Bayview Park Cross Violates Establishment Clause, Legal HELP Letter!

This issue has heated up since it was first brought to me by a group that rented space in the park a few months ago.  They know I love this stuff and I've been working on it since.

When the City made it clear they would not meet with me or compromise - perhaps by making the cross into an (appropriate) anchor or removing it when not in use by a church, I posted the issue to the East Hill Neighborhood Association's Facebook page.  Their (predictable) responses are in another post.

Here's the cross, on City property:

BELOW is the history, as I understand it, encapsulated in a letter I wrote to several legal organizations when I realized that action would be necessary to bring change.  I will post their letter/s once they are sent.

Dear <insert legal organization to be named later>

I'm sorry I don't have more definitive information.  But I want to summarize what I know, in hopes you will draft a letter to the city attorney (legal@cityofpensacola.com) mayor (mayorhayward@cityofpensacola.com), Parks head (bcooper@cityofpensacola.com) and anyone else who might effect the removal of this cross.

The Bayview park cross (15-20' tall) was erected sometime in the 1940s or 50s.  It was always on City property.  I have not found an exact date or learned who placed it, despite hours searching microfilm of the local newspapers.  The stage was erected in 1951 and bears an inoffensive memorial plaque.  There are no other historical markers related to the cross.  A public records request to the City for info on when/by whom it was erected has yielded no results.

The cross has served only one purpose - for Easter sunrise services, once very popular there.  In the mid-century, they had thousands attend and it was presided over by several churches who shared worship duties.  Those services resumed recently, smaller and sponsored by a nearby church.  The cross remains up year-round, with or without Easter services.  A planned re-design of the park leaves the cross in place.

I recently (finally) received an answer from Brian Cooper, head of City Parks.  He said "The City of Pensacola owns Bayview Park. The amphitheater and accompanying features belongs to the City of Pensacola. All information related to this particular portion of Bayview Park, that we could readily put our fingers on, has been provided to the City Attorney's office in response to your public records request."

My understanding (undocumented) is that the cross was replaced at least once since the original (rounded) cross placed by the Junior Chamber of Commerce. I think that happened recently (within last 30 years) and at the expense of the City.  I can't say for sure.  I have requested records for repair or replacement of the cross.  They were returned with a cost estimate I am not willing to pay until I have legal counsel.  I may try to refine my search to lower the cost.

I have also suggested a reasonable accommodation that involves storing the cross somewhere or donating it to a church.  They could then alter the base so that anyone who rents that part of the park may place their own symbol (including the cross) when they hold events there.  For the most part, no one uses that stage except the Easter Sunday organizers.  After all, who wants a huge cross behind their event except Christians?

Until today, I've kept this issue quiet.  One Facebook post ended that and the public response has not been favorable.  Mostly, they say it doesn't hurt anyone and it should stay.  I disagree, because I see the favor offered to Christians alone.  Others have suggested allowing a variety of religious icons should be allowed... quickly mentioning that they would be vandalized soon after.  Few understand that the City should not allow any religious symbols to be permanently erected on public property.  No matter, as this is not about public opinion.

At this point, I can do no more by myself.  I am requesting that you PLEASE write the City, citing applicable case law, and suggest that they remove the cross.  Only a serious letter from an organization like yours is likely to prompt action.

I will continue my research and report any results.  In the meantime, I would appreciate a yes or no answer about drafting said letter.

in Reason,
David Suhor

VIDEO: ECSB June Public Forum Comments

I keep plugging away at the ECSB.  While we wait for the attorney to get active (soon, I am told), I want to remind them that this issue is not going away.  Still, they will not offer a written invocation policy, nor accept non-Biblical invocation prayers.  That actually helps my case.

Here's the June speech on youtube.
https://youtu.be/swqUSfZbXTM

I'll be speaking again in July.

VIDEO: @BOCC, Chief Dodge gives Christian Prayer, Disguised as Native American

http://youtu.be/_O4JwUtDomc

Even Chief Dodge, a man I know and respect, can't leave Jesus out of the invocation - in fact, he's the only deity mentioned by name. Was that a requirement for him to speak? Notice the lengthy equivocation and explanation by the Board Member, Doug Underhill. There is never such a preamble and warning when regular Christians pray. The esteemed chief prayed to a male (father) god. Why? I consider this yet another Christian prayer (with native flair), like 95% of those offered in the last 2 years. Meanwhile, nones (atheist, agnostics, unbelievers, and Humanists) are refused the change to speak, despite being 20%+ of our population. The BOCC needs to quit choosing prayer-givers by personal religious preference. Instead, they should maintain a list that doesn't exclude anyone or allow repeats. Or they should have an inclusive moment of silence so we may all pray (or not) in our own way. As of now, they have NO WRITTEN POLICY... because they don't want it to be fair or to allow nones to deliver invocations. also... Matthew 6:5-6 says Jesus didn't approve of public prayer. So there's that.

ECUA Correspondence with Lois Benson

Ms Benson, et al

 

Will you please forward this to the board’s attorney?  I would appreciate a reply from him acknowledging receipt.

Please feel free to share this with board members as well.  They need to know this before proceeding.

