Letter to Sarasota County Commission re Prayers at Meetings

8/7/2019 Letter to Sarasota County Commission re Prayers at Meetings

1/5

1

March 3, 2011

Commissioners Mason, Barbetta, Robinson, Patterson and ThaxtonSarasota County Commission

1660 Ringling Blvd.

Sarasota, Florida 34236

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected]

Stephen E. DeMarshOffice of the County Attorney

1660 Ringling Blvd.

Sarasota, Florida [email protected]

Re: Prayer at Sarasota County Commission Meetings

Mr. DeMarsh and the above-named commissioners:

I am writing on behalf of a Sarasota County resident and taxpayer to alert you to a serious

separation of church and state concern. We have recently been notified that meetings of theSarasota County Commission begin with official public prayers. The American Humanist

Association is a national nonprofit organization with over 10,000 members and 20,000

supporters across the country, including members in Florida (AHA has 16 local chapters inFlorida, the second most of any state, including one in Sarasota). Our purpose is to protect theprinciples of the federal and state constitutions that require separation of church and state.

1 See

Koerner v. Borck, 100 So. 2d 398, 401 (Fla. 1958) (holding that the First Amendments

Establishment Clause is intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state).2

It appears that every regular Sarasota County Commission meeting begins with a public

prayer. The audio recordings of meetings posted on the countys website reveal that each

meeting from March 2010 through February 2011 opened with a prayer referencing God,Almighty God, Heavenly Father, or Lord, and ending with amen. At nearly all of these

1 The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides in part: Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion. Art. 1 Sec. 3 of the Florida Constitution provides in part: There shall be no law

respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof.2See also Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878) (stating that the phrase make no law respecting an

establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . build[s] a wall of separation between church

and State.).


2/5

2

meetings, the public was asked to rise immediately before the prayer.3

Even more egregious,

however, were the meetings in which attendees were asked not only to stand but also to bowtheir heads in prayer.4 Given these facts, we have reason to believe that the countys actions arein violation of the Establishment Clause.

First, the references to a transparently biblical God, Almighty God, HeavenlyFather, or Lord (and amen) in every invocation amounts to an unconstitutionalgovernmental endorsement of (1) one religion (Christianity) over other religions, and (2) more

generally, of religion over non-religion.5

Pursuant to the Supreme Courts ruling in Marsh v.Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), legislative prayers are unconstitutional if they attempt to

proselytize or advance any one . . . faith or belief. Id. at 794-95. In County of Allegheny v.

ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), the Supreme Court explained that Marsh could not be read to

justify . . . legislative prayers that have the effect of affiliating the government with any one

specific faith or belief. Id. at 603

In applying Marsh, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Florida in its

jurisdiction, rejected the importance of the supposedly nonsectarian nature of prayers at localgovernment meetings in deciding their constitutionality, or even the coherence of that idea,

stating that the court would not know where to begin to demarcate the boundary between

sectarian and nonsectarian expressions. See Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Ca., 547 F.3d 1263,

1272 (11th Cir. 2008). In upholding the particular legislative prayers at issue in Pelphrey, the

court relied on the fact that those prayers did not advance or affiliate the government with any

specific faith. The court observed that the diverse references in the prayers, includ ing to

Allah, Mohammed, and the Torah, made it such that the prayers did not advance anyparticular faith. Id. at 1277-78. Unlike the prayers at issue in Pelphrey, Sarasotas prayers do

not pass constitutional muster. The prayers are not offered by private members of a variety of

faiths, nor do they reference deities other than the obviously biblical God or Heavenly

Father. Accordingly, the countys prayers create the perception that the county

unconstitutionally endorses Christianity (and, more generally, religion over non-religion) in

violation of the Establishment Clause.

