ED TAYLOR
Vero Beach Mayor Craig Fletcher laid an egg on the festivities of National Humanist Week by proclaiming his Christianity during a recent city council meeting rather than rubberstamping a meaningless proclamation honoring the Humanists; once again proving the adage that a white male Christian is always fair game for attack based upon his religious beliefs. In a perfect world he would have just kept his mouth shut leaving the unsigned proclamation unexplained but also in that world an elected government official would not be put in a position that would create a challenge to his personal religious beliefs. Religion has no place in government and the city council proclamations are, for the most part, frivolity. There are more important things to do.
Certainly he could have . . . and should have handled the situation in a more dignified manner and there is no reason to be rude to a citizen who is at the podium politely awaiting a city council proclamation. His response indicated a lack of preparation for the meeting since it appeared the proclamation caught him off guard. For a Christian to mention his faith in Jesus Christ in a public forum has become a pariah and based upon the media response to this episode you would think that the mayor personally visited every non-Christian home and kicked their dog.
I usually admire a person who stands up for his or her religious beliefs (a few exceptions such as the snake-handlers and those who protest at military funerals come to mind), but a government meeting is not the place NOR is it the proper setting for our elected officials to honor or offer a proclamation that endorses any religious mindset. I respect Fletcher for standing his ground and not mindlessly endorsing something that he thought to be wrong. He could have handled it better. He has since apologized and frankly, that should be the end of it.
It is a situation that never should have existed.
Politicians are notorious Bible thumpers. Every president in my lifetime has proclaimed his Christianity and is often seen leaving a Sunday morning church service with Bible in hand at least every four years or so. Fletcher should not be criticized for his beliefs only for his timing for expressing them. Tracy Carroll also chimed in with something about atheism but, in context, what she said made little sense. She most often just says, “Well, what does this have to do with the sale of the power plant?” Like it or not, Fletcher’s comments were at least understandable.
The city council should give some serious thought as to the practicality of their proclamations. They have this distorted mindset that something is somehow better because they proclaim it so. I do not know of any time where chocolate tastes better because some government entity has honored National Chocolate Week, for example. Is a bicyclist safer if the city council proclaims it to be Bicycle Safety Week? Proclamations are generally harmless and I am sure that somewhere in Vero Beach there is a very happy little Girl Scout who has a proclamation on her wall for selling more cookies than her fellow green suited compadres. They are generally harmless yet meaningless. It is a feel good piece of paper that makes for good recycling or kindling.
This has been much ado over very little and pretty much accentuates how little controversy it takes to stir the masses to demand drastic measures. Are we really that bored? There are some real problems facing Vero Beach. The mayor’s religious beliefs are not one of them.
The mayor did not give up his First Amendment right to free expression by running for elected office. He may not say the politically correct or even the proper thing, but he does have the right to say it. As far as the court-created separation of church and state, I do not believe that was violated by Fletcher’s brief rant. The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a state religion. It was very clear that Mr. Fletcher was speaking of his own beliefs and never said or even insinuated that his beliefs were those of the city or anyone other than himself. He has that right . . . and you have the right to criticize him for exercising it, which has been done in abundance.
Now let’s get back to the business of government!
Indian River Guardian 
I really agree with your premise. We should end this nonsense of meaningless feel good proclamations.
Yet, many in our community, like myself, come from families who immigrated to this country to escape from all forms of tyranny and intolerance including religious and racial intolerance. Remember WWII? We are people who desperately want to be part of this great country as equal citizens of the country that we struggled to get into, even if we are not Christians.
When elected officials confirm the attitudes that we have experience on the street, that people like us are not welcome in the country of our choice it deeply wounds.
Yes Fletcher and Carroll are entitled to their opinions, but when wearing the hat of an elected official, they represent all citizens of this community and they have a responsibility to keep their bigoted personal beliefs at home.
I continue to see the larger issue as being one of Mayor Craig Fletcher’s and Vice Mayor Tracy Carroll’s troubling tendency to be disrespectful and combative. Both of them are just one Constitution away from governing as two-bit dictators.
I too admire a person who stands up for his or her religious beliefs however Fletcher did not do this in his statement.
He said he could not sign this (proclamation) because they ( Humanists) do not believe in Jesus Christ.
In fact Ed, I just played the tape back and when Fletcher was asked why he pulled the proclamation his exact answer was, “ I refuse to support an ORGANIZATION who does not believe in Jesus Christ. “
So, does that mean that we need to know the religious beliefs of every organization that comes before the City Council for a vote or a proclamation? And if they, as an organization or a person do not believe in Jesus Christ, will he continue to recognize that organization or person.
