The idea behind being “all-inclusive” would seem to be self-explanatory. There is room for everybody, for all to be invited without prejudice.
And as the Clark County council ponders revisions to the invocations that take place before meetings, they must seek to meet that mandate. Councilors should adopt a revised proposal that allows for all groups and all beliefs to be treated equally.
After initially considering a plan that would allow non-religious groups to call for a moment of silence instead of delivering an invocation, the latest proposal reads, “a group having no religious affiliation may request the opportunity to offer a brief statement to reflect on the gravity of the moment, seek peace for the nation … or generally appeal to universal values of our country.” That change is significant, leaving room for atheists or agnostics to lend a voice to the proceedings.
In the process, the issue requires both the faithful and the faithless to expand their thinking. Those who might not believe in a religious power can invoke great thinkers of the ages for guidance; they can provide a call for common sense and compassion to play a hand in council meetings; they can ask for wisdom to play a role as council members make decisions that impact the lives of constituents. In short, they can lend dignity to the process, just as followers of Christianity or Islam or the Baha’i Faith — or any other faith — are allowed to do.
This can be a touchy subject, as is any issue involving government and religion. Four years ago, the county council — led at the time by Tom Mielke and David Madore — voted to have a prayer at the beginning of council meetings. Since then, a variety of representatives have offered words prior to those meetings, with prohibitions on proselytizing and disparagement of other faiths. The invocations are not to exceed two minutes, and the guidelines seek “invocation opportunities for the widest feasible variety of faiths.”
While Mielke noted at the time that invocations would repeat traditions found in Congress and the state Legislature, the issue raised important questions about inclusion and the separation of church and state. In 2015, the council exacerbated the divisiveness by voting to add the phrase “In God We Trust” on the wall of the meeting room — a move that generated much controversy. As The Columbian wrote editorially at the time, Mielke and Madore “mastered the art of developing and pushing wedge issues that create ill will in exchange for miniscule political gain.”
Mielke and Madore are no longer in county politics, but the current councilors are left to deal with the divisiveness they left behind. In considering a change to the invocation policy, councilor John Blom said, “We wanted to make sure that it was as inclusive to the beliefs held by citizens as possible.”
That is a worthy goal, and it is one that clings to the founding ethos of the United States. But it also can be a complicated one; our community has a rich variety of faiths and beliefs, and accommodating all of them can be a daunting task.
Such accommodations, however, must be the objective of the council. Allowing traditional religious representatives to deliver an invocation should serve as a call to allow the non-religious also to express a desire for councilors to act with wisdom in performing the business of the people.
In revising the guidelines for invocations, county councilors must allow all invited speakers to do just that — speak.
