More

Hartford Says No To Muslim Prayer Before Meetings

EVERTON BAILEY Jr.   09/13/10 10:47 PM ET  AP

Hartford Muslim Prayers

HARTFORD, Conn. — The Hartford City Council's decision to replace a scheduled Islamic prayer with an interfaith moment of silence before its meeting sends the wrong message to Connecticut's Islamic community, Muslim leaders said.

Mongi Dhaouadi, executive director of the Connecticut chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the canceling of Monday's Muslim prayer just days after the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks unfairly singles out state residents who practice Islam. Dhaouadi, along with about 50 other Muslim leaders and supporters, held an Islamic prayer session outside of City Hall on Monday in protest of the council's decision.

"We are not asking for special treatment," he said. "We are just asking for equal treatment, just like everyone else."

City Council president rJo Winch said she decided to cancel the scheduled prayer in favor of a moment of silence before the council's meetings this month after receiving negative e-mails and phone calls.

Winch and fellow council member Luis Cotto denounced the negative comments, which they said were filled with harsh and sometimes bigoted language, during a news conference last week.

Dhaouadi said he believes the majority of the outcry came from misinformed people who believed the council had never held prayers before its meetings and that only Muslim prayers were going to be allowed.

But both Winch and Dhaouadi said past council meetings have begun with prayers led by a rotation of religious leaders, including Muslims.

Dhaouadi said earlier Monday that he was disappointed when Winch informed him of the prayer cancellation on Friday, which was the end of the Islamic holiday of Ramadan.

"Why reward ignorance?" he said. "We understand, of course, that politicians are always going to try and seek the middle ground, but in this incident, we think this is a case of caving in to bigots and an immoral position."

Winch, a Democrat, said the backlash made her rethink the council's approach.

"We represent everyone in the city of Hartford," she said earlier Monday. "So in an effort to not isolate or mistreat anyone, my decision was made to hold a moment of silence because that way everyone can participate and nobody is infringed upon."

She said the plan is to return to the prayer rotation in October and reschedule the Muslim prayer. Discussions may be held on whether the moment of silence should be kept permanently, she said.

Cotto, of the Working Families Party, said not everyone on the council agrees with the decision. He said he originally proposed that a Muslim religious leader deliver the two prayer sessions in September as a sign of solidarity between the city of Hartford and its Muslim community.

"I respectfully disagree with my council president and I think this is all unfortunate," he said before Monday's prayer session. "This has never been about inclusivity because we've never excluded anyone but I think we should have taken the opportunity to make a statement against this anti-Muslim sentiment that has been growing."

Dhaouadi said he hopes the council reschedules the prayer.

"We just want to send a message that, like everyone else, Muslims in America were affected by 9/11," he said. "We reject the notion that we should be penalized for that."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST RELIGION

HARTFORD, Conn. — The Hartford City Council's decision to replace a scheduled Islamic prayer with an interfaith moment of silence before its meeting sends the wrong message to Connecticut's Isla...
HARTFORD, Conn. — The Hartford City Council's decision to replace a scheduled Islamic prayer with an interfaith moment of silence before its meeting sends the wrong message to Connecticut's Isla...
Filed by Clay Chiles  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 263
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
01:15 PM on 10/20/2010
A whole lot of fuss of nothing
Deucejack
Stop expecting others to fix your problems.
01:45 PM on 09/28/2010
No other religion is currently developing the menace to humanity that Islam delivers across the world. From Malaysia to the Middle East to Georgia, to Fort Hood, TX, Islam is breeding discontent and promoting violence against civilians. Islamic fundamentalism is currently a danger on 6 of our 7 continents.

Fundamental terrorism is not a cultural or socio-economic problem. It is a problem that lies only within the religion of Islam.

