Alameda may lose its status as the sole East Bay community to open City Council meetings with an invocation.
Following 90 minutes of input from city residents, the Alameda Social Service Human Relations Board on Aug. 23 unanimously approved a recommendation to the City Council that it do away with the invocation in its present form, voting 4-1 to suggest replacing it with a moment of silence.
Rabbi Allen Bennett of Alameda’s Temple Israel was one of about 25 people to address the board. A majority urged that the invocation be dropped or modified.
“I don’t consider this a victory; it was just the right thing to do,” Bennett said after the vote. “In the long term, this was a healthier choice than the other option. I feel bad the folks who didn’t get their way will be so unhappy, and obstreperous — as I’m sure they will be.”
Alameda Mayor Ralph Appezzato had brought up the issue about three months ago. He said the decision on whether to scrap the longtime tradition would come before the City Council during one of its next four meetings, perhaps as early as Tuesday.
About 50 people attended the social service boardmeeting, a much larger crowd than usual.
While several of the prayer’s proponents argued in favor of a nondenominational invocation, many took a harder line. One woman blamed the absence of God in civil government for tragedies such as Colorado’s Columbine High School shooting, and another man claimed removal of the invocation would indicate a move toward American communism.
“You take the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto and you see how far we’ve slid down that razor blade, folks. This is another step in that direction,” said Chuck Obenchain. “Whatever you do in this chamber, you will have to answer to God. No matter what religion you are, or if you believe [in God] or not, you will have to answer to God. As the last town in the Bay Area [with an invocation], it is very important to preserve this right of prayer.”
Shirley Cummins claimed that the 30-second invocations took up less than 24 minutes a year.
“How stingy we are with God and his son, Jesus Christ,” she said.
Bennett and others argued that invoking Jesus or, for that matter, preaching any religion had no place in civil government.
“Having prayers in a government setting is, by its very nature, as clear a violation of the principle of separation of church and state as anything could be,” the rabbi told the board. “Local government is elected to solve the problems of the city, not exacerbate them by offering prayers of a theological basis that some find inappropriate in this setting.”
Bennett wasn’t the only member of the religious community to advocate the removal of the invocation.
“As the Episcopal minister in town, I lead three services a week. Many prayers end with ‘in the name of Jesus Christ.’ That is appropriate in an Episcopal church. I am not so sure it is appropriate at a government meeting,” said Sue Thompson of Christ Episcopal Church. “Personally, I would prefer the City Council to come to work and get to work. If prayer helps me get ready for a meeting, I should pray as I’m getting ready for the meeting. It is inappropriate for me to impose my faith-based incantations on people who are not of my faith.”
Alameda resident Lauren Helfand added that taking pride in being the last city in the East Bay to open City Council meetings with an invocation was like “being proud of still allowing smoking in public buildings.”
At the end of the meeting, each of the five present board members explained his or her feelings about the invocation before settling on a recommendation. Jim Franz, president of the social service board, summed up his viewpoint: “I sure would hate to be a Muslim or Jew going up against someone who’s Christian on an issue before City Council, and having the meeting start out with an invocation in the name of Jesus Christ.”
Ken P. Werner, the board’s vice president, was the most staunchly opposed to the invocation, lobbying for an outright ban and no moment of silence. Invocations in the name of Jesus Christ, he said, remind him of being labeled a “Jesus Christ-killer” by anti-Semitic bullies in his youth, who often beat him or stole his lunch.
“I went almost a year without getting to eat my own lunch because I was ‘that Jew,'” he said. “You know, I don’t agree with the beliefs of some in this room. But I defend to my death your right to have the beliefs you like — but not in this room. This is a civil room, and I mean that, hopefully, in all contexts.”
Referring to Obenchain’s statement that the board members would answer to God, Werner continued, “I probably will. But it will be my God, the God I believe in or choose not to believe in. I can see nothing good about continuing a tradition that is based in many cases on hate and intolerance and the presumption that people should have to listen to something they choose not to believe, in a civil situation.”
City officials contacted by the Bulletin seemed receptive to change. City Council member Beverly Johnson said she is in favor of an opening ceremony at the meetings, but “would like to see something non-religious.” She added that the invocation at the last meeting, led by the Rev. David Borglum of the nondenominational House of Truth was a one-minute moment of silence.
“I was really glad the minister did it as a moment of silence,” said Johnson. “It shows we can do it that way too.”
Said Appezzato: “We politicians don’t get invited to give invocations at churches around the town. The Catholic ministers and rabbis don’t give the invocations anymore. Maybe that’s their way of sending the city the message that this is inappropriate.”
The mayor said he would wait until the public has had a full opportunity to respond before he announces his own position.
“It’s a challenge for me, because there are some religious people who represent their flocks and want to continue with the invocation. But I also represent that group of 75,000 people who may be offended by that.
“I presume there is an alternative to a purely Christian prayer.”