every cross word becomes a lawsuit with a potential jackpot at the end of the rainbow. Perhaps it's a glut of lawyer leeches that has caused the problem, but it's a serious problem.

As stated previously, if the man has an experience with this previously, which his filming of the beginning of the meeting seems to indicate, he simply has to register to speak before the meeting as a delegation, expressing his concern with the way the meetings are starting and reminding the Mayor and Councillors that he is not required to stand for either the opening prayer or the pledge of allegiance. Who knows, perhaps the matter would be easily solved in that manner and an apology may be forthcoming. But rushing out to the courts only makes numerous lawyers rich, potentially financially harms the citizens of the area, and real matters requiring judicial review get delayed.

As I stated originally, I think the Mayor was wrong to make an issue of the one person not standing - he created the only disruption. But one mistake doesn't require a court case as a result.

Rushing to court exposes the problem and lets all involved know concretely that their actions are not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

Saying i'm sorry is for children.

 

[roguenuke]

From what I can tell the official wanted him to stand up, which I don't believe he is obligated to do. Nobody became belligerent or even raised their voice. At no point is anyone or any property harmed. At no point is there an attempt to cause harm. I see no intent to cause a disruption or any actions causing a disruption as he was not making noise and from I can tell from the lack of camera movement, still.

I simply cannot find the malice.

The use of the camera was interesting and suggests there is s history here that we are not privy to, but I don't see malice in that given the evidence shown

Thank you I like civil discussion as well.

There is definitely history there. The mayor says in another article that he noticed the man come in and stay only for the prayer and pledge, then leave. But I don't know if he had been made to stand before or if the mayor just got a bug up his butt that day and insisted he stand for them. Either way, it isn't malicious to stand up or remain sitting for your rights, even if you know that your actions could cause someone to get upset about it or violate your rights.

The only thing I insist on is that it is done the right way.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Saying i'm sorry is for children.

Yes, nothing says "adult" like a temper tantrum.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Hang with me T,

from dictionary .com : desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness:

I know this is some type of Karmic retribution for the times I've been hung up on semantics ... I really dislike this ....:lol:

The gentleman exhibited no acceptance, respect, or 'tolerance' toward others that he demanded for himself.

The malice is shown by his intent to disrupt (harm) the meeting with a personally combative attitude exhibited by his location, his verbal responses, and the filming of his attempt to cause a hostile response.

His refusal to stand, in respect of others, for the opening of the meeting may have been excused had he not stated "I don't have to" .. He was initiating a confrontation; He wanted an attempt to force him to stand or require him to leave. He wanted a verbal and possibly physical altercation; he might have responded many different ways if he did not want a confrontation.

Maybe I can stop here.

Personally, I think the narcissistic ass is looking for a way to extort the city via law suit.

Hope that helps T

eace

Thom Paine

Edit: obviously, (maybe).. I don't view this as a legitimate protest but an extortion attempt.

Those actions aren't inherently disruptive or harmful though. Nothing is forced on others. sitting is just sitting and no action has been taken against others, thus it fails the test of harm which is a qualifier for malice.

 

[Thom Paine]

Those actions aren't inherently disruptive or harmful though. Nothing is forced on others. sitting is just sitting and no action has been taken against others, thus it fails the test of harm which is a qualifier for malice.

Okay T,

I guess we perceive things differently... It makes the world go around.

Have a terrific day

Thom Paine

 

[Bob N]

Yes, we have freedom in this country, and once the mayor made his feelings known, he should have let the rest of the attendees observe what an America-hater looks and acts like, especially when our Flag is involved.

polgara: I think that you would be amazed to learn that the "pledge of allegiance" was written by a socialist minister named Francis Bellamy and it was written for more than just one purpose. The Pledge of Allegiance

As far as the prayer is concerned though, I have to wonder if the man causing the problem would dare try something like that in the ME - not giving homage to Allah when expected to do so, for instance. I suspect his polite refusal to comply would be viewed quite differently, and I doubt simply being ejected from a meeting would suffice to smooth over the implied insult! Of course we're "civilized," so we should overlook things like that - political correctness is so important! It will be iInteresting to see if a lawsuit is filed.....

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

I believe that it is a beautiful thing that freedom is seen as just what it is:freedom. It's nice to know that we here in the USA (A Republic) have the right to participate in something or not