 

https://au.org/content/operation-inclusion

Here’s the relevant text:

The Greece ruling was a bad decision, but the Court did make it clear that the First Amendment imposes limits on local governments that open their meetings with ceremonial prayers.  Towns cannot discriminate on the basis of religion; town leaders cannot lead others in prayers or integrate worship into the legislative process; and invocations cannot proselytize or denigrate other belief systems.

 

In addition, I want to correct you what you said about my suing the board.  Though I hold that as an option, that is not my intention at this time.  I have not retained an attorney for this purpose.  The reason I wrote you and spoke before the board (as I will EVERY meeting hereafter until a change is made) is because this does not need to go to court.  The law clearly is on my side and against the endorsement and establishment of ANY religion at government functions.  It also forbids excluding those non-traditional religions wishing to take part.  In addition, Galloway does not protect the ECUA Board or CAC, as they are not, in any way, legislative bodies.  In short, the board should remain neutral on religious issues.  This can easily be achieved, without need for further conflict, simply by dropping the prayer, by praying privately before the meeting (off-microphone, not urging the audience to take part), or with an inclusive moment of silence which allows everyone to pray (or not) in their own way.

 

I would further note that the prayer is on the agenda – AFTER the Call to Order – contrary to the suggestion I heard at today’s CAC meeting.  That makes it an official government function.  Otherwise, I would be free to pray aloud in my own way at the same time.

 

As ever, I would be happy to meet with you or your attorney to discuss this.  My only aim is to assure that local government is as inclusive and welcoming to ALL citizens as possible.  Asking for the guidance of – and thereby endorsing – any god acts against inclusion and remains a violation of the 1st Amendment establishment clause. 

 

Wouldn’t it be better to focus on the job at hand, rather than interjecting religion, with divisive and possibly litigious results?  I think so.

 

Best Regards,

 

David Suhor

 

PS  If the board needs further citing of cases which forbid your prayer practice, Americans United can assist you, as can FFRF.  I've resisted filing a complaint with either body, as I hope to resolve this by open discussion.

<NO RESPONSE TO BELOW - SEE PUBLIC FORUM VIDEO>

Ms Benson, 

 

Thank you for responding.

 

I also do not wish to distract the ECUA board by calling out the legality of your unwritten and exclusive invocation policy.  However, since you refuse to allow polytheists or atheists to participate, since the board members themselves offer the same kinds of prayers (endorsing their monotheistic, paternal god), and since you will not observe the Supreme Court precedent, which says that ANYONE, “even an atheist”, may offer such prayers and that you the board must practice non-discrimination, I am compelled to work for inclusion and legal propriety.  You might also ask your attorney whether the ECUA is covered by the protections of Galloway, since that decision only effects LEGISLATIVE bodies like the City Council and County Commission.

 

You said this is a “dialog that is far from the mission of our organization”.  I agree.  Prayer – which is inherently divisive in these settings - is not part of your mission.  So why take a losing stand in an attempt to continue it?  We’d all be better served by focusing on the jobs you were elected to do.

 

I believe a fairer, safer policy would be to offer an inclusive moment of silence, which respects everyone’s right to pray in their own way.  The board may still pray privately, as commanded by Jesus in Matthew 6:5-6.  It’s simply the Biblical-type prayer displays that offend non-believers, true Christians, and those who don’t come to government meetings for prayer.  Better even than a MOS, would be if the board get down to the business they were elected to address – and leave religious issues to individual choice.  This is not your church, it’s a government meeting!

 

On a personal note, I’ve been doing this for a while and I am not concerned about backlash against me.  I am more concerned with the rightful separation of church and state, or at least having our elected representative practice nondiscrimination when it endeavors to mix the two.  I am also concerned that taxpayer resources could go to defending an illegal and exclusive practice, rather than welcoming all citizens, regardless of religion.  If you are concerned about potential abuses, you should create a policy which directs the content of the prayers to be offered when open to the public, as required by law.  I would be happy to share such a policy.  There is one on my blog.

 

Barring some change of heart towards inclusion and propriety, I will see you at the next meeting.

 

Best Regards,

 

David Suhor

 

PS  I will be publishing your emails on my blog: anapplebiter.blogspot.com

 

 

From: Lois Benson

Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 5:58 PM

To: David Suhor

Subject: Re: ECUA Invocation

 

Mr. Suhor,

 

I am not the chair of the CAC so I do not determine the protocols of that committee. That committee is chaired by Elvin McCorvey.

 

I have been traveling as well as being inundated with other responsibilities since your last communication so my response to your email , while contemplated, was not conveyed.

 

I consider myself an enlightened person, and I am not unsympathetic to your quest. My grandchildren attend the only private school in the community that does not have a religious affiliation. They have friends who are Muslims, Jewish, etc.; they take the practice of different faiths in their stride and treat different beliefs with respect. I have listened to my grand daughter as she questions religious tenets. The questions you raise are worthy of debate in a free society. But as with any challenge of widely accepted practice, I believe the forum is important.

 

I have no appetite for having the work of our board seized for a dialog that is far from the mission of our organization. I do not believe that our meetings have ever been a venue for proselytizing. In general, as you observed, our board-led prayers are typically low key and non-sectarian. To use our invocations to launch a protest would probably backlash against you and the point you wish to make. It just seems to me that if you want to win a war, you might pick your battleground carefully.

