Unbelievable that letter writers fail to take issue with Finigan
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 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 (“Supervisor seems to thrive on divisiveness,” July 1) 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 love and 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.
Dale L .Bohling, Crescent City