What’s A Chamber For?
by John Weckerle
One of our readers sent us an e-mail message from Debbie Ortiz, executive director of the Moriarty Chamber of Commerce, sent out this past Monday, March 15. The message, with the title “FWD: transformation in the marketplace,” reads as follows:
Dear Chamber Members,
Please open the attachment. Leanne the Chairman of the Chamber requested
this be sent out. Please join her at Shorty’s on March 17, at 5:30 for her
presentation on “Transformation in the Marketplace”.Thanks – Stay warm and have a wonderful rest of the day!
The attachment, which we will absolutely not post here, promotes an event called “Transformation in the Marketplace” – which, as it turns out, was a dinnertime prayer meeting held yesterday at a restaurant reputedly owned by Santos and Leanne Tapia (the Leanne referenced in the e-mail).
Where do we start?
First, let us examine the issue of propriety. The means in which this was handled essentially amounted, once again, to the use of Chamber resources by a Chamber official for non-Chamber business. In our opinion, it is absolutely not appropriate for Chamber of Commerce (anywhere) officers to use the Chamber as a preferential promotional vehicle for their personal religious, political, or other initiatives. It is even more inappropriate to do so when the event in question is to be held at a restaurant owned by the official – again, at dinnertime.
Second – Like politics, we believe that religion is not an area into which Chambers should intrude. Don’t get us wrong; we’re not antireligious – your editor has two area sites (Edgewood, New Mexico and the Surrounding Area and Moriarty, New Mexico and the Surrounding Area) that provide a free listing of area churches and associated information. However, promoting religious events is not the function of a Chamber. The message not only promotes the event, but appears to officially sanction it as a business event. The principal function of Chambers of Commerce is to promote area businesses, thereby increasing their members’ revenues. Realistically, there is no other reason for anybody to spend money on Chamber membership than to bring in more business. If business owners want to donate to churches or civic organizations, they can and should do so directly. However, since it is apparently Moriarty Chamber policy to provide free promotional assistance to such events, we encourage all area churches and religious organizations to request that assistance from the Chamber – and let us know if you don’t receive it.
12 Responses “What’s A Chamber For?”
You leave us with little on which to judge the content, much less the context of the “presentation.”
I’m not so certain that the presentation was at odds with the Moriarty Chamber’s mission, since I have not read the Moriarty Chamber’s mission; nor have I heard or read Ms. Leyba’s presentation.
I also am not so sure that this event was promoted as a “chamber” event or that you said it is, but the inference seems to be that it was promoted as a chamber event.
I see no problem with the chamber announcing the event as a fellow member’s event … after all, they (the chamber) are supposed to promote the business of its members. It seems to me that there was no command for attendance and no mention of the chamber’s sponsorship.
Now that I’m curious, I plan to try to examine the information found in the presentation.
I take your article to be based on your sincere beliefs, but I for one, could have benefited from the document or documents attached to the email you received. As it is, I was only able to find a very basic outline to a DVD which touts religion as somewhat of a vehicle for the ride to success and prosperity.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
The 1.2 MB attachment would not open directly from the e-mail program, and was enough of a hassle just to view; we were not interested in putting the time into repairing and downsampling it for uploading.
Questions of religion, suitability, separation of church and state, whether or not “state” applies to any chamber of commerce, etc. aside, no one should feel obliged to upload someone else’s 1.2 MB file in order to provide a link for readers who should be perfectly able to eamil the chamber for a copy. Send such a large unsolicited attachment in the 1st place demonstrates appalling netiquette. Next time perhaps the Moriarty chamber will have the presence of mind to upload to their own site and email the link, which NM Central certainly would have published.
One problem (just one of many) with prayer meetings is the intolerance implied in the unwarranted assumption that everyone will share the particular practices and dogma of the organizers’ chosen denomination.
