Priest threatened with removal from City Council meeting

[reflection]

I realize this is not a new piece of news, but I stumbled across this video of a man standing up for his rights and taking the City Council of Pensacola to task regarding some anti-homeless ordinances. Two council members left in solidarity as the priest was being intimidated by several police officers. Anyway, just wanted to share it. I like watching people stand up for their rights.

http://www.pensacoladigest.com/2011/12/council-urges-civility-threatens-priest-with-police-removal/

So, a priest walks into a city council meeting — stop me if you’ve heard this one — and is nearly hauled away by the police for speaking calmly to his elected officials.

Hilarious, right?

Father Nathan Monk wasn’t laughing at last night’s City Council meeting. During the Boyd Forum, an open comment period named in honor of the late civic activist LeRoy Boyd, Father Monk chided the council members — and Council President Sam Hall in particular — for their actions at Monday’s Committee of the Whole meeting. At that meeting, several citizens had spoken in opposition to the proposed anti-homeless ordinances, and in doing so made unflattering comparisons to historical figures (one person mentioned Heinrich Himmler’s “Final Solution“) and questioned the Christian charity of any council member who would support the ordinances. Council members DeWeese and Johnson took offense at the accusations, and Hall had asked Police Chief Chip Simmons to remove several speakers he deemed “out of order.”

At last night’s meeting, Monk told the council they had no right to dictate the content of their speech, and suggested that they instead examine any actions by the city that would prompt such comparisons.

[Angry Dragon]

1. Throw his name into the hat to be the new Pope

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. There are a lot of priests on the local level who would make great Popes.

(And if they allowed women and married people as priests, there'd probably be even more.)

Unfortunately as it relates to the heirarchy, the Church is no different than politics and business when you find people who want to get ahead, and unfortunately lose a good deal of their soul in the process.

Good on this guy.

[southernyankeebelle]

2. How sad the citizens have lost their rights.

[freshwest]

4. Sherri Myers went outside to talk, good. Too bad Fukini's other vids are Sandy Hook truthers.

But the priest should have his five minutes.

People deserve air time, but Final Solution remarks didn't help the previous speakers, no doubt. When you go that far, it shows a lack of knowledge in how to turn things around and indicates the protestors are in it for the air time, not to change things in their community, no matter how impassionated they are. There are always solutions.

Does the priest have credibiliity within his own particular religion to get them to help the homeless out - or can they live at the church or some other place they provide?

[reflection]

5. Didn't notice the Sandy Hook videos.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[freshwest]

9. S'okay. But his approach here was ineffective. He did not address the problem of the homeless.

Instead he complained of the treatment of the previous persons before the council. That issue was resolved with them. He would have used his and their time better to give voice to those who were homeless and did not have a platform there. So I can see them telling him he was out of order, as referring to the others was more of a venting or vanity action.

People don't have much patience for those who are saying in some cases, 'I'm here, listen to me, it doesn't matter that I have nothing to say, but I have a right to say it, take that, you fascist pig.' Listen to what he said, it was really hot air and not about policy. Just the right to say something.

That someone had been denied the right to talk when they used rhetoric to slander the process and call those making city rules or ordinance mass murderers? That is talk for the back room, the internet, not in real people's faces. It does nothing but stroke some egos, for which they can high five each other elsewhere, and do nothing.

This is like many things I see discussed in hearings that either get the thumbs up or booed dependent on the demeanour or 'balls' of the speaker. They've actually said nothing, all that was being judged was the presentation. I wonder if we are going at all of these things as if they are movie reviews, not getting down to facts.

In local meetings with face time, I've seen good people turned off from causes when they feel they are being demonized. They could have come to a resolution, but egos got in the way as well as a warped perception of power that could have been shared, not hidden behind. Without the previous event, this appears to be a lot like a tea party arranged outrage event.

Others are waiting to discuss things in a limited time forum that most likely did not appreciate his passion. I find addressing the very serious problems of disadvantaged persons are ill-suited to council meetings. An injunction to help the homeless would be more effective than railing about how someone was ejected from a meeting. The struggle in not in a council meeting, but in the legislature that made the framework for the city to operate under. That takes sustained effort and not grandstanding.

I'm not sure if your concern here is that this man was being told to leave, that council meetings have security, or the homeless who are the disadvantaged group that the priest is representing less than the right to take up minutes in a meeting to complain about another meeting - this could go back to the end of time if one does such.

He spent zero time addressing their plight, half his time complaining about another group and the Constitution which is above the pay grade of lowly councils, and the rest of it complaining that he was told to leave. It was a pissing contest and a waste of time.

The mere presence of the guards who are hired to stop people - this is Florida, right - who may be armed or willing to attack someone - is not a provocation within itself. The man's case was interesting, but there is always the matter of context. The point of protesting and interacting with others is NOT to just protest and interact. It is to get something done. This was ineffective.

I've found when a person addresses a cause other than one's self, but those who are truly in need of assistance, that the morality of that causes people to think twice. This was not about the priest or the Constitution. He forgot the cause that deserved his passion, and could have provoked a change.

I have been through this tiresome routine, and everyone's time is valuable, insults do not work to get consensus or change. If one is going to shame officials, they need to make sure it's about a subject that is truly of the heart, and not 'rights.' Social justice outside the sphere of legislatures that truly have funds, is an appeal to mercy and compassion from the public to call them.

Or if that fails, use an economic incentive. Where I live, we've provided help from both mentalities. Such as providing places for people to be so they will be off the streets so business won't complain. But the underlying cause is compassion for those in need, that cannot be forgotten. It's beyond 'rights.'

JMHO.

[reflection]

10. I inferred from his statement

that he was a regular at the meetings and that he had some history speaking before the council. I may be wrong about the latter part of my assumption. I am at a disadvantage to say as I don't live in Pensacola.

You may be right that he was grandstanding to some degree rather than addressing the problem. If this were his only speaking session, I would definitely agree with you. I did feel that the number of guards used for the attempted escort was excessive however. He clearly wasn't exhibiting violent tendencies.

To answer your question about the reasoning behind posting the video, it was merely to point out that the guy stood his ground and refused to yield his time. My intention was not to cast judgment on the validity or relevance of his subject matter. But I've read your thoughtful response a few times now (great job communicating, by the way. Would that I were that articulate) and I feel a little bad. I may have thoughtlessly minimized the issue of homelessness by getting caught up in the issue of the priest's rights. In other words, you've given me something to think about. And I do appreciate that.

[HiPointDem]

8. the priest made the point about that; it's not elected officials' place to forbid constituents

from speaking at a public meeting simply because they don't like the content.

and the problem was exemplified in this video, where the official cut the priest off before his allotted time, even though he was speaking calmly and not making any holocaust connections.

The people were speaking about a specific law being passed by this body. Why is it on the back of the church to remediate the ill effects of a law in preference to fighting the law being passed in the first place?

I *could* take homeless people into my home (though at 88 ft2, it's already pretty small for the 2 people who live in it).

But I'd much rather that my government would stop *creating* homelessness through the policies it pursues, and since they keep creating more and more homeless, that's where the problem lies.

[baldguy]

6. Posted by Scuba on another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022490218

[HiPointDem]

7. kr. A good example of how to handle such a situation.