According to the Reg,
...[Reeve,] who was scolded by some of his colleagues after making remarks … about naming his dog Muhammad ... is trying to repair the city's image with a new tradition in which he plans to select different members of the community to periodically lead invocations at council meetings.Repair the city’s image? Way to take responsibility, Derek. It's not you; it's the city!
What an a**hole.
In a statement, Councilman Derek Reeve said, "San Juan received an unfortunate reputation the last few months as being unfriendly to religion. This, of course, is a false reputation…."Right, now he’s decided to alienate SJC atheists and agnostics. Evidently, to Reeve, they’re not even worth mentioning.
What an a**hole.
It appears that Reeve plans to do this “selecting” of invokers by himself:
…Reeve plans to select a different local resident to lead an invocation before every fifth council meeting. He says it will promote public participation in "all segments of our community, including religions."The Reg notes that it wasn’t just Reeve’s “dog Muhammad” remark that ruffled feathers re religion in recent months: “the city was involved in a controversy over a San Juan Capistrano couple who were fined by the city for hosting large Bible studies in their home.”
That latter controversy is now resolved.
Reeve's gambit is transparent: he is bundling these two unrelated controversies—one in which he ridiculed Muslims, another in which the city clumsily fined people for hosting large neighborhood meetings (that the meetings were religious was not the issue)—in order to obscure the obnoxiousness of his action.
|This accompanied the Register article. Did I mention that Reeve is an a**hole?|
What an a**hole.
So, has Reeve run this rotating invocation idea past other Council members?
"There is no rule prohibiting this, and I hope the others will follow my lead," Reeve said when asked whether he had discussed his idea with the other council members.One more time: WAA.
Meanwhile, as far as I know, Reeve, who was let go a month or two ago by Concordia University—evidently owing to his serial plagiarism (or his refusal to acknowledge the impropriety of his plagiarism)—still teaches for Saddleback College and is scheduled to teach there again in the spring.
P.S.: before I hear from the Incorrigible One, I want to briefly explain my use of the term “asshole.” According to the OED, an “asshole” is “someone or something foolish or contemptible.” Quite so. Do I believe that DR is foolish or contemptible? I do. (He's both.) Is it necessarily unfair or illogical to take such a view of a person? Obviously not, for some people, obviously, are foolish or contemptible or both.
I do believe that it is important that one have (and give) reasons for taking such a view of a person. That’s what I do in this post. I note that DR lumps together his own recent action (of ridiculing Muslims) with the city’s clumsy (and far less disturbing) act of fining neighborhood religious meetings—something, I suggest, he does plainly in order to obscure the contemptible nature of his own action. That DR engages in such cowardly and self-serving sophistry (I suggest) entitles one to conclude that he is contemptible, i.e., an “asshole.” Thus, in this instance, though I apply a "name" to DR, I nevertheless rise above “mere” name-calling. (See also In defense of name-calling.)