 

As chair of the ecua board, I am disinclined to change our long-standing tradition and invite persons other than board members to offer invocations. I believe that to do so would be to open the door to potential abuses.

 

Best regards,

Lois Benson

 

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 17, 2015, at 5:09 PM, David Suhor  wrote:

Ms Benson,

 

Having heard no reply, I plan to bring this issue before the next CAC meeting and regular board meeting.  I have read your public forum policy and I will have no problem following its rules.

 

If you have a satisfactory answer, or if you’ll consider a moment of silence, or if you’d like to include minorities in future invocations – with a written policy stating such - I would be happy to hear that solution before bring this topic before the board.  If not, I can only assume you prefer your current practice of religious exclusion, endorsement and government-lead Christian-style prayer at public meetings.

 

As ever, I am available by phone, email or for a personal meeting.

 

Best Regards,

 

David Suhor

850 512-2220

 

From: David Suhor

Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 3:45 PM

To: Lois Benson

Subject: Re: ECUA Invocation

 

Ms Benson,

 

I appreciate your response.  It’s obvious you are familiar with my work.  

 

I hope you’ll discuss this with your attorney, if you have not already.  Please refer to Galloway v Greece NY, SCOTUS 2014.  In that ruling, the Court ruled 5-4 that invocation prayers are allowed at local legislative bodies, BUT only because the council involved has a “policy of nondiscrimination” and because “a minister or layperson of any persuasion could give the invocation.”  The ECUA’s invocations are lead by board members themselves, which creates an endorsement of the religion referenced (Judeo-Christian, paternal monotheism).  With minority religions excluded by policy, this makes our local polytheists, agnostics and atheists (perhaps 25% of the County population), feel unwelcome.  Also, no one comes to a government meeting for prayer!  In short, your prayer policy establishes one form religion as acceptable to ECUA and excludes others.

 

I’ve noticed that the ECUA’s invocations are somewhat less sectarian in nature that those of other boards.  That’s good!  However, to make sure all citizens feel welcome, I am asking that your board stop leading public prayer (including asking the audience to stand) or at least have a welcoming policy, whereby minorities may be included without discrimination.  You might note that NO OTHER local board leads invocations themselves.  That’s done to avoid the appearance of endorsement.  The ECUA seems to perpetuate an implicit endorsement (of Christianity and its cousins).  That’s why I got a complaint about your board.

 

I have no wish to pursue this issue legally or publicly, though I reserve that right.  However, I’m preparing to sue the ECSB over a similar exclusion of minorities.  Likewise, the Escambia BOCC, who discriminate regularly and openly and without a written policy.  I have spoken with several attorneys, including the FFRF and Americans United for Separation of Church and State – AND a local attorney ready and willing to pursue this wherever needed.  In each case, I’ve tried to work it out with the boards first.  That is the point of these emails. 

 

I’m simply asking that the ECUA board be more welcoming to all religious points of view in our community.  I feel that is best achieved through an inclusive moment of silence or other secular ritual.  That would achieve the same purpose you intend (collegiality, focus) , but would allow everyone to pray (or not) according to their beliefs.  Moreover, if the board wishes to hold a prayer for their own good (rather than a public display of piety or political patronage), they may do so - in private or outside the official meeting - without becoming entangled in church/state separation issues or 1st Amendment violations.

 

In summation, how would you feel if you came to government meetings and were consistently asked to pray against your conscience?  Excluded?  Unwelcome?  Pressured to participate?  That’s how many non-Christians feel at ECUA meetings.  For that reason alone, it’s time to change. 

 

I would greatly appreciate your response.  If needed, I will gladly speak up at the board’s public forum.  I will be civil and reasonable, without “verbal attacks”.  I hope we can resolve this - for the sake of inclusion and amity – without wider, controversial discussion.  Please feel free to contact me if I can help and to share your point of view.

 

Best Regards,

 

David Suhor

850 512-2220

 

PS  If you need some Christian reasoning to justify this change, I suggest Jesus’ admonition from Matthew 6:5-6:   "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

 

 

From: Lois Benson

Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 11:01 PM

To: David Suhor

Subject: Re: ECUA Invocation

 

Mr. Suhor,

 

We do not have written policies regarding verbal communications by the board. I have never known any board member to conduct himself with anything other than proper decorum so I do not believe there has been cause to adopt formal written policies. We do have some broad guidelines governing addressing the board in public forum. These deal primarily with time limits. On rare occasions members of the public have made personal verbal attacks on board members and have been admonished for doing so. Such occurrences are very rare. Since they are board communications, invocations do not fall under the guidelines of public forums.

 

Best regards,

Lois Benson

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 2, 2015, at 1:26 PM, David Suhor  wrote:

Ms Benson,

 

Thank you for your prompt response.

Would you please forward to me any written policy the ECUA maintains regarding the content and delivery of prayers at your meetings?

Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

 

Best Regards,

David Suhor

 

From: Lois Benson

Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 7:14 PM

To: David Suhor

Subject: Re: ECUA Invocation

 

Mr. Suhor,

 

Invocations at those meetings are offered by members of the CAC which includes board members and our appointees. Many times we grapple with controversial issues during these meetings. I think we all benefit allowing members to lead off the meeting in turn and starting our meeting with what is usually an expression of collegiality. It sets a tone of mutual respect which then permeates the discourse.

