Letter: Council’s hypocrisy is on full display

By Greta Kinen

The Daily Advance

13 Comments | Leave a Comment

I see our city council has started up prayer again. Apparently, the preachers on the board think it’s more important to shout out to their invisible friend than to address real problems in Elizabeth City. I just do not understand why their god is incapable of hearing silent prayer.

Dear Reader,
This content is only available to subscribers of The Daily Advance print and/or e-edition. If you are a current subscriber and have established a user name and password, you can log in. If you have not established your user name and passwords, click here to set up your information.
To become a subscriber, click here.


Ms. Kinen,

It is always amazing to me that some liberals hypocriticly demand respect and a hearing for their views while demonstrating no such tolerance or respect for others. You chose to shout your views from the rooftop so to speak by submitting this letter. Why aren't you satisfied with keeping your views silent? You must have an amazing crystal ball into other's characters to know so definitively what, "almost every Christian in this Country" says believes, espouses and that what and whom particular council members care about. Judgmental, much? For this reason alone you lack credibility with me in discussing what the bible proclaims and how its proclamations should translate in to action. As to why Christians don't pray silently or at least not exclusively. It is pretty simple. Our Constitution does not require it and it is up to each individual to decide how God leads them. The first amendment specifically and separately protects the right of FREE EXPRESSION of religion. This has NOTHING to do with your right to express non-religious speech or non-religious views. You can choose to have no religion or any kind of religion. But our Constitution separately and distinctly protected the right of religions expression in this Country. So, it is not a question of whether God hears a silent or public prayer. Nor is it a question of what offends you. It is a question of exercising the sacred and specifically defined rights our Constitution and governing document provides for. Period. You published this letter under your free speech rights of the 1st amendment. People pray out loud, in public as an exercise of their free expression of religion rights under the same same ammendment. Almost every word you authored in this letter offended me. I will still defend your right to express your view. I will also vehemently fight every effort you and others make to deny the very, very specifically religious in character, separate right of expression in the same document.

The City Council did their homework

Legal experts were consulted and the religious rights and protocol of the council with regard to state and federal law(including both constitutions) were documented and studied. The council then legally voted to adopt protocol that fell well within the bounds of the law. Furthermore the law clearly allows for a designated chaplain or ordained minister to lead the council in a public prayer at any meeting (same as federal government and military). Not only does the city enlist the services of volunteer chaplains but there are also ordained ministers on the council itself. Therefore the actions of the council are perfectly legal and constitutional. This should be the end of the story but I suppose those who abhor the concept of an Almighty God and Creator of the Universe who they claim does not even exist will continue to loudly protest. Talk about hypocrisy. At this point their next step will be wanting to change the law and constitutions.

Great letter Greta,

Thanks for getting the ball rolling. I'm really am curious to see how much the city is willing to pay for all of this. Cheers, -JP

I've read your silly book

First, we're a republic. Second, what do you think the Bill of Rights is for? It is to protect the rights of the minority. You live in a bubble of Christian privilege. Otherwise, you'd never make such a ridiculously selfish statement. By your rationale, we should still have segregation, women shouldn't vote, and children should be working in factories. Honestly, why does religious belief totally short-circuit critical thinking skills and empathy? As far as Genesis goes, I'm sorry but things like talking snakes, people made out of mud, women with extra ribs, and magic apples sounds like something on the sci fi channel. You wouldn't believe any of that nonsense if you had not been indoctrinated at a young age. At this point, is where believers throw the "faith" card. Or, as Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't true" HA! HA! By the way, the only thing in my cup is Captain Morgan and coke! You can take your version of the truth and live your own life of ignorance!

Now how is that for irony.

You claim the Bill of rights is to protect the rights of the minority and it is indeed the Bill of rights that clearly and expressly protects the rights of RELIGIOUS expression. I will have to respectfully disagree with your claim of the purpose of the Bill of Rights. Its purpose in my opinion was to protect the rights of the individual-all individuals, majority or minority versus the government. The right of free speech for example, in no way provides something differently for a person espousing a minority view over a majority view. In fact courts in consensus have ruled that you may not consider the content of one's speech in determining government rules about the right to express that speech. That means whatever my message, with very few restrictions like obscenity and fighting words, I have the right to express it, whether I am in the majority or minority with that view. Freedom of the press in no way provides a different right to te Press writing a majority opinion or minority opinion. People confuse the protection of minority participation with a right to have a minority view preval as the rule of the land. Apples and oranges. I appreciate my right to respond to you exercising yours.


a Republic is a representative form of Democracy. Second, "Silly book"? Do you know how arrogant and patronizing that sounds? Let's look at your claims of what we would or wouldn't have if the majority did rule. In fact. legal rulings that affected the changes you pointed out came about by majority vote. Those voters were appointed by Presidents elected through a democratic process reflecting majority rule. The court rulings did not fashion the new laws, just declared old laws unconstitutional. Congress was still required to write new legislation changing the old laws. Congress, elected by majority rule in a representative democracy. Name-calling, bullying, arrogance. Hardly a demonstration of persuasive critical thinking and empathy.

To: jferguson

You and all the other minorities have a right to disagree if you want to, just don't force your views on the majorities who don't agree with you and expect them to conform to your way of thinking. So, continue to enjoy your warm and fuzzy alcohol induced delusional stupor. I won't argue with idiots.

Breaking news!

As in any democracy, when voting, the majority rules. For those not in, or not siding with the majority, it can be a hard pill to swallow. Big pills are more easily taken with water, so try drinking from cup of truth and light. The first sip begins with Genesis. The refreshment lasts for an eternity.

Majority does NOT rule

That is the entire point of the Constitution that you hold so dear . . .

I will have to respectfully disagree

Ms. James. Our Constitution protects the rights of minorities to participate-not to prevail with their views. Everything about our form of government reflects majority rule and that is reflected in ruling legislation. The minority view has a seat at the table dearly protected, a right to advocacy in hopes of being the eventual majority and the same opportunity as anyone with any other view to persuade more people than not. That is it. If that was not true, then what is law in this Country would not change based on the make-up of a court who decides issues exclusively by majority vote.

In the world of

humanists, freethinkers, secular progressives, evolutionists and postmodern relativists the majority most certainly does rule, especially in the realm of morality and ethics. Since these groups usually do not acknowledge Ultimate Authority or moral absolutes, there is nowhere else for them to turn. Morality and ethics in their society is whatever the majority of society decides they will be. They have no other authority to appeal to. Of course this would make the actions of totalitarian governments perfectly ethical and moral but what's a little totalitarianism among friends.

We are a Republic

We are a Republic not a Democracy.

Republic, as in representative form

of democracy.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments