Group seeks to halt prayers at West Virginia council meeting

-

For the record, I'm an atheist. I put up with religious stuff just like I put up with loud music, those annoying shopping cart wheels that lock before you hit the parking lot, and the misuse of they're/their/there.

Why do I put up with it? Because shit happens. We don't live in a perfect world nor are we the center of the universe.

This brings me to this Asshat of the Week, Daryl Cobranchi.


Group seeks to halt prayers at West Virginia council meeting

CHARLESTON, W. Va. (AP) - A West Virginia city that opens its council meetings with The Lord's Prayer is being sued by the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

The Madison, Wisconsin-based group and two of its members filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in Charleston against the city of Parkersburg. 

The lawsuit claims the City Council violated the First Amendment by endorsing a particular religion when it opens its meetings with the New Testament prayer. 

The lawsuit says residents stand at each meeting to recite the prayer with council members. Plaintiffs Daryl Cobranchi and Eric Engle of Parkersburg attended some meetings, remained seated and did not participate in the prayer's recital. 

The lawsuit seeks to stop the prayers. 

An attorney for the city of Parkersburg didn't immediately return a telephone message Tuesday.

While I agree in general that a generic benediction is preferable to the Lord's Prayer, and I'd rather not see any benediction at all, I don't agree with FFRF's tactic. This org doesn't give a shit about Parkersburg. To them, the city is one more pawn to be used and abused for their own gain.

I won't go into a rant regarding freedom of religion. Been there, done that. I won't even address the separation of church and state arguments (there are forums for that). Instead, I opt to focus on Cobranchi and Engle, FFRF's tools in Parkersburg.

One look at Cobranchi's Twitter feed reveals that this man has nothing better to do in life than be the poster child for all social justice fruit flies.


I know plenty of republicans. I am a Republican that leans towards the left. Though we vehemently disagree on political issues within our party, most are actually very nice people.  I seriously can't look at some 90 year old grandmother and equate her to Satan's spawn just because she voted against the legalization of pot. I can't fault an unemployed steel worker's vote for Trump when that vote was cast out of a desperation to see industry return to his impoverished town. My own parents are diehard republicans but I can attest that they are not in any way evil.

Look, if you want a happy society, you need to give people the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise you make assumptions that aren't true.


Here Cobranchi is speaking out in support for Jocelyn, and about the way family and potential employers have alienated her as a transwoman. They judge her based on her birth certificate, and refuse to offer any benefit of doubt regarding her ability to perform a job.  If we apply Cobranchi's line of thinking, the argument - "Transwoman = sicko until proven otherwise. They don't get the benefit of the doubt any longer!" - is valid.

It's technically the standard "all X are Y" argument employed by people too lazy to differentiate between "all" and "some". Not all republicans are evil. Some republicans are also asshats. Many republican politicians are trying to better the lives of their constituents, but too many republicans are in Trump's corner thus some of their constituents greatly suffer.


Ugh! Grudge much? 

The sooner Cobranchi learns that there are no absolutes when it comes to human beings, the better he'll be at making changes within our society - changes which serve to benefit the whole of that society rather than benefiting a single group or cause at the expense of things outside that group or cause.


Cobranchi's co-plaintiff, Eric Engle, isn't as intensively triggered.  He offered a polite public statement via his Facebook account.





Engle chooses not to engage with hateful comments, insults, impugning of his character, deceit, or fabrications of any kind. When we put our stuff out to the public, we open ourselves up to scrutiny. Some of it may be polite; some of it may be scathing.

All that aside, I certainly do not agree with Engle's lawsuit tactic nor with the snark he posted on Facebook.

The suit is now in the hands of the courts. Nothing that happens to me or my loved ones or our property, etc, will change that. I implore those who espouse Christianity to behave as the Bible states that Christ behaved and “do unto others.” Thank you."

Throwing the bible in a Christian's face after slapping both their cheeks casts Engle in a bad light. The verse he paraphrased is from the Gospel of Matthew, specifically chapter seven. It has a basis in Mosaic law. This "Golden Rule" is fairly universal.

"Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes."
— Sirach 31:15

One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires. 
— Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8)

>श्रूयतां धर्मसर्वस्वं श्रुत्वा चाप्यवधार्यताम्।
आत्मनः प्रतिकूलानि परेषां न समाचरेत्।।
If the entire Dharma can be said in a few words, then it is—that which is unfavorable to us, do not do that to others.
Padmapuraana, shrushti 19/357–358


Basically, if you don't want people fucking with your life, don't fuck with theirs. Instead, approach them as a friend and neighbor to voice your concerns. Don't spark a shitstorm until you've used up all options. Should you spark a shitstorm, expect people to shit on you in return.  Begging them to refrain from lashing out at you is pretty wimpy - like hitting a big kid on the school bus and then pointing to your glasses to justify non-retaliation.

It's sad, really. Engle and I align with so many of the topics on his Facebook page. He comes across as an intelligent man with a keen sense of humor. His passion for the environment feels genuine. Unfortunately,  having the FFRF file the lawsuit on his behalf casts him in a bad light. Like Cobranchi, the public will group him into that "intolerant snowflake" category.

I really would like to know if  he made any attempt to use proper channels to have the prayer removed?  Did he reach out to those running the meeting to express their discomfort, or question whether or not the prayer crossed the line? It's not a difficult process. In fact, it's the civil thing to do.

I've done exactly that before. Our council opened each meeting with a benediction. If I'm recalling it correctly, it went a bit like this: "May we have open minds and hearts, may our quarrels lead to harmony for our people, may our decisions be sound and fair. We ask this in Jesus' name." I objected to the end clause.

I met with the city council. This was during a time period where televangelists were the norm and fundamentalism Christianity was invading every nook and cranny.  I didn't go in as a belligerent atheist. I was a very polite sixteen year-old in the late 80s. I chose to explain that the closing alienated those of non-Christian faiths. The closing didn't pass the Lemon Test.

The leadership mulled over it a week or so. They omitted the closing at the next meeting, choosing to keep the benediction neutral out of respect for our non-Christian citizens.  There weren't any hard feelings. Nobody felt that I was picking on Christ or his believers.  I didn't need to bring in a shit organization like the FFRF. I got the job done simply by doing my research and speaking my heart.


Mainstream atheists are getting tired of all the bullshit done by the 10% with an axe to grind. Learn to be civil, people. Learn to express yourself intelligently should you choose to take a stand. Better yet, step outside the United States and partake in cultures where religion is forced upon you by the government. Trust me, it sucks.

Separation of Church and State does not give atheists a license to shit on the Christians; it keeps the government from imposing any religion on us; we are allowed to have our beliefs or to not have any beliefs at all.  A benediction is not a magical incantation that will turn us into sheep.  A nativity, a menorah, the Star of David, a Wiccan pentacle etc displayed on a courthouse lawn are in no way indicative of the government forcing us to practice these beliefs, nor are they promoting these religions. Seriously, if you think they are, you're narcissistic as fuck.

Social justice isn't just for one group. It takes an egalitarian mindset to make change possible.