They need a reformation from within. Appeasement is not a strategy for the future.
05:27 PM on 11/05/2010
Its funny that muslims ask us to be tolerent and at the same time wish "Death to Amrerica" on a daily basis. Islam is not tolerant. Look at muslim countries and ask yourself if you would like to live there. They currently are working in taking over Europe. Maybe North America is next. Our immigration laws are way to relax.
09:06 PM on 09/17/2010
In all fairness, the Hartford City Council is running scared and playing it safe. Remember Molly Norris.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LiberalLee
Yes I am a witch. Deal with it.
01:03 AM on 09/16/2010
I live near Hartford and this whole silly mess annoys the cr@p out of me.
You guys got elected to see to the running of the City.
Do your praying on your own time.
Politicians braying and arguing about religion's place in secular society are wasting the time we pay them to look after secular concerns.
If they want to yammer about their religion, let them do it at their church on ITS time. Not the public's.
Adding in prayers from other religions doesn't make it more equal or better. It just obfuscates the fact that religion isn't why they're there in the first place.
You want to be a preacher?
Work at a church.
06:53 AM on 09/16/2010
Of course this "whole silly mess" would "annoy" you. What do you know of your state's founding principles and the role of religion in CT govt?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LiberalLee
Yes I am a witch. Deal with it.
12:18 PM on 09/16/2010
What I know of CT's founding principles and the role religion played in it over 300 years ago is immaterial as neither has anything to do with today's world.
Religion belongs in a church or in a person's heart, NOT in secular government.
Hence THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
If the trend towards including more and more prayers as a nod to more and more religious groups continues, there isn't going to be time to get anything done.
If a councilor wishes to pray for a certain outcome to an issue, or ask blessings from on high for deliberations on a subject, far better that he or she does it privately.
Showboating one's religious leanings in politics is just another way of acting as if being devout is the only consideration or qualification one needs to succeed.
And that's bull..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bbriani3842
400+ yrs of science & STILL no evidence for a god
12:42 AM on 09/16/2010
When are the Pastafarians going to have their acknowledgement?

What about the Jedis?

Don't forget those who worship Abu . . .
12:09 AM on 09/16/2010
Hartford, once a bastion of liberalism, now cannot support a paper, and it does not have a prayer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bbriani3842
400+ yrs of science & STILL no evidence for a god
12:40 AM on 09/16/2010
No city should have a prayer. . .
nancynancy
Atheist.
06:45 PM on 09/15/2010
Remove all the prayers!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bbriani3842
400+ yrs of science & STILL no evidence for a god
12:40 AM on 09/16/2010
Co-signed!

How about NO acknowledgement of any religion in any civic business. . .
12:51 AM on 09/16/2010
How about: you missed the entire problem at hand.
05:13 PM on 09/15/2010
It is naive and boorish to come to a country whose very foundations are based on certain religious beliefs and demand that your own be given equal standing.

They are not equal to the people of that country. You may have the right to practice what you believe, but that is not the same as demanding all beliefs be seen as equally valid.
12:54 AM on 09/16/2010
No one is asking for anyone to view the various beliefs as equally valid. Instead the need is for us to demand that the practice of each religion be equally respected because anything less than that would compromise the basic freedoms for all human beings that make this country so great.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:17 AM on 09/24/2010
There is a difference between "equally respected" and having a religious ceremony, of any kind, during the secular functions of government duties because the law states that there is a distinct separation of CHURCH and STATE. The religions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus or whomever should not be in presence during government business. I've read the quran and the bible from cover to cover. Both pretty scary books imo. I would never want religious zealotry to be the ruling force in the US. Practice religion on your own time, it's your right. Keep it out of the government and do your secular job for ALL citizens.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nicole Wisen
12:15 AM on 09/22/2010
america's foundations are based on "certain religious beliefs"?
wow buddy, you're living in a totally different america then. now go back to your double wide and fry something.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
logical
01:07 PM on 09/15/2010
When you read the first half of the story it looks like a case where anti-Muslim sentiment led to the cancelling of all prayers in favor of a moment of silence. It was unfair to choose the Muslim prayer to start such a policy, but the new policy is, on the whole, reasonable.

Then you read the last part and you realize that the plan is to continue with prayer rotation in October and "reschedule" the Muslim prayer. That just makes it intentional discrimination against Muslims.
03:51 PM on 09/15/2010
What about all the other beliefs or non-beliefs that aren't represented? You cannot possibly have a prayer for all of them. This is just a self-selected group of "main stream" religions, so why should they have more right than anyone else?

The only acceptable policy is to have no religion in government.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
logical
05:09 PM on 09/15/2010
Your last sentence was most of my point. Removing the prayer would be reasonable. However, they didn't remove the prayer. They just put off the Muslim one.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MedinaM
08:51 PM on 09/15/2010
You've sort of missed the entire point of this "issue." While many would agree with you that there should be no religion in government, including myself (unless they're dealing with discrimination), the point was that initially it was included, then excluded due to some Islamophobic people. Therefore, it wasn't that there was something wrong with the Islamic prayer. Rather, it was bigots that didn't like it and it fell through as a result. So the problem is that, they will continue with the other prayers that are in rotation, yet will either schedule the Islamic prayer or just go with a moment of silence. That is discrimination.
07:57 AM on 09/16/2010
In context, why would anyone think an exclusively Muslim prayer invocation on Sept 13, the first day of business for the [US govt] Council after the anniversary of 9/11, is appropriate?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
logical
10:05 AM on 09/16/2010
The real question is how anyone could oppose it on those grounds? 

