The lawmakers were upset.
written by Julie R. Neidlinger 11 comments link this post
An article in today's Fargo Forum, by Janell Cole, revealed that some North Dakota lawmakers were upset.
This is a crisis.
During this 2007 session, one of the typical few-month sessions that occurs every two years, a prayer was offered by Rev. David Motta* which caused some lawmakers to be upset.
Every two years. A couple of months. That's all we ask of them.
Let's see what the article says in full, since Fargo Forum articles tend to get archived fairly quickly and this article won't be available online for very long:
BISMARCK – A Fargo minister's prayer in the House on Monday calling on God to compel legislators to outlaw abortion upset some lawmakers and led to plans for chaplains’ policies.
The Rev. David Motta, pastor at Calvary United Methodist Church in Fargo, was the House's chaplain for the day and used Monday's anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision to frame his remarks opening the session.
Motta's two-minute prayer included: "Beginning right here in what our country thinks is an insignificant little state of North Dakota, would you pull out your spirit of Godly sorrow, of conviction on each legislator to do the right thing or give them courage, conviction, firm resolve, to reverse Roe v. Wade, beginning now, beginning here in North Dakota, God," Motta prayed.
There is no better foundation for new policies in a governing body than a foundation based on some lawmakers getting upset. Actually, no. That's a lousy reason, albeit a common one for lawmakers at all levels.
Rep. Lois Delmore, D-Grand Forks, and Rep. Kathy Hawken, R-Fargo, were among House members protesting afterward, saying the daily prayer by visiting ministers are supposed to be ecumenical and not political statements.
"I was offended, and I think somebody's got to set up guidelines," Delmore said.
Hawken, clearly angered by the incident, said, "I just don’t think it's appropriate to use a prayer as a bully pulpit."
"Not very appropriate," said House Majority Leader Rick Berg, R-Fargo. He, Minority Leader Merle Boucher and House Speaker Jeff Delzer discussed the incident after the session and said they'd like a policy the Legislative Council could give chaplains about what is appropriate.
"We agree it's not appropriate to include issues we're debating in committees and on the floor (in a prayer)," he said.
Rep. Duane DeKrey, R-Pettibone, whose Judiciary Committee heard abortion bills Monday, said the prayer didn't bother him, but he knew it upset many of his colleagues.
"The prayer at the beginning of the day should not offend half the chamber," he said.
I agree, Rep. DeKrey. I think it should offend more than half. Discomfort creates an atmosphere of thinking, of reconsidering, of less wheeling and dealing. It creates an edge that must be dealt with. I postulate that the legislators are far too comfy.
Yet the abuse of the words appropriate and offend continues. These are words people use when the real words they want to use aren't politic enough. These are the words they can use to sound diplomatic and rational when behind the facade they are seething that someone would dare step on their precious toes.
It is interesting that the politicians are taking it upon themselves to dictate to future chaplains what can and cannot be said. That is a bit like telling the doctor what diagnosis he can or cannot make, regardless of what might be true. After all, what is the purpose of the chaplain? Is it a cheery note of encouragement on the way to hell? Or is it similar to that of the doctor's role, pointing out the illness within?
Make a cook angry and he spits in your soup. Make a mechanic angry and he wreaks havoc on your carburetor. Make a politician angry and he nobly makes new policies to make sure it won't happen again.
I am sickened by politicians that only want to hear what they want to hear.
How about this? If you are a lawmaker and are so easily offended and appalled at "inappropriate" behavior and deem it necessary to create policies and/or laws based out of these feelings, then you are in the wrong profession. Working for the state is a public office and both creating and receiving offense are a daily aspect of the profession.
I say profession, because you would be, as a lawmaker, an employee of the state that pays your salary and medical benefits and housing allowance for the once-every-two-years sessions.
I wish to be frank, since that seems to be a lost art. Words mean nothing in politics anymore; they are used without meaning, only to create facades. I'm tired of all the neutered prayers before political sessions -- both state and national -- so that the nearly-murdered consciences of the politicians don't twitch. I'm tired of the neutered, stilted sound bites, the overly-careful language. I'm tired of the self-righteous offense stemming from something far less noble than is captured by reporters. Upsetting some lawmakers is a good start; they ought to be far more upset, and less comfortable, each day. That is part of their job. No more compromise, no more status quo - upset the boat, someone, please. Tip them out into the drink where we are all swimming.
Pastor Dave, I'm with you. You were spot on. The people who were offended and felt it was inappropriate are being far less truthful of their real reasons for anger while you took the hard road and were blunt. It's no surprise that "blunt" doesn't play well in politics.
UPDATE: I have sent an email to those mentioned in the article. It reads as follows.
I read, with interest and disappointment, an article in the Fargo Forum regarding your reaction to Rev. David Motta's prayer in the House. Though it is always discomforting to be offended in life, for you as legislators, this cannot be your sole reason for instigating new policy. That is reactionary and a poor foundation at best.
I have made note of the incident and the article on my blog, and the question I posed there I pose to you all: What is the purpose of the chaplain?
You might do well to consider that the chaplain's prayer is not merely a tradition or simple function that you suffer through before getting on with the "real" work at hand, but that it should, contrary to wishes for ecumenical politeness, serve to prod you, the lawmakers of our state, in directions you might not be willing to go.
If you desire to read further on what I have written in regards to this issue, which I admit to addressing with a bit less tact, you may:
http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/2007/01/lawmakers-were-upset.html
Thank you for your time and consideration.
I think it important to speak up on things that matter, and this is an incident that matters to me. I would encourage you to do so as well, whether you agree or disagree with me on this matter. We North Dakotans only get a limited time to interact with our lawmakers at work since the sessions come only every two years. I encourage you to use the links I have provided and use your voice as you deem necessary.