The fact that Sarasota Countys prayers are delivered by government officials and

employees6

heightens our Establishment Clause concerns. The Supreme Court has held that the

3The commissioner asked the public to stand before each prayer, by stating please rise if youre able in the

following meetings: February 22, 2011, February 8, January 11, 2011, December 17, 2010, December 8, 2010,

December 7, 2010, December 1, November 30, November 16, November 10, November 9, October 27, October 26,

October 13, October 12, September 29, September 28, September 15, September 14, July 27, July 14, July 13, June

23, June 22, June 8, May 26, May 25, May 12, May 11, April 28, March 23, March 17, March 16, 2010.4

For instance, the invocation by Kimberley Lance on January 11, 2011, stated (after the commissioner askedeveryone to stand): Please bow our heads, let us pray, Almighty Father. Amen; the invocation by John McCarthy

on December 1, 2010, stated (after the commissioner asked everyone to stand): Let us bow our heads ... lord as we

... amen.5See Brown v. Orange County Bd. of Public Instruction, 128 So. 2d 181 (1960) (holding that the First Amendment

forbids preferential treatment by government, Federal or State, of one sect or religion over others), Epperson v.

Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (holding that the First Amendment requires governmental neutrality between . . .

religion and nonreligion.) and School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 216 (1963) (same).6

It appears that every invocation given at every regular meeting held in the past 11 months was a government

official, such as the Health and Human Services Program Analyst (January 25. 2011), Planning and Development


3/5

3

government is without authority to prescribe any particular form of prayer which is to be used

as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 430 (1962).

7 In Engel, the Supreme Court held that theconstitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean

that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any

group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on bygovernment. Id. at 425. Thus, when Sarasota County officials compose and recite prayers at

public meetings and ask the public to participate in these prayers (by standing, or, even more

outrageously, bowing their heads), the County is in violation of the Establishment Clause.

(The countys prayers are unmistakably composed by the government employees

delivering them, as evinced, for example, by the prayer delivered by Administration OperationsAdministrative Specialist Kathy Petz on May 12, 2010, asking her Dear Lord for a specialblessing for her son.)

By reciting and coercing others to join in prayers composed and delivered by

governmental employees, the county is infringing upon the rights of each individual to chose toworship (or not to worship at all) in his or her own way. Id. As the Supreme Court noted in

Engel, [i]t is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in thiscountry should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that

purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for

religious guidance. Id. at 435. We simply ask that Sarasota leave the purely religious act of

prayer to the people by discontinuing the practice of beginning county meetings with aninvocation. Indeed, the purposes underlying the Establishment Clause . . . rested on the belief

that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion.

Id. at 431. By delivering prayers at public meetings, the county is not only violating the law butalso degrading the very religion it seeks to promote.

8

Because the prayer at county meetings is delivered by government officials, the county

exacerbates the official nature of its prayer (as proscribed by the Supreme Court in Engel).9

Services Executive Director (December 17. 2010), Community Services Parks and Recreation General Manager

(December 1. 2010), Planning and Development Services Assistant (November 10, 2010), Clerk of the Circuit

Board Records Management (October 27, 2010), Chief Financial Planning Officer (September 29, 2010),

Environmental Services Solid Waste Collections Manager (September 28, 2010), Operations and Maintenance

Services Executive Director (July 13, 2010), Capital Management Services Operations Manager (June 22, 2010),

Health and Human Services Environmental Supervisor (May 11, 2010), Emergency Services Fire Chief (April 13,

2010), Administrative Specialist (March 23, 2010).7See, also Borden v. School Dist. of Tp. of East Brunswick, 523 F.3d 153, 174 (3

rdCir. 2008) (holding that a high

school violated the Establishment Clause because its football coachs extensive involvement with the teamsprayers, which he organized, participated in, and led, would lead a reasonable observer to conclude that the coach

was not merely showing respect when he bowed his head and took a knee with his teams but was instead endorsing

religion).8Consider that the Bible indicates that Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, condemned public prayer: And when

you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to

be seen by others . . . But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, which is in

secret. (Matthew 6:5-13).9See, Borden v. School Dist. of Tp. of East Brunswick, 523 F.3d 153, 174 (3

rdCir. 2008) (holding that a high school

violated the Establishment Clause because its football coachs extensive involvement with the teams prayers, which


4/5

4

There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the

Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion which the Free Speech and

Free Exercise Clause protect. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302 (2000)

(quoting Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990). As government speech,10

Sarasotas prayer is not protected by the First Amendment guarantees of free expression and free

exercise of religion because [n]o individual has a First Amendment right to offer an officialprayer reflecting his personal beliefs. Hinrichs v. Bosma, 410 F. Supp. 2d 745, 750 (S.D. Ind.