I personally find that kind of intolerant thinking offensive though I agree with you that he certainly is within his rights. And, unlike what you are saying Ed, I do not admire him for speaking his rights in this instance because what he said and how he said it showed his intolerance and if he is intolerant to this issue he will probably be intolerant in a lot of other issues too.
Actually, he has shown a good bit of intolerance to a lot of people who have come to the podium with their thoughts and ideas on a lot of issues other than religion so…..take it from there.
I guess if I had been born into a Christian family that had been here for generations, I would not have reacted as I did to the fiasco at the City Council Meeting and I would leave it where Mark left it which is a good place to leave it. But, for people like me, and I am not alone, who are sensitive about their somewhat recent rightful place here, it was as if Fletcher and Carroll bursted into my home and kicked my dog. It was personal.
Even more so for your dog!
Tracy Carroll, on Rhett Palmer’s show Monday, says she is going to bring up the subject of guidelines for proclamations at tonight’s meeting. Well, if something good came out of the controversial Humanists Week Proclamation fiasco, I suppose it is that the City will finally address the issue of proclamations. That the two Council members were rude to my husband is immaterial. They will face judgment on that from Someone else. Perhaps if the Humanists called themselves the Humanists Social Club they would not incur the wrath of any part of the community (or world for that matter). I thank the clergy for what they did. I’ve thanked everyone time and again and will always be grateful for the fairness and compassion they’ve shown. I thought about how it might have been at Council or Commission had there been a proclamation for Indian River Bullriding Week, sponsored by rodeo people….and all the members of government were PETA supporters. As my friend Bea would remark “Just saying”.
Most commenters defend Mayor Fletcher’s right to have religious beliefs and defend them. However, his religious beliefs are his personal feelings which he is free to express however he chooses EXCEPT when he is acting in his capacity as an elected representative in his official role. In this instance, by saying he wouldn’t do business with any organization that did not profess its Christianity, he compounded his error by implying that any non-Christian individual or organization shouldn’t bother to offer their goods or services to the City because they wouldn’t be accepted on purely religious grounds. If that isn’t establishing an official religion I don’t know what is!
His weasel-worded, typical, politician’s insincere apology is no more believable than an alcoholic’s promise not to hit the bottle again and hence almost as insulting as his original statements!
Perhaps Mr. Taylor should consider the reaon why the white male Christian is fair game for attack because of his religious beliefs. It is because too many of our white male politicans use their positions of authority to impose their dogma on others. When you have a “rising star” in the political world like Marco Rubio saying that he has no problem with firing a person simply because he is gay, then more reasonable people must call him out of his obvious prejudice.
No dogs were harmed in my preparation of this article. My opinion is based strictly on the actual words spoken that have caused this brouhaha rather than any projection of what he might have or could have meant in another context on another topic. He said what he said in regard to a specific issue. No more. No less. Anything else is just speculation and speculation, in my experience, is usually wrong.
Rev. David Taylor
Great article Ed. I agree that the situation should not have occurred. As an outsider looking in, it is obvious that this could only happen in certain areas of the country. Mr. Fletcher would not be elected in Boca Raton. This will appeal to a certain demographic that will vote for him for his faith alone and not for effectiveness as a civic leader.
Since Eisenhower introduced “God” language in the political and cultural marketplace during The Cold War…politicians publicly embracing general religious language is nothing new. Making his specific statement of religious faith is more problematic and questionable in terms of appropriateness.
“Opinion and the just maintenance of it shall never be a crime in my view, nor bring injury on the individual. I never will by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance.” Thomas Jefferson
Jesus was not a Bigot. I didn’t interpret what was said at that infamous Council Meeting as an expression of Christian faith, but as an expression of intolerance.
What has happened to the Golden Rule? I guess our Mayor and Vice-Mayor either forgot that little truth or never felt that it applied to them when they expressed their true feelings without counsel of clergy or time to consider the “political impact” of what they were saying. It is at moments that are spontaneous and uncensored that our true unfiltered feelings are expressed. Neither one of them expressed their love of God. What they expressed is their intolerance of others.
That is what is called bigotry and it has no place in our government. It says it right in our Pledge of Allegiance.
Men and women who don’t understand these basic simple tenets have no right to hold office in this great country. If they have any semblance of a conscience they would feel ashamed, and resign from office. I’m sure that they would agree that we all need to take personal responsibility for our actions and so should they.
Again the empty politicians apology was issued and sounding like the alcoholic promising never to take another drink. You are enabling him by accepting his lame “if I have offended anyone” as an apology? What he said and his lack of remorse was “horrific” for his standing and as he said, before consulting his clergyman, “I stand by my words”.