OPINION PIECE BY DALE BOHLING

Anti-prayer in the public square, that is the drumbeat from the secular zealots. While the points raised by the recent writers of letters to the editor on the subject may have validity  and be deserving of debate they logically need to be held in abeyance while the issue of agendizing topics for public input  is resolved. It should be noted that one writer  applauds Chairman Finigan’s refusal to place the item of prayer before board meetings. He applauds it as a victory for freedom….in the real world it is a victory for atheism and socialism, both of which are diametrically opposed to freedom. A large number of recent letters to the editor blithely ignore the simple core principle viz, a decision as to what is allowed on the agenda to be discussed  by a singular authority, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. It strikes this writer as pathetic that writers of letters to the editor at the Triplicate  do not have a problem with a single head of the County Board having the say so as to what is decided  in a public forum. One such  writer singles out Supervisor Gitlin  as the problem on the board. Unbelievably ( to me) Ernie Miller, July 1,2014, “Supervisor seems to thrive on divisiveness,” finds what he perceives as “hate” in recent letters to the editor on the  twin subjects of public prayer and agenda . What some people interpret as hate is simply mind boggling to me. Ironically here is another Bible quoter giving a lesson in biblical exegesis, twisting scripture to fit his own  outlook  when he writes  “the Bible teaches us to deplore  sin but to  forgive  the sinner “… but he then proceeds to deplore the supposed sinner while  loving the sin….not an unusual cant for the less –than- sophisticated-preacherizer! These are the very same types of  people that the Apostle Paul rebuked .

Doing a sweep of the letters of support for Supervisor Gitlin  I find only two  that might be  labeled strident in their  criticism of Chairman Finigan ,referring to him as  acting as an emperor for his unilateral action of refusing to place  the proposed pre-meeting prayer  on the agenda for debate. Far from being  hate letters they are  a well deserved rebuke for an abuse of power via  anti-democratic procedure; one apparently sanctioned by a number of numb voters.