 

Best regards,

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:44 PM, David Suhor wrote:

Thank you.  I understand.  I’ll look into that.

How about the Citizens Advisory Committee?  It seems that some non-board members are allowed to deliver invocations there.  May I be included?

 

David Suhor

 

From: Lois Benson

Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 5:45 PM

To: 'David Suhor'

Subject: RE: ECUA Invocation

 

Mr. Suhor,

Thank you for your interest in the ECUA Board and your inquiry regarding delivering an invocation. Unlike other bodies in the community, our tradition is for the members of the Board to deliver the invocations. It gives our members a chance to pause and reflect on our work as a board.  It is a long-standing tradition, one that fosters collegiality, and one that I value very much.

Best regards,

Lois Benson

---

From: David Suhor
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:00 PM
To: lois.benson@cox.net
Subject: ECUA Invocation

Hon. Ms Benson,

As a ciziten of Escambia County, I am writing to request the opportunity to deliver the invocation at the next opportunity before the ECUA Board.

Please feel free to contact me by email or phone to arrange details.

Best Regards,

David Suhor

850 512-2220

VIDEO; ECUA 3.26, Asking for Religious Neuutrality

http://youtu.be/YIxnhj4BuWQ

This is actually soft-peddling my message.  Here's how it started:

I emailed Lois Benson (will publish soon), asking to deliver an invocation.  She said I may not - basically discriminating.  That's illegal act #1.  In addition, the ECUA is not a legislative body (making laws), so they are not allowed to lead prayer under Galloway's protection.  Finally, the elected officials THEMSELVES speak the prayers, representing an explicit endorsement of God (the paternal, one and only one).  They say they do this for "collegiality" among themselve.  But they lead the WHOLE ROOM.  That's not their job.  Even City and County leaders don't prayers themselves... for themselves.

I'll note that the ECUA's prayers are non-sectarian (no mention of Jesus).  That's nice, but not necessary by law.  They are fooling no one.  They still alienate the "nones" (20% with no religious affiliation) in our community... plus those 100% who don't come to government meeting for prayer.  A moment of silence is non-sectarian without being a hypocritical display of piety or pressuring people to pretend to pray, some against their conscience.

SCENARIO:  If you came to ask the board for something, and they started with a prayer you don't believe in, would you feel pressure to participate, even if it's against your beliefs?  Even if you tolerated it, I'm sure you wouldn't put up a fuss before petitioning your government for favor.  That's the position the different-believers are put in when they attend a government meeting.  It's wrong.

  

Comments for Today's ECSB Meeting - 3.17.2015

In addition to the public forum comments below, I'll be praying the Hare Krishna mantra, as I always do.  I'll have some other respectful surprises too.

COMMENTS:
As we all know, this board holds prayers at it's best-attended monthly meetings only.  We also know you have refused good-faith invocation offers from religions that are incompatible with your own  - essentially discriminating based on religion.  And you won't put your invocation policy in writing - though we've been asking for 8 months now.  What's more, you've even threatened to remove anyone expressing another faith during the prescribed prayer time.

Once again, I'm here to make clear why this is 1) against your own rules, 2) illegal and against Supreme Court precedent, and 3) inherently unwelcoming.  Today, I'll be sharing some quotes to help you understand.

First, from Supreme Court Justice Kagan, recently writing against government-led prayer in Galloway v Greece NY:
"Everything about the situation infringes the First Amendment. That the Board selects, month after month and year after year, prayergivers who will reliably speak in the voice of Christianity, and so places itself behind a single creed. That in offering those sectarian prayers, the Board’s chosen clergy members repeatedly call on individuals, prior to participating in local governance, to join in a form of worship that may be at odds with their own beliefs. That the clergy thus put some residents to the unenviable choice of either pretending to pray like the majority or declining to join its communal activity, at the very moment of petitioning their elected leaders. That the practice thus divides the citizenry, creating one class that shares the Board’s own evident religious beliefs and another (far smaller) class that does not. And that the practice also alters a dissenting citizen’s relationship with her government, making her religious difference salient when she seeks only to engage her elected representatives."

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, actually supported invocations before LEGISLATIVE bodies - though that does not include school boards.  Writing for the majority, he allowed such prayers only because: "a minister or layperson of ANY persuasion, including an atheist, could give the invocation" AND "So long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination..."

This board DOES NOT allow any person to deliver an invocation.  Instead, you encourage discrimination to assure Biblical compatibility - thereby placing your religion before your responsibility to represent all citizens.  And since the first commandment says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", your religion doesn't allow invocations that don't honor your god.  You won't even allow alternative viewpoints in the public forum - ironically, because you deem such words "irrelevant" to the school system.

And you even break YOUR OWN rules.  Another quote, now from the student handbook:
"No person and no employee or agent of the District shall coerce, advocate, or encourage in any way whatsoever prayer or any other religious activity by students."