Muslims in another city on a date that is NOT the anniversary were scheduled to offer a prayer, just like other faiths had been allowed at previous meetings. It was also at the end of Ramadan, a holy month that is an observance not that unlike Lent. I would expect that the meetings near Easter and Christmas had Christian prayers. 

It appears that Muslims in the US are always supposed to take a seat because of what a handful of extremists did several years ago. At some point the questions must be answered. How many days before and after Sept 11 is the moratorium for? How many years will this moratorium last? Just what is considered “appropriate” by the people who are asking them to get to the back of the bus?

I see over and over people saying “not appropriate”. What they really mean is “I blame all Muslims for 9/11 and I don’t want them to have any involvement in my country.”
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Religulous24
Not one to suggest coconuts are migratory...
12:44 PM on 09/15/2010
Wouldn't it be nice if they just said "Welcome" and got on with the business of the day, sans ANY religion? All government meetings last too long enough as it is ;)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bob Wood
A.T.C.G...(sigh)
12:25 PM on 09/15/2010
Pray for rain, eventually it will...pray for the innundation to recede, eventually it will. Of course, either event would have happened anyway. The source of the prayer is immaterial.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ChicagoBob
Save the Earth-It's the only planet with chocolate
08:28 AM on 09/15/2010
No prayers before any government meeting.

It's constitutional. It's logical. It's the right thing to do.
08:44 AM on 09/15/2010
There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits prayer before a govt meeting. Nothing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bbriani3842
400+ yrs of science & STILL no evidence for a god
12:52 AM on 09/16/2010
Try reading the First Amendment again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bbriani3842
400+ yrs of science & STILL no evidence for a god
01:00 AM on 09/16/2010
Failing that, try understanding that the 14th Amendment imposes the restrictions against the government at the federal levels to all levels of government. . .on down to the municipalities of this country.

The 1st Amendment restricts the "establishment of religion". . .invoking prayer as part of government duties does just that -- it is an establishment of relgion. Whatever the flavor du jour it happens to be.
12:53 AM on 09/15/2010
By far the majority of people believe that religion should be kept completely out of government. Why is it then that so many government bodies ignore the will of the people?
08:41 AM on 09/15/2010
Do you have a link to statistics that support your claim that "the majority of people believe that religion should be kept completely out of govt?"
12:51 PM on 09/16/2010
If you want to live in a theocracy, have a nice trip. I can assure you, you won't be missed here.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DannyEV
09:24 AM on 09/15/2010
I don't believe that's true. I believe the majority of people like the idea of mixing religion into our civic life. I personally believe it's appalling but ignorance about the constitutional implications of this are so widespread that when you try to remove the established practice they start howling about how you're taking God out of our national life and that's why this country is going to the dogs, etc, etc.

I'm tired of the idiocy myself. It makes me very uncomfortable when prayers are said at public events. Jesus exhorted his followers to pray in private rather than "where you can be seen by other people" but public displays of "righteousness" continue to have political cachet particularly among loud, vocal so-called christians.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Poorsarah
10:46 PM on 09/14/2010
Why not reserve the prayer time during personal hours and not business hours. They are at the workplace to work, not show how "spiritual" they are.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jfbuf
people are corporations too
10:20 PM on 09/14/2010
Hey, here's a novel idea, how about keeping a separation of church and state. Like it say's in the constitution. No prayer of any kind before any government meeting or function. Just do the peoples business and let god do his on his own time.
08:39 AM on 09/15/2010
The constitution says nothing about separation of church and state. Absolutely nothing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DannyEV
09:30 AM on 09/15/2010
it does, however, prohibit legal establishment of a religion. As to "separation of church and state," while this may--in strictly legal terms--be a misnomer used to describe the tension about religion in our country today, the underlying principle is certainly applicable. Jefferson referred to the "wall" separating religious practice from our civic practice.

The people framing the constitution had vivid memories of life under a regime with an established religion that made things very hard for those not practicing that religion; and knew they didn't want that here. Many religionists in the US, not knowing that history, do not understand the lesson taken from it when the First Amendment was written. You seem not to want to acknowledge the issue either. But I could be wrong.