March 13, 2010
To the Editor:
At the February 11th Copake Town Board meeting, Councilman Dan Tompkins successfully opposed the appointment of Father John Thompson, rector of the Church of St. John in the Wilderness, to the volunteer position of Town Ombudsman. In so doing, the councilman not only deprived the Town of an impartial candidate with training in conflict resolution, among other skills, but he may also have violated Father John’s civil rights.
Father John was denied the volunteer ombudsman position not because he was deemed unqualified, but because his profession is that of a clergyman. Mr. Tompkins showed great ignorance of the First Amendment by invoking the “separation of church and state” to justify his opposition. His successful use of a bungled interpretation to block the appointment of a highly qualified candidate is highly regrettable. The purpose of separation of church and state is to prevent government from establishing laws that impose religion upon the citizenry. It was not intended, nor has the Supreme Court ever interpreted it to mean, that a member of the clergy cannot hold elected or appointed public office.
If Tompkins were correct in his interpretation of separation of church and state, then the Reverends Ted Voelker and Walt Zelley should not be serving on our town’s Ethics Board, and Father Robert Drinan should never have been elected to serve five terms in Congress. Separation of church and state does not apply to Father John’s application for the position of ombudsman. To invoke it denies Father John his civil rights.
At the town board meeting Councilman Tompkins buttressed his regrettable position by expounding on “the issue of Positive Neutrality.” Mr. Tompkins failed to mention in his weighty discourse that he took his remarks, without attribution, from an article that can be found on the internet (www.leaderu.com). Ironically, the article is actually critical of government when, in regard to church and state, it endorses secularism over religion – quite a different meaning from what Tompkins presented in his plagiarized statement on Positive Neutrality.
To add insult to injury, Mr. Tompkins self-servingly said he would also deny Father John the position to save him exposure “to the harshness of Copake politics.” But Mr. Tompkins’ handling of the matter, from beginning to end, has been an exposure to Copake’s harsh politics.
The true motivation of Mr. Tompkin’s opposition can be found in the Town Board’s final decision to appoint no one to the position of Ombudsman. In fact, Crowley and his team do not wish to risk the possibility of anyone looking closely at or shining a light on their dark Copake governance. That is why they propose to change the Town Law so that the appointment of an ombudsman by the town board would be strictly optional.
The violation of civil rights, plagiarism, denial of citizens’ due process; that is our town government at work. Harsh politics indeed.
Sincerely,
Edgar M. Masters
Dan Tompkins, an elected councilman, should have done more research about his "peers" before he made ignorant remarks about separation of church and state, as well as whether a person with utmost religious convictions or holds an esteemed positon in his church is qualified to be an ombudsman or elected offical in Copake or any other town/city.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am not aware of Father Thompson or his
qualifications, I would like to mention our Speaker of the New York State Assembly Sheldon Silver, a practicing orthodox Jew, who attended a school which has produced hundreds of rabbis. I cannot think of one instance in which his religious training, background and convictions have anything to do with his voting on past or pending legislation.