Last month, the member from district 2 gave the invocation prayer HIMSELF.  MANY students were present - clearly making his actions a violation of school policy.  For that, he deserves formal condemnation.  Even the City Council and County Commission don't lead prayers themselves.  For a member of this board to actually face the audience and ask them to stand and join in prayer, represents an clear endorsement of one faith.  It's not just illegal, it's wrong to use government functions for such religious purposes.

In February, I offered an alternative invocation in the public forum - not a prayer, but secular words of wisdom from the Satanic Temple.

<I asked that you "stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All"  I asked that you "demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms.">

The reaction was extreme discomfort.  One member even left the room in a huff.
Knowing how that felt, why would you do the same to this audience? Over 20% of Escambia's population identify with no particular faith.  Only about 50% of residents attend church or pray once a week.  Let's face it:  NO ONE comes here to pray.  Yet you continue to push your prayers, making those with different beliefs feel unwelcome and refusing any forum to those who don't share your Biblical viewpoint.  How can you possibly justify that?

At this point, I've tried appealing to your sense of law and rules.  I've urged inclusion but received only token consideration.  I've even helped you experience an invocation YOU are uncomfortable with, so you can empathize better.  None of this has moved you from your selfish sense of Christian privilege.  So, nearly at wit's end, I looked to Jesus.  He answered, speaking about public prayer in Matthew 6:5-6:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

I support this board praying to gather its thoughts.  You can do that before the meeting, as I did today.  It's making it a display - be it to demonstrate your piety, to win votes, or to curry favor with churches - that is so troublesome.   By leading such one type of prayer, you put our schools in great legal peril.  Because you exclude others, discriminate openly, and defy your own rules and the Supreme Court - all without offering ANY written policy as guidance, you violate the civil rights of the citizens you claim to represent.  I continue speaking out so you might change your policy.  But if you don't, this issue WILL land you in court.  And since you each refused non-Christian invocations, you may ALL be personally liable.

What do I want? To paraphrase Penn Jillette: "All I want is for more people to be included in more things. This school board meeting should really belong to everybody. So let's put in as few things as possible that are exclusive and as many things as possible that are inclusive."

Since you can't do that with your chosen prayer-givers, your student handbook offers an appropriate alternative that allows everyone to pray (or not), according to their own conscience:

"The moment of silence is not intended to be, and shall not be conducted as a religious service or exercise, but shall be considered an opportunity for a moment of silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day"  Wow!  That sounds perfectly fair and equitable.  So, why not lead by example and do as you command everyone in the school district do?  Avoid the trouble and go to a moment of silence.  I pray you will.  

Thank you.

VIDEO: BOCC 3.5.15 My PF Comments - STILL No Written Policy

VIDEO:  http://youtu.be/dXYKqn67kxk

They cut the time short this month. Here's my FULL comments, as I intended them:

I'm here to talk about government-led public prayer. By a narrow 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled, in May 2014 that bodies like this MAY hold invocations before their meetings. If you wish to continue leading prayer, it's this board's duty to comport with the Galloway decision, which is clear. It provides guidelines for appropriate content. More importantly, Galloway outlines who can give invocations, saying: 
"a minister or layperson of ANY persuasion, including an atheist, could give the invocation" and adding "So long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination..." 

I'm sorry to say that this board FAILS to guide content or to assure nondiscrimination. Despite Mr Robinson's contention last month that "no one has denied other individuals who have come forward", that is exactly what has happened. Most commissioners smartly don't even answer requests from minority religion... but I have emails from Mr Robertson refusing to consider atheists, agnostics, Humanists or Pagans. In fact, I'd bet Mr Robertson has NEVER asked a non-Christian to speak. Instead, the record shows he repeats his favorite speakers, all while new requests are pending. You all do it. Three particularly privileged pastors, including a County employee, actually provided 1/3 of the prayers over the last 2 years. One even repeated 3 meetings in a row. And yet, you claim to welcome diversity? 

What's more, the County extends prayer well beyond this LEGISLATIVE body, though Galloway does not allow it. People are now reporting to me that lesser boards, including the TPO, Merit Protection Board and Planning Board, all hold Christian prayer - provided by board members themselves. And they have denied requests from non-Christians to participate. Madame County Attorney - WHY on earth are non-elected officials starting government committee meetings with an official prayer? Have they heard of the 1st Amendment? The citizens deserve to know how you justify this or it needs to stop! 

This is not about appeasement or begrudging token inclusion. That time has passed. At this point, the only solution is a clear policy that assures nondiscrimination. I've been asking for this policy for 8 months now. Mr. Robinson promised last month "We have a policy, we'll be happy to put it down in writing". Still, all I've heard was that it has been passed on to the County Attorney... again. 

Madame Attorney, I understand that you cannot commit the current policy to writing. To do so would admit discrimination is happening. So, I offered a fair policy last month - with a random choosing of speakers, clear content guidelines, and no exclusion. This board will not consider it. To do so would welcome all faiths equally and that's almost as bad as an inclusive Moment of Silence allowing everyone pray (or not) as they wish. So you continue, as quietly as possible, to support this special, but illegal Christian privilege. 

Well... this board WILL have a fair policy. It can come voluntarily OR it will, inevitably, be forced on this board by court order. I'm urging this body to take action BEFORE that happens. 

