Our team analyzed all of the emails that were sent to the City of La Crosse and here is the summary of our findings:

Public Comment Summary: City Council Invocation

Overview:
In about one week since announcing a desire to eliminate prayer, the City Council received 137 written public comments regarding the proposal to remove the invocation (prayer) from City Council meetings. These emails represent a broad cross-section of residents and stakeholders expressing their views on the role of prayer in public meetings.
Source: Email comments compilation PDF.

Overall Sentiment

A clear majority of respondents oppose removing the invocation.

Approximately four out of five emails (about 80%) express support for continuing the invocation, while about 20% support its removal.

• Total emails reviewed: 137
• Support keeping invocation: ~110 (~80%)
• Support removing invocation: ~27 (~20%)

Note: Percentages are rounded for clarity. Classifications are based on the explicit position stated in each email.

Key Themes from Those Supporting the Invocation
Residents who favor keeping the invocation most commonly cited the following reasons:

• Long-standing tradition:
  Many described the invocation as a decades-old practice that reflects the community’s history and civic culture.
• Voluntary participation:
  Supporters repeatedly emphasized that no one is required to participate, and that attendees may remain silent or step out.
• Moment of reflection:
  Several emails framed the invocation as a brief pause for humility, wisdom, and thoughtful decision-making rather than a religious mandate.
• Inclusivity through diversity:
  Some noted that invocations have historically been offered by leaders from a variety of faith traditions.
• Constitutional permissibility:
  Numerous writers referenced past legal precedent affirming legislative prayer as constitutional when non-coercive.

Key Themes from Those Supporting Removal
Residents supporting removal of the invocation generally raised the following concerns:

• Separation of church and state:
  Many expressed a desire for a strictly secular government environment.
• Perceived exclusion:
  Some stated that prayer at meetings made them feel uncomfortable or less represented.
• Desire for neutrality:
  Several suggested replacing the invocation with a moment of silence or other non-religious opening.

Summary for Decision-Makers

• Public input strongly favors retaining the invocation.
• Opposition to removal is both numerically dominant and thematically consistent.
• Supporters largely frame the issue around tradition, voluntariness, and civic reflection rather than religious compulsion.
• Those favoring removal focus on inclusivity and secular governance.

This summary reflects the content and balance of the public comments received, not the views of any individual official or body.

Prepared for public information purposes based on the compiled email record provided.