Praying upon the unindoctrinated

I’ve been following with a certain degree of interest the case involving the Greece Town Board’s use of prayer to open its meetings. I found the practice to be a little unnerving and was kind of shocked on Monday when I saw that the Supreme Court said it was A-OK.

I was even more shocked on Tuesday when I went to the Niagara County Legislature meeting to find that they follow the same practice: prayer to start the meeting.

As I sat there, or stood there, rather, I went from being amused to annoyed to downright upset about it.

A government meeting is no place for prayer. If our county officials want to ask God for help, more power to them. I do so regularly. But I don’t force others to listen — and neither should they.

Of course, we weren’t only asked to listen, we were instructed to rise and bow our heads. I did so, essentially, out of peer pressure. I don’t want to be “that guy” who raises a stink at a meeting over government-coerced indoctrination of religion. But let’s face it. That’s what it is.

Following the prayer, we all put our hands over our hearts and said the pledge to the flag. So you have a baseline for how liberal I am on certain topics, I find the coerced recital of the pledge equally upsetting. Indoctrination of nationalism is offensive to me, too. But back to prayer.

Liberal as I may be on some things, I consider myself deeply religious. I believe in God. I go to church. And I pray, although not as often as I should, no doubt. Those who have read my columns for a long time know that I invoke God from time to time. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite, but I think not. I’m not the government. And I don’t pressure others into my religion.

I don’t want prayer from the government any more than I want my church to tell me how to its interpretation of the Constitution. The two influences just shouldn’t meet.

To be fair, there’s nothing in the Constitution, the Declaration, or anywhere else, really, that says there’s a “separation of church and state.” Some believe it’s implied by the First Amendment guarantee to freedom of religion, which many (self included) interpret as “freedom from religion,” meaning freedom against the type of indoctrination that happens in Greece … and Niagara County … and who knows how many other places in the nation.

The attorney for the Town of Greece applauded the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday, saying the court affirmed "that Americans are free to pray." On that, I’d agree. But we should also be free from being prayed to … or at.

If, as a Christian, I find the practice offensive, how do others feel?

Scott Leffler is a Christian. But that’s between him and God. You be what you want to be. He won’t hold it against you as long as you don’t pressure him to convert. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

Donald Sterling issue not black and white

Color me conflicted.

Some people have told me over the years that I’m wishy washy at times. I used to get this complaint on a somewhat regular basis back in my broadcast days. It’s not that I’m wishy washy, though. It’s that I have what I consider to be a unique ability to see several sides of an issue simultaneously.

That’s where I stand over the decision to ban Los Angeles Clippers Owner Donald Sterling for private racist remarks he made that were then made public.

Many people feel the “bold move” made by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is a step in the right direction, showing without doubt that the basketball league will not tolerate racism. Meh.

Others feel that Sterling’s private comments are just that and should not be counted against him in his public life — meaning as owner of the Clippers.

I can see the second point of view more than I can see the first, to be honest. While I abhor racism, we are still in America and people have the right to say what they feel. That doesn’t mean that NBA patrons and advertisers are required to put up with racist comments, however. And many can and would react by boycotting the team — maybe even the league.

This is where I can see the reasoning behind Silver’s decision to ban Sterling from the league. From my point of view, it has little to do with standing up to racism and a lot to do with protecting the financial well-being of the league.

Others will sugar coat it and say that Silver and other NBA owners are actually standing up to racism. I say hogwash; they’re standing up for capitalism. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Kind of.

The NBA is a lot like a restaurant franchise. Each owner is in charge of their store but the corporate overlords are in charge of various policies. And if the individual stores don’t pull their weight, the corporation moves in and protects its interests.

Having worked for the McDonald’s Corporation for a number of years, this parallel makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, at the end of my tenure with McDonald’s, one of my duties was to help franchisees with certain image problems. I worked for the corporation, but my day-to-day duties was to help private store owners with issues. Basically, the corporation knew that individual store owners could make them look bad. And if that were to happen, those store owners could lose their franchise rights. For the well-being of the corporation.

I get that. It makes sense. But still it’s a very slippery slope.

The NBA is in a bad situation itself. They can’t stand up for Sterling, lest they be branded racist. But in ostracizing him, they’re telling other NBA owners — and potentially other sports owners — ”Hey, you better not ever say anything remotely controversial or we’ll cut you off at the knees.”

A slippery slope indeed. I see the NBA’s point of view. But in the end, I just think they’re wrong.

Scott Leffler is more upset about McDonald’s getting rid of Hot Mustard than the NBA getting rid of Donald Sterling. He didn’t think that was column-worthy, but he did tweet about it recently @scottleffler.