It is painfully obvious from your “anti-Moriarty Chamber” web site and the initial remarks on the first posting therein,that you have a personal agenda in opposition to the Moriarty Chamber. Your labeling of the announcement sent out by Mrs. Ortiz as “Chambergate” only solidfies that
To add to Mr. Ring’s comment,you did your readers a great disservice by not including the attachment from Ms. Ortiz so that we could judge for ourselves what was so egregious.
Although I did not receive one of the e-mails mentioned my wife and I attended the event and therefore I can speak as to what took place and it was much more than a prayer meeting at dinner time, and Mr. Weckerle you obviously would have been well served to have been in attendance.
The presentation began with the viewing of the documentary “Transformation in the Marketplace.”
This was followed by a discussion of what we had viewed and about the transformation that took place in the small town similar to Moriarty and Edgewood. We talked about how we could put into practice what they did and what growth and positive change we would experience.
Although the attendance was not what Leeanne had hoped for it was greater than she expected. There was even an older couple in transit from their winter home in Arizona to their home in Colorado in attendance and they were very grateful that they were allowed the experience. The evening closed with everyone in attendance agreeing to meet each Wednesday night to follow up. We then closed the evening in prayer.
Although I did not get the chance to read the announcment you chose not to share, I can only assume that it was a more detailed invitation to attend the presentation. I can also assure you that if any of the area churches wish to have any of their events announced by the Moriarty Chamber that they will be more than willing to put them out to the membership. There is also nothing that I am aware of in the Chamber’s by-laws that prohibits any of the area churches from joining the Chamber.
Mr. Weckerle I pity you, as you are obviously one of those poor misguided souls that believes that seperation of church and state is written somewhere in the US Constitution. It is not.
The event was very beneficial to all in attendance and to a degree Mr. Ring is correct. The presentation did not tout that religion is somewhat of a vehicle to success and prosperity but that if we individually and as a community get back to the basis this great country was founded on that we can turn things around. If we humble ourselves and put God first, bring back morality, ethics and integrity that He will prosper our land. We cannot, we must not continue down this path that we are rocketing down.
Our founding fathers knew this, they based our Declaration of Independance on it as well as our Constitution, you sir, would do well to do the same. Your time and the space allocated on this site would be better served without your feeble and transparent attempts to discredit the Moriarty Chamber of Commerce and its director, its president and its membership who are dedicated hard working individuals whose main goal is to see Moriarty and its businesses grow and prosper.
In closing I would like to respectfully invite you to join us next Wednesday night at 5:30 at Shorty’s Restaurant in Moriarty and see for yourself. In the alternative I will continue to pray for you.
Ah, the inevitable deflection of criticism by accusing the critic of having an agenda.
I do not, to my knowledge, have an “anti-Moriarty Chamber” web site. I do have a web site at http://www.moriartynmchamber.com that specifically states that it is not affiliated with the Chamber and explains that it came to be largely as a result of the Chamber’s web site being down on a regular basis, but that’s about it. “Chambergate” is a satirical term that came to be last year. I also coined the term “electro-librarygate;” I suppose this means I have an anti-electro-library agenda as well.
The article here makes no mention of church and state separation – it has to do with the appropriate activities of Chambers of Commerce – and I have no desire or intention to enter into a debate on that subject here. However, I will state simply that I disagree with your position on that issue, and agree with Cindi Allen and Anne House, below.
I looked up the documentary ‘Transformation in the Marketplace’ it is a series of 4 stories in which god influenced the marketplace. Mr. Dennis, you forgot to mention this little detail in your description of the film. If this information was included in the e-mailed attachment, then attendants would know what they were going to see, and could make a choice about attending accordingly. If they thought they were going to see a non-secular movie they may feel they had been duped or conned into attending.
As for the separation of church and state NOT being in the constitution. The first amendment states ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ In other words, each of us is free to worship as we choose, and in such we have no sanctioned state religion.
John, I guess I am a poor misguided soul who also believes in the separation of church and state as well. Thank you for writing this article. Secular law and religious beliefs are best served in their own houses. My God and my self can watch after my own soul in the privacy of my own place.