UPDATE 2: I have written a follow-up post addressing the issue of "appropriate behavior" in public forums.
Labels: local, north dakota, politics
Copyright (c) Julie R. Neidlinger 1/23/2007 12:00:00 PM
Like this post? Subscribe to the feed.
Help support this site.
Facebook |
Stumble It! |
Del.icio.us |
DiggIt! |
Technorati |
Blinklist |
Furl |
reddit |
Newsvine
11 Comments:
Today during the noon hour, the students from North Dakota Teen Challenge (www.tc4hope.org) sang and shared their testimonies in Memorial Hall right between the House and Senate chambers. The legislators heard many of the students tell about their personal experiences with drug addiction and how a relationship with Jesus Christ has been the only effective solution for them.
. . . just wanted to let you know that toes are no doubt still getting stepped on here at the capitol. Maybe uncomfortable, but definately worth it.
n.
By 
, at
23/1/07 14:17
There are no doubt some who might see these types of incidents as something they have to "put up with" as part of the "real" work, but I say that this is the "real" work, the real focus.
I never grow as much in my thinking, personal beliefs, and life changes as I do when someone steps on my toes. There is no better place to be than an uncomfortable one. It can only get better from there.
I pray that there are many more such "uncomfortable" incidents. Most definately worth it, I agree.
By 
Julie, at
23/1/07 14:22
I think Janelle Cole made it out to be a bigger deal than it was, as if she were looking for a story. I don't think that many were upset with the prayer.
-- a worker at the capitol
By , at
23/1/07 19:04
Any response to your email from the lawmakers?
By , at
23/1/07 20:22
Yes, though the responses have "content" that is disappointing at best.
Some things you could do:
1. You could talk to a brick wall.
2. You could try to carry on conversation with a cat.
3. You could yell at the wind.
4. You could email your lawmakers.
The result is too often the same.
Here are the responses so far, and my thoughts on them:
"I appreciate your perspective. I consider myself pro life, but am also responsible for the policy's we have in the House."
This is a very politic answer. I can't see that it says/answers...anything.
"A prayer should be a prayer---not a political statement either liberal or conservative. The place for such statements in Bismarck is for any committee of the person's choice. Thanks for your interest."
What exactly does the phrase "a prayer should be a prayer" mean? What is her definition of a prayer? What kind of prayers is she used to? Are they only for good things? Is that it?
I believe Rev. Motta's prayer was very much a prayer, a prayer that would make some uncomfortable. It was heartfelt and unplanned (from what I have heard). I have been told that he also included in his prayer -- though not noted by Cole in the article -- a blessing on the lawmakers. Odd that this did not make mention. Perhaps there ought to be policies against prayers that would bless lawmakers as well as those that would make them uncomfortable.
I will allow that the feeble answers most likely stem from being very busy and not having time to flesh their thoughts out. I will not allow myself, however, to be placated by such non-answers.
By Julie, at
23/1/07 20:36
I just had to write and say thank you Julie, for standing up and writing the way you have. I have attended Calvary for the last 6 years and one of the GREATEST influences toward my personal salvation was through the message Dave spreads of Jesus Christ. He is one of the greatest men I know. It is truely a blessing that he stood up in the setting he did.
I pray the Lord bless you and him. Remember Mark 8:38...and let us no longer be ashamed to stand up for Jesus!
By , at
24/1/07 00:19
Never having commented on a blog before, I feel compelled to voice support for what you have said in regards to Dave's prayer. Julie, you have done a service to us in articulating very well, what many of us have been thinking (and trying to say). I really appreciate your frank insight on this topic, and couldn't agree more.
By , at
24/1/07 10:27
-God bless you pastor Dave and shame on you Reps. Delmore,Hawken and Maj. and Min. leaders Berg and Boucher along with House Speaker Delzer. It is obvious that they have lost contact on just who they are suppose to represent in Bismarck and that we are still a very conservative state! When it comes to the abortion issue there is really nothing more to debate and if they were offended by the prayer I am even more offended by their actions and will be showing how much I was offended and disappointed come election time!
gal
By , at
24/1/07 18:31
To Anonymous (gal):
I work for the ND Senate here at the Capitol and my dad is a Representative. May I recommend that you also direct some of your frustrations to the writer of the Fargo Forum article? She seemed to portray that many legislators were upset by Pastor Dave's prayer and that is not true.
--Naomi
By , at
25/1/07 14:01
(Nome, after speaking with you on the phone last night, I thought I'd add a wee bit of an "update" to this post here.)
According to my "capitol contact" the reaction at the capitol to the prayer was:
1. Really not much.
2. Not nearly what Janell Cole made it out to be.
This is not the first article Cole has written about the session in Bismarck that has erroneously presented information in a way that made the story either unclear or bigger than it was.
Obviously, she was able to find representatives to quote in her article; that much is trure. However, the appearance the article throws is that there was a general feeling of uproar, when, in fact, it may be that only those interviewed were the ones really upset.
The problem with being assigned a beat and told to find stories is that a reporter sometimes finds stories where there really aren't any. It's also a problem when the reporter is a extremely liberal and does nothing to hide it in her writing. My take is that her view of what constitutes a story is that which offends or prods her sensibilities and seems like it would be a story to her.
This is, unfortunately, the problem with most reporters; I experienced the same thing back when I was a reporter. Topics that don't catch our attention because they are usual to us don't seem like stories.
You will note, as I said before, that Cole did not mention the non-abortion parts of the prayer. From what I've heard from various parties involved since, the entire incident was anything but planned.
In summation, a big part of this story is the story itself, and not the incident.
By Julie, at
26/1/07 08:59
Exactly.
Very well said, Julie. Thank you!
-Naomi
By , at
26/1/07 10:29