Let's face it, despite the pews, NO ONE comes to this meeting to hear a prayer. They come to participate in the business of government. So why are we still pretending to pray? Besides the political patronage, I believe you want to display your piety to the largest audience possible. Otherwise, you'd hold prayer at less-attended meetings too. By showing that you all pray to the "same Jesus" as Mr Underhill said last meeting, you get votes. 

I have not been able to convince you using, law, reason or empathy. So perhaps you'll consider the words of your savior. In Matthew 6:5-6, Jesus said: 
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." 

One final thought - what do I want? Besides a fair, WRITTEN policy free of discrimination and calls for salvation, I think Penn Jillette summed up what I want best: "All I want is for more people to be included in more things. And this courthouse should really belong to everybody. So let's put as few things in that are exclusive and as many things in that are inclusive."

RAW STATISTICS: Escambia County Religions v Invocations

Some local government officials have said their bodies (ECSB, City Council, ECUA, BOCC) choose prayer-givers to reflect the local demographics.  That is clearly not the case, as we are not 95-100% Christian church-goers.

Here are some 2010 statistics:
http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/Escambia-County-FL.html
http://www.thearda.com/rcms2010/r/c/12/rcms2010_12033_county_name_2010.asp


As you see, just under 1/4 of our citizens don't identify with a recognizable religious affiliation.  So why aren't there 1/4 moments of silence?  Moreover, less than 50% of Escambians attend church regularly. But they get church content at 100% of government meetings.  I cannot accept the excuse that Commissioners (like Mr Robinson) coordinate to make sure they reflect the population.  In fact, I see no coordination AT ALL when board members choose the speakers themselves.  All I see are officials repeating their favorite Christians and excluding and denying non-Christians the chance to take part.  And there is still NO WRITTEN POLICY!

Just this week, according to the 2014 General Social Survey, one in 4 citizens say they pray less than once a week.  That's probably the same "unaffiliated" group that is now the fastest growing among religious demographics.  We are second in % of population only to Christians - and larger than any single denomination.  But we don't get ANY consideration in invocations - certainly not 22%.

I urge our boards to quit lying, saying they reflect the population, consciously or otherwise.  They don't and I have the records to prove it.  Their prayers run 95-100% Christian.  Even the Supreme Court cautioned against trying to do parse the population - calling it an entanglement with religion.  If they do try this tactic, they should at least cite their statistics, put their system in writing to make sure it it followed.

The best solution is to get our government out of the business of leading prayer.  An inclusive moment of silence would achieve that beautifully.  But is anyone brave enough to suggest that, possibly losing their image of church-defenders and the political privilege they gain from inviting churches into the state's business.  From the responses I've gotten, I doubt it.

Facebook Xtian Exchange, John Amonett

• This is pretty typical.  I cut off the conversation when it was clear he could not see beyond his narrow point of view.

To answer his last question (what do I want?) I want to be able to participate in my local government without our elected leaders asking anyone to pray against their conscience.

• John Amonett
  

  
  

  
  

  Are you the jerk that keeps disrupting the school board meetings??
• 

  2/23, 10:48am
  

  John Amonett
  

  
  

  
  

  So write me back if you are man enough?

  
  

  Oh that's right, you have to go hide behind those loser idiots in Wisconsin

  
  

  With the ffffff fffff rrrrrrr ffffff

  
  

  Bunch of losers just like you are!!!
• 

  2/23, 11:26am
  

  John Amonett
  

  
  

  
  

  God bless you brother!!! I'll pray for you David!!!!
• Today
• 

  3:21pm
  

  David Suhor
  

  
  

  
  

  I can see you are lost. May you be touched by his noodly appendages. May you embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. May you recognize the Constitutional tenet that our government shall establish no religion. Hail Goddess! Ramen.

  PS If you prefer, please read and obey Jesus's command in Matthew 6:5-6.
• 

  3:32pm
  

  John Amonett
  

  
  

  
  

  David, having a Christian prayer before a meeting does not in any way establish a religion!!! It is those board members that choose to pray!! The only thing our Constitution says is that the government shall not establish a particular religion!! I agree, however, this country was founded on Christian principles, and I expect it to be governed accordingly!! You, as well as everyone else, have the right to believe and worship as chosen, or do nothing!! But you don't have any right going to a meeting and disrupting it just because you have some idea that those board members don't do as you think they should!! Do you even have kids in that school district?

  As for you quoting the Bible to me, you are way out of line David!!!
• 

  4:06pm
  

  David Suhor
  

  
  

  
  

  The ECSB is welcome to pray all they want before the meeting. I invoke my right to the same right, but am called disruptive. Fine. But when they use the apparatus of government to promote one kind of prayer, they cross the line. Their own student handbook policy says that staff may not lead students in prayer, but that a moment silence is appropriate. Yet they push Christian prayer on the audience, routinely asking students and adults to take part. The fact that they refuse prayers from minorities expressly contradicts the Supreme Court's Galloway ruling - that any person may participate and that nondiscrimination is required in choosing who does. To understand the law better, you should read the letters from FFRF on my blog. Also, read about school prayer. It can't be instituted by staff. That includes the ECSB. Then refer back to Jesus' words, per the KJB. Rightly, he calls the ECSB hypocrites. They don't even pray before the other meetings - just when a large audience is present. Why is that? Finally,how would you feel if local councils started every meeting with a Muslim prayer? Unwelcome? Excluded? That how some minorities when our local governments ask us to pray to their genocidal, megalomaniacal, vengeful, paternal, and intensely jealous god. They should be doing the work of government, not imposing their personal faith. Nice to educate you, but I don't have time to school every right-winger. Read my blog - anapplebiter.blogspot.com Goddess bless.
• 