The Moriarty Chamber and the Edgewood Chamber has a tendency to align with political candidates and religious groups when convenient; a concern I have tried to discuss since 2005, to no avail. I believe this is a distraction when they should be working on promoting the local business community.
Why we have 2 chambers chronically dependent public funds to remain open is ironic – the fact that they may spend any time preachin’ or politicin’ instead of promoting our local businesses may be a reason why they don’t generate their own income.
Debbie in Moriarty and Robin in Edgewood work very hard, and I give them kudos for their many accomplishments, but I can tell you first hand of an off season basketball team and mini-golf businesses that both wanted to come to this area and decided against it due to the “lack of focus on business activities and professionalism” that both chambers displayed.
It gets a little embarrassing for those of us trying to promote Edgewood and Moriarty as good places to build a business when the rents are absolutely ridiculous, the business climate is generally unprofessional, and our business representatives keep feeding off the public teet.
I am sorry to see the hard work of Robin, Debbie and former ECC president Kelly, and all of the progress they seemed to make last year, going for naught in favor of political opinion and religious leanings.
At the risk of being accused (again) of having an anti-Chamber agenda, I have to say that I’d find it very hard to argue against the points you’ve made here. It is unfortunate that the business community finds itself in this apparent position – more so that the situation seems so resistant to change. As long as the membership of these organizations approves – either explicitly or by simply not raising objections – the status quo will likely remain despite the efforts of those who work to effect change from within the system. Perhaps another vehicle for promoting business within the community is needed.
John, I do believe part of the issue is that anyone who suggests that something may be improved upon or changed somehow is almost immediately seen as being
“anti – ” the organization.
I don’t for a minute believe that you are anti – chamber, anti – growth, anti – Edgewood etc. I know I am not any of those, yet am seen that way because I speak up.
Keep up the good work. If people pigeonhole you because of it, well, it may be their loss.
Ms. Allen,
Sorry I have not responded to your response sooner but I don’t frequent this blog that often. I d o feel that your comments deserve a response. Precisely your more than adequate quote of the 2nd ammendment of the US Constitution. As you quoted:”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ It does not mention anywhere the seperation of church and state. The reference of such came from a letter Thomas Jefferson sent to John Adams that did not refer to the Constitution at all. The intent of this ammendment was to prevent the government from forming a “state Church” such as England had and was one of the main factors that led to the American revolution. IF you have studied your US history at all you would know that the founding fathers were very clear in their beliefs and founded this great nation on Judeo Christian principles with a fimr belief that God was not seperate frrom the affairs of state.
The first reference to the phrase “separation of church and state” does not come from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams. It is found in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (transcript at http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html), and it is clear that he is discussing the provisions of the U.S. Constitution in that letter.
Jefferson was not the principal author of the FIRST Amendment (not the second, as you name it); that was James Madison. A quote from the Wikipedia article on the Establishment Clause: However, Madison himself often wrote of “total separation of the church from the state” (1819 letter to Robert Walsh), “perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters” (1822 letter to Livingston), “line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority… entire abstinence of the government” (1832 letter Rev. Adams), and “practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States” (1811 letter to Baptist Churches). While we don’t always cite Wikipedia here, the reference in this case seems legitimate, and indicates that the intention of the clause was a separation of church and state. This has been the general gist of essentially all Supreme Court (which is for all intents and purposes the final authority on constitutional interpretation) decisions associated with the Establishment Clause.
To address the comment about the religious position of the founding fathers, I have heard frequently in the past few years that they were all Christians. They were not all christians, several of them were deists. Deists broke from the christian church in the 17th century. They believe that God made the world and then left it to operate by the laws of nature.
You are right that they established the first amendment to prevent the establishment of a state religion. They were deeply concerned about the ‘tyranny of religion’. Something we see evidence of in our current times as well as throughout history.