Government Ethics Arguments Against Prayer at Local Government Meetings

Anonymous

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 06:29

Tomorrow morning, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the
case of Town of Greece v. Galloway, regarding prayer at meetings of
local legislative bodies. In addition to the important
constitutional questions regarding separation of church and state,
there are government ethics questions involved. This post will consider those ethics questions.

Justice O'Connor emphasized the government ethics issues in her
concurring opinion in <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0465_0668_ZC.ht…; target="”_blank”">Lynch

v. Donnelly</a>, 465 U.S. 668 (1984). She wrote:<blockquote>

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence
to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the
political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in
two principal ways. One is excessive entanglement with religious
institutions, which may interfere with the independence of the
institutions, give the institutions access to government or
governmental powers not fully shared by nonadherents of the
religion, and foster the creation of political constituencies
defined along religious lines. ... The second and more
direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of
religion. Endorsement 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. Disapproval sends the opposite
message.</blockquote>

In other words, involvement with religion or religious institutions
raises two important government ethics issues: preferential
treatment and the undermining of citizen participation in
government. Greece v. Galloway involves both these issues. 
 
Personal Benefit and Preferential Treatment 
No part of a local government, and especially high-level officials,
should show preferential treatment to citizens based on their
religious affiliation. The town of Greece (pop. 100,000) invited
only Christians to pray before town board meetings. Presumably, town
board members were themselves Christians and, therefore, were
favoring like-minded people at least partly for their personal
benefit. This is one of the many situations where an ethics code's
exclusive focus on financial benefits allows such conduct to be considered
acceptable. 
 
It should not be considered acceptable. It is a misuse of the
town board members' positions to benefit themselves, to include like-minded individuals, and to exclude
from government those from other religions, as well as atheists. 
 
In addition, when such preferential treatment has occurred and a religious institution has business to do with government,
this preferential treatment makes it appear
that it will be treated according to the town board members' own
religious beliefs. For example, if citizens' attempt to build a
mosque in town is rejected, will this not appear to be because their
beliefs are rejected rather than for reasons germane to land use
matters? 
 
After the suit was filed, the town board started inviting adherents
of other religions to say prayers before meetings (according to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/opinion/a-prayer-in-the-town-hall.htm…; target="”_blank”">a
New York Times editorial yesterday</a>, the same thing happened in
a case decided by the Supreme Court thirty years ago, and it ended
after four months). But even this is questionable, since it still
prefers believers over nonbelievers. It is true that even atheists
could be asked to say prayers, but (1) atheists do not believe in
prayer and (2) it is very difficult for most atheists to go public
with their lack of belief. In fact, it is possible that one or more Greece
town board members are only nominally Christian, but were afraid to
speak out against Christian prayer at their meetings out of concern regarding the effect this
would have on their re-election and on their standing in their
community. 
 
Citizen Participation 
Even more important is the second of the government ethics
issues: citizen participation. This issue involves a principal
goal of government ethics, rather than an issue that can be directly
dealt with in an ethics code. 
 
As Justice O'Connor pointed out, "Endorsement [of a 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.
Disapproval sends the opposite message." 
 
As an anonymous letter to one of the plaintiffs in this case said,
“If you feel ‘unwanted’ at the Town of Greece meetings, it’s
probably because you are.” 
 
The plaintiffs have made the argument that the situation in Greece
differs from the case thirty years ago, which involved the Nebraska
legislature. In a local meeting, ordinary citizens take part in town
business. They rarely do this before a state legislature (although
they do take part in public hearings before legislative committees). This is a valuable distinction to make, and I hope the Supreme Court accepts it. 
 
Local government meetings should be for everyone, and local
officials should recognize that their obligation to support citizen
participation is greater than any obligation they might feel to
their personal religion, or even to religious belief itself. 
 
People often think that prayer does not make anyone feel excluded.
But these people most likely have not participated in a situation
where there is disapproval of religion, which Justice O'Connor
recognized as the same problem in the quote above. 
 
A few years ago, the First Selectman of my town (effectively the
mayor and, as far as I can tell, a Christian) was criticizing a
citizen at a Board of Selectmen meeting. One of the things he said,
describing a meeting he was not present at, was that the citizen
"brandished his cross" at the manager of a supermarket in town. It
was a completely unnecessary, inflammatory detail, and was met with
laughter from some in the audience. This citizen always wears a
large cross, and this was mocked by some who do not agree with him
politically. 
 
A Jew myself, I was appalled at this. And yet I did not speak out in
his defense. There was so much hostility in the audience against the
citizen that I felt cowed. I've been ashamed of this ever since. 
 
Endorsement of a particular religion can have a negative effect, as well.
Listening to talk of Jesus, Mohammed, or Moses, being surrounded by
people praying and saying Amen, must make many nonbelievers feel
uncomfortable. I am sure that many non-Christians feel cowed by
public meetings that begin with Christian prayers, and either do not
attend or attend and do not participate. Disapproval of anyone's
religious beliefs or practices is worse, but it is important to recognize, as Justice O'Connor did, that this is only the
other side of the same coin. Officials should not do, or allow,
anything at a meeting that might undermine the participation of any
group of citizens, for any reason, whether religious, racial, or
gender-oriented. 
 
Even if it is determined that the Constitution allows prayer at
local government meetings, government ethics considerations should
disallow such prayer. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Government Ethics Arguments Against Prayer at Local Government Meetings

Share This Page