  4:20pm
  

  John Amonett
  

  
  

  
  

  David, what makes your idea the correct way?
• 

  4:23pm
  

  John Amonett
  

  
  

  
  

  I will state it again. This country was founded on Christian principles!!! If a person chooses to believe otherwise, so be it!! They have that right!!! Islam is garbage!!! It says that women are 2nd class, the Bible says the complete opposite!!! Your prayers are done to disrupt the meeting!!! What other purpose do you have?
• 

  4:34pm
  

  David Suhor
  

  
  

  
  

  There's no point arguing. Come speak up at the meetings. Show 'em we're a Christian nation! How about the Lord's Prayer during the public forum? I dare you.
• 

  4:48pm
  

  John Amonett
  

  
  

  
  

  I've done it David

  
  

  Let me tell you something my little friend!!! I'm the one with the financial resources to start fighting against idiot groups like the ffrf. They have 21000 members!! The Christians in this country outnumber them exponentially!!!
• 

  5:06pm
  

  David Suhor
  

  
  

  
  

  Please fight for discrimination and Christian privilege and against secular government and the Supreme Court's rulings. AmericaStan needs your input.
• 

  5:20pm
  

  John Amonett
  

  
  

  
  

  What do you want David?
• 

  5:28pm
  

  John Amonett
  

  
  

  
  

  Your last message seems to be a little unclear!!

PNJ Article Facebook Comments - Bergosh Responds!

Jeff Bergosh ·  Top Commenter · School Board Member- 1st District at Escambia County School Board Office
We follow the law Richard White--and you are dead wrong on this issue. I will stand my ground on this and not cow-tow to the loudest voice in the room on this. Understand this Richard---- as long as we are diverse in the selection of whom it is we allow to pray, then we do comport with the law and the board's attorney has confirmed this on multiple occasions at multiple meetings. Go find the tape and roll it back if you don't believe me. And the majority of the board has affirmed twice now at open meetings that we wish to continue our current practice. We are safe from losing a suit as long as we are diverse in the religious prayer we allow.. And let me tell you, we've been diverse. The last four meetings, here is the recap: 1. Christian prayer, 1. Jewish prayer, 1. Secular Oath (Future Farmers of America pledge), 1. Secular meditation (the flight of Geese). According to the law and the decisions in Marsh v. Chambers and Town of Greece v Galloway-per our attorney-we can maintain our practice of having the board rotate having speakers deliver a prayer for the benefit of the assembled legislative body (which the school board is, by the way, because we make policy and levy taxes) as it contemplates the actions it will take at the legislative assembly. Dime-store observations and arm-chair quarterbacking from those who do not apprehend this issue do not help. And one final thing. this board has not violated the law, the law does not state anything about freedom from religion--it is freedom of religion. Freedom of religion and freedom of religious expression enumerated clearly by our founding fathers, not freedom from religion or a wall of separation that appears nowhere in the constitution but rather was a phrase in a congenial letter written to a baptist association by an aging founding father, the content of which has been misappropriated and misinterpreted for centuries since...Figure these things out please for the love of God!
Reply · Like · 2 · Unfollow Post · about an hour ago

Matt Garner ·  Top Commenter
You show yourself in this response to be educated in the letter of the law, but in the reports of your actions during Mr. Suhor's prayer to be deficient in respect for others. For as much as you understand the legal aspect, you are woefully ignorant regarding the religious one. There is no relation whatsoever between pagan beliefs and Satanism. Satan is a solely Christian construct, and your attempt to slander Mr. Suhor as a wicked individual is not a behavior that I, personally, would want to see in a school district representative and as an example to our children.
Reply · Like · about an hour ago

David Suhor ·  Top Commenter · Singing telegrams at ShamaLamaGram.com
Even the town of Greece maintains a policy that ANY PERSON may give an invocation, not just those approved by board members. ECSB rejects good faith invocation offers from minorities they don't like. Your own student handbook policy is that whenever students are present (as at school board meetings), staff may not hold prayers. To start a government meeting with prayer, and only of Christian-compatible flavor, is against Jesus's command (Matthew 6:5-6 - "hypocrites"), discrimination (illegal under Galloway), and an unnecessary entanglement of church and state. And it makes non-Christians feel unwelcome. To then threaten arrest when someone else prays according to their conscience is an unconstitutional abuse of power. This is a Godzilla-size distraction from your job and an exercise in political privilege and pious pretense by the board. A moment of silence or school-relevant secular words (as in Nov, Dec) respects all in attendance. You don't want to hear other faith's prayers? Don't push yours onto public functions. Just pray in your closet beforehand.
Reply · Like · Edited · 55 minutes ago

Jeff Bergosh ·  Top Commenter · School Board Member- 1st District at Escambia County School Board Office
David Suhor just because you blew off the invitation my counterpart made to you does not mean we are violating any law. You know it is not about prayer for you at all it is about getting attention like with your facebook post. Just re-read my post above and understand we are in compliance with the laws and the rulings and just because you and your friends may not have yet been invited does not mean we are discriminating against anyone--but you know that already dave. And remember, you always have the option of not coming to the meeting, seeing as so far as I can tell you have no connections to the schools whatsoever, excepting your extreme desire to garner and focus all the attention on yourself. So the better idea, since I actually serve and work in schools, is that if having diverse prayers from diverse speakers offends you so badly, I'd suggest you be the one to stay in your closet and say your renditions of prayers there, then if you must come to our meetings you can come out of the closet at that point and miss the opening prayer.