2006).

By asking citizens to stand (and, on occasion, to bow their heads) prior to the invocation,

the county makes it immediately and unavoidably apparent which members of the public are not

participating in the prayer, which in turn creates an unconstitutionally hostile environment fornon-participants (such as non-Christian believers, atheists, and humanists). See Lynch v.

Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (OConnor, J., concurring, stating that [e]ndorsement [of

religion] sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the

political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored

members of the political community.)

11

The Supreme Court has held that asking attendees in apublic setting to stand as a group for an invocation is as real as any overt compulsion,

because in our culture, standing or remaining silent can signify adherence to a view. Lee v.Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 593 (1992) (holding that a public schools inclusion of a nonsectarianprayer in a graduation ceremony violated the Establishment Clause by coercing student to stand

and remain silent during giving of prayer, even though the student was not required to join in the

prayers message in any other way). Sarasotas practice of asking citizens to stand for a prayer isalso analogous to the practice struck down by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Wynne v.

Town of Great Falls, 376 F. 3d 292, 300 (4th

Cir. 2004).12

In Wynne, citizens attending the

meetings customarily were asked tostand, and the record contained uncontroverted evidencethat residents of the Town participated in the prayers by saying amen at the end. Id.at 294.In addition, making religion a relevant criterion for participation in the political process

undermines the rights protected by the equal protection clause of the Florida constitution, which

provides that no person shall be deprived of any right because of religion.13

We respectfully request that you discontinue public prayers at Sarasota County

Commission meetings (and any other governmental meetings involving the public) in order to bein compliance with the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state mandated by

he organized, participated in, and led, would lead a reasonable observer to conclude that the coach was not merely

showing respect when he bowed his head and took a knee with his teams but was instead endorsing religion).10

See Simpson v. Chesterfield County Bd. of Supervisors, 404 F.3d 276, 288 (4th

Cir. 2005) (holding that the

opening prayer of a county board meeting was government speech).11

See Wynne, 376 F.3d at 295-96 (observing that Wynnes efforts to participate in Town Council's meetings as amember of the public [were] adversely affected by her refusal to accept the Christian prayer tradition . . . theCouncil treated [her] differently than other members of the community. She explained that she did not believe the

Mayor took her seriously, and that he attempted to intimidate her.). 12 The prayer in Wynne is nearly identical to many of the prayer in Sarasota county meetings, as it read: Our

Heavenly Father, we are here tonight to discuss town business . . . In Christs name we pray. Amen. Id. at 294.13

Art. 1 Sec. 2 of the Florida Constitution provides in part: No person shall be deprived of any right because of

race, religion, national origin, or physical disability. See Bell v. State, 369 So.2d 932, 934 (Fla.1979) (explaining

that a denial of equal protection occurs when discrimination is based on an unjustifiable standard such as race,

religion, or other arbitrary classification.).


5/5

5

the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. All residents of Sarasota deserve to feel

welcome when interacting with their local county government. Beginning public meetings withprayers produces the opposite effect, corroding the broad civic engagement that is fundamental

to the proper functioning of our secular and democratic form of government.

Please notify us in writing about the steps you are taking to end this constitutionalviolation so that we may notify our complainant and avoid any potential litigation. Thank you

for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

William J. Burgess, Esq.

Appignani Humanist Legal Center

American Humanist Association

Letter to Sarasota County Commission re Prayers at Meetings

Documents

Transcript of Letter to Sarasota County Commission re Prayers at Meetings