Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Proclamation Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Philomath inclusivity committee rejects religious clause, agrees on secular edit to proclamation
Summary
After a heated discussion about a council-recommended religious addition to Resolution 25‑16, the Philomath Inclusivity Committee agreed to return a revised, secular wording to city council emphasizing inherent dignity and equal, inalienable rights.
The Philomath Inclusivity Committee on June 24 reviewed a City Council‑recommended change to Resolution 25‑16 — the inclusivity proclamation the committee drafted — and agreed to return a staff‑edited, secular version to the council for reading.
Councilor Caseman had asked the council to add the phrase, "because they are made in the image of God," to a clause that affirms that Philomath "treats everyone with human dignity and respect." Councilors who reviewed the proclamation instead sent the document back to the committee for further consideration and included written notes rather than attending, to avoid creating a city‑council quorum.
Committee members voiced strong objections to inserting explicitly religious language into a city proclamation. One member said the suggested wording was "grossly inappropriate" for a government document and noted that many residents do not hold the same theistic beliefs. Others argued that while they personally agreed with the sentiment behind the proposed phrase, a public proclamation should rely on civic, nonsectarian language.
As an alternative, a committee member proposed language modeled on international human‑rights phrasing: the proclamation should say the city "respects the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all people." That substitute was discussed favorably by multiple members as a way to preserve the proclamation's intent while keeping it aligned with separation‑of‑church‑and‑state principles.
By consensus the committee approved sending the edited wording back to city council for reading and possible adoption; the committee indicated it will revisit broader historical/contextual language (references to 2020 events and naming of individuals or incidents) during future meetings when members have more time to workshop the proclamation's longer‑term framing.
The committee did not take a formal roll‑call vote on the specific textual changes during the meeting; staff noted the council had asked for the committee's advice and that councilors present at the meeting could carry the committee's recommendation back to the full council.
