TONIGHT: Waverly, Iowa Mayor To Decide Next Step in Battle over His Unconstitutional Prayer Practice
by Justin Scott, founder and Director of the Eastern Iowa Atheists
In case you've missed it, I've been a pain in the side of Waverly, Iowa Mayor Charles "Chuck" Infelt for about the past two months. And for good reason...
After being contacted by a few concerned Waverly citizens about his monopoly over the prayer process that opens the first regular city council meeting of each month, I decided to approach the mayor and council to request a more inclusive and constitutional prayer process--one that includes more voices including atheist ones.
During the public comment section of the April 3, 2017 regular city council meeting, I got up and addressed the mayor and the council as a whole stating "I am here to speak on behalf of many of the atheists in your community that either didn’t grow up Christians, or did grow up Christian and are no longer Christian, that are very offended by this, but cannot come out and speak publicly about it for fear of how they’re going to be perceived by doing so, so I’m here to speak on their behalf. Our group has asked to speak and deliver an invocation at some point, so I’d like the Council and the Mayor to consider that…"
Although technically he probably wasn't supposed to respond to my initial request during the public comment section of the April 3 city council meeting, I think it struck a nerve with him (probably because he's a former pastor and because no one has ever dared challenge him on this before from what I can determine) and he became very defensive about the prayer process.
He argued that his prayer process was inclusive to the theistic perspective and encompasses all of the theists in town.
From Hemant Mehta's coverage of this exchange from his Friendly Atheist blog:
"The Mayor wasn’t having any of it, responding that he offers “theistic” prayers (as opposed to specifically Christian prayers). As if that should satisfy the atheists.
Like many atheists, I don't feel these prayers are needed or impact the meetings in any way but at least the previous process allowed for more voices, more perspectives and it also showed the citizens of the city that the mayor valued diversity (again, even if that diversity is confined to the different flavors of one religion).Since then, I feel the mayor has paid us and the media nothing but lip service. Here are a few screengrabs of coverage of this story by the Waterloo Courier as things have unfolded.
Following the Courier's first article where it was stated that he would not allow an atheist invocation, he apparently reached out for an interview to clarify his stance. Did he call me? No. Did he email me? No. Did he attempt to set up a date and time for an atheist/secular invocation at a future Waverly city council meeting? Not from what I can tell.
So you're telling me that you're able to reach out to media that's not even in your town to clear the airwaves but you can't attempt to connect with the person with the concerns? Sounds politically convenient if you ask me. Oh but it gets better.
Despite not reaching out to me directly the past two months or so, he found time to show up to a TV interview that was being conducted with me and councilman.
During a recent interview with our local news station KWWL, Mayor Infelt made an interesting comment when he said that at the 1st June meeting there would be something different. He really didn't elaborate on what that meant and he is still yet to attempt to reach out to me directly to work together on this despite my offers to work with him and the council on drafting a formal process for prayers/invocations as well create the framework by which the council can better regulate the process.
If this wasn't bad enough, you would have assumed that maybe, just maybe, with this amount of heat being placed onto him, his council and his city, he might step away from the prayer process for the first May meeting. You would have assumed that perhaps he would have allowed a council member to deliver a prayer/invocation or at least a community faith leader...
Nope. He delivered yet another prayer. This mayor has no shame apparently. You can check out the video of that prayer AND the subsequent public comments section where I go off on the mayor for doing this. (This was the most heated that I've been through this whole experience. Fast forward to the 30:25 mark for when I approach the mic.)
(Funny side note quick...as I approached the camera crew for my interview on the situation, the mayor and I shook hands and I happened to have two lemons with me, one for my interview and one for the mayor. I shook his hand and said "Here's that lemon that I said I should have brought you at the last council meeting. Don't forget about the Lemon Test going forward mayor." Click HERE to learn more about the Lemon Test.)
At this point I feel the only way to communicate with the mayor is through the public comment section of city council meetings.
First off, the mayor never responded to any of my earlier emails. Secondly, I've been told that he's pretty old fashioned and "doesn't do email". And lastly, the ball is in his court. I've already made my requests, my demands and expressed as many frustrations as we atheists have about all of this.
Should he decide to let someone else deliver a prayer, invocation, opening statement or moment of silence tonight, I consider that a small victory. After dominating this portion of the meetings for the past almost two years, the mayor would be making the right decision by opening this process up to the citizens of his city, regardless of what religious beliefs they have or don't have.
The choice is all his and unfortunately for him, atheists and people that respect the Constitution are watching and awaiting his decision.
We'll be there tonight to see which way he decides to take things...
(You can livestream the meeting by following the City of Waverly YouTube channel.)
STAY TUNED!
In case you've missed it, I've been a pain in the side of Waverly, Iowa Mayor Charles "Chuck" Infelt for about the past two months. And for good reason...
During the public comment section of the April 3, 2017 regular city council meeting, I got up and addressed the mayor and the council as a whole stating "I am here to speak on behalf of many of the atheists in your community that either didn’t grow up Christians, or did grow up Christian and are no longer Christian, that are very offended by this, but cannot come out and speak publicly about it for fear of how they’re going to be perceived by doing so, so I’m here to speak on their behalf. Our group has asked to speak and deliver an invocation at some point, so I’d like the Council and the Mayor to consider that…"
Although technically he probably wasn't supposed to respond to my initial request during the public comment section of the April 3 city council meeting, I think it struck a nerve with him (probably because he's a former pastor and because no one has ever dared challenge him on this before from what I can determine) and he became very defensive about the prayer process.
He argued that his prayer process was inclusive to the theistic perspective and encompasses all of the theists in town.
From Hemant Mehta's coverage of this exchange from his Friendly Atheist blog:
"The Mayor wasn’t having any of it, responding that he offers “theistic” prayers (as opposed to specifically Christian prayers). As if that should satisfy the atheists.
"At one point, Infelt said atheists could “say your own quiet little, whatever, reflection you’d like” and, later, that atheists should “be tolerant of everyone who is” religious. Which, let’s admit, the Mayor would never ever ever say to Christians if an atheist delivered an invocation every single week.
"When Justin tried to clarify that there was no invocation representation outside of Infelt’s theistic view, the Mayor shot back:
At this point, there’s no representation beyond the theistic approach. That’s as broad a prayer as you can get.
"Justin properly responded that an invocation isn’t a prayer and that anyone who wants to deliver one should have that opportunity.
"Around the 14:15 mark, Justin gets to the crux of the issue, directly asking a council member: “If a Waverly resident wanted to deliver an atheist prayer or a secular invocation, would they be invited to?”
"Silence. Then a muttered remark that “we’ll cross that bridge later.”
"Justin said he could recommend atheist residents to deliver the invocation if the council was open to it, then sat back down.
"This is a lawsuit waiting to happen unless the Council changes the way it does the invocations.
"The Mayor cannot deliver a prayer to God every week, shutting out every non-religious voice who wants to deliver the invocation instead. Justin gave them enough warning; now it’s on the council members to take action."
I invite you to check out the exchange in its entirety.
It should be noted that the prayer process at Waverly city council meetings hasn't always been like this.
According to research done by the Waverly Newspapers, there was a time where prayers didn't take place before city council meetings. And apparently before Mayor Infelt took over, the previous process was for various religious leaders--mostly Christian I might add--to offer a prayer to open the city council meeting. Like many atheists, I don't feel these prayers are needed or impact the meetings in any way but at least the previous process allowed for more voices, more perspectives and it also showed the citizens of the city that the mayor valued diversity (again, even if that diversity is confined to the different flavors of one religion).Since then, I feel the mayor has paid us and the media nothing but lip service. Here are a few screengrabs of coverage of this story by the Waterloo Courier as things have unfolded.
So you're telling me that you're able to reach out to media that's not even in your town to clear the airwaves but you can't attempt to connect with the person with the concerns? Sounds politically convenient if you ask me. Oh but it gets better.
Despite not reaching out to me directly the past two months or so, he found time to show up to a TV interview that was being conducted with me and councilman.
During a recent interview with our local news station KWWL, Mayor Infelt made an interesting comment when he said that at the 1st June meeting there would be something different. He really didn't elaborate on what that meant and he is still yet to attempt to reach out to me directly to work together on this despite my offers to work with him and the council on drafting a formal process for prayers/invocations as well create the framework by which the council can better regulate the process.
If this wasn't bad enough, you would have assumed that maybe, just maybe, with this amount of heat being placed onto him, his council and his city, he might step away from the prayer process for the first May meeting. You would have assumed that perhaps he would have allowed a council member to deliver a prayer/invocation or at least a community faith leader...
Nope. He delivered yet another prayer. This mayor has no shame apparently. You can check out the video of that prayer AND the subsequent public comments section where I go off on the mayor for doing this. (This was the most heated that I've been through this whole experience. Fast forward to the 30:25 mark for when I approach the mic.)
(Funny side note quick...as I approached the camera crew for my interview on the situation, the mayor and I shook hands and I happened to have two lemons with me, one for my interview and one for the mayor. I shook his hand and said "Here's that lemon that I said I should have brought you at the last council meeting. Don't forget about the Lemon Test going forward mayor." Click HERE to learn more about the Lemon Test.)
 |
| A bystander snapped this shot of the mayor reacting to the lemon that I handed him. |
First off, the mayor never responded to any of my earlier emails. Secondly, I've been told that he's pretty old fashioned and "doesn't do email". And lastly, the ball is in his court. I've already made my requests, my demands and expressed as many frustrations as we atheists have about all of this.
Should he decide to let someone else deliver a prayer, invocation, opening statement or moment of silence tonight, I consider that a small victory. After dominating this portion of the meetings for the past almost two years, the mayor would be making the right decision by opening this process up to the citizens of his city, regardless of what religious beliefs they have or don't have.
The choice is all his and unfortunately for him, atheists and people that respect the Constitution are watching and awaiting his decision.
We'll be there tonight to see which way he decides to take things...
(You can livestream the meeting by following the City of Waverly YouTube channel.)
STAY TUNED!
Comments
Post a Comment