Debbie Trautmann ·  Top Commenter · University of West Florida
Why do you feel compelled to have an invocation at all? If it is so diverse, then have a Muslim or other non-Christian do it next month.
Reply · Like · 40 minutes ago

David Suhor ·  Top Commenter · Singing telegrams at ShamaLamaGram.com
Jeff Bergosh Another lie, like when you denied asking me "are you Christian?" before rejecting my initial offer. I did not 'blow off' Mrs Hightower's invitation. I had a conflict that month. I cleared my schedule, then she rescinded, saying my religion is "offensive". If your policy is so open, why not put it in writing for all to see? And why not accept the multiple non-Biblical invocation offers you've received, rather than seeking out your first ever non-Xtian and unwitting token (by definition) Jewish substitute? It's the exclusion and censoring of minorities that will get the ECSB sued first. I hope you end up personally liable. BTW, I do have a connection to the schools. I am a certified social studies teacher, soon to be subbing in prep for next year's hiring. I'd make a great teacher of civics. Maybe I'll see you around school... if I don't get blacklisted.
Reply · Like · Edited · 33 minutes ago

Jeff Bergosh ·  Top Commenter · School Board Member- 1st District at Escambia County School Board Office
David Suhor Dave there was never any litmus test--just because you repeat that big lie over and over will never make it true--do you understand that?, the reason you were not invited by me was because you were so off-putting in your demand that I bring you as my invited guest to do a satanic prayer. That was how you wanted me to prove to you that I was not discriminating against you. I don't owe you anything, and I don't have to prove a damn thing to you, understand? You were invited and you declined. Now, get back in line and try being a little less antagonistic, why don't you? Remember, you get more more flies with honey that you will using straight vinegar.
Reply · Like · 3 minutes ago

Matt Garner ·  Top Commenter
Mr. Bergosh, your imperious attitude is highly off putting, and indicative of an entitled attitude. The audacity of telling another grown man to get back in line, and then in the same breath tell him that he can catch more flies with honey than vinegar!
Get a reality check, sir. You serve on a school board. That in NO way entitles you to speak to members of the public in this fashion!
Reply · Like · 10 minutes ago

David Suhor
Another lie.  I have only asked to give a Pagan invocation.  You mislabeled that "Satanic" and derided other traditions on your blog.  The litmus test was clear when you asked "Are you Christian" no... Pagan... "oh no, not ever, ever on my watch".    In fact, if you had listened to the Satanic Temple's beautiful invocation, you'd have heard a message of wisdom and reason to guide the school board.  And they are agnostic, not even believing in a literal Satan.  That's your fear, not mine.   As for vinegar and honey, I could have asked politely for years and never been called to offer my beautiful Pagan invocation of the four directions.  And what about the other offers?  They are not protesting, but are still being excluded.  So, yes, I choose to stand up for what's right.  My own only motive is equality and Constitutional justice.  Attention is necessary to make that happen - else the exclusion would be swept aside.  You'll get plenty more, and not just from me.  Finally, what of Matthew 6:5-6??  "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."


Richard White ·  Top Commenter · Gulf Breeze, Florida
Mr. Bergosh - in reference to your comments about 'dimestore opinions' and 'armchair quarterbacking, and Mr. Suhor's interest in the process, please allow me to refresh your memory. Your budget indicates that you take both Federal and State funds - as long as ECSD is slopping at the public trough then EVERY tax payer has both a right and a duty to participate in the process to see that those tax dollars are spent wisely. The very theory of taxation of childless citizens who will never use the system is based upon the notion that a good educational system will improve the quality of life for all citizens and benefit society as a whole. You are an elected public official, and as such you are the EMPLOYEE of all of those tax payers and I would request that you treat each and every one with the respect due and employer by an employee.

The very nature of your 'selection' of diverse religions to insure that no minority religions are excluded lends itself to litigation _ iw ould suggest that you ask Ms. Waters about discrimination through omission as well as direct discrimination. The fact that there is a 'selection' system at all operated completely at the direction and discretion of the Board implies that some criteria is used to make the selection, therefore it can not be absolutely proven to be free of discrimination. On the other hand if you instituted a process whereby anyone wishing to offer an invocation had their name placed in a jar and the name randomly selected there could be no charge of bias. Perhaps you should explore this, and other, options.

In that vein, and in view of your stated reason for denying Mr. Suhor's request to you, I hereby RESPECTFULLY request that I be placed in that line to give an invocation at your next earliest convenience. As you have indicated that there is a 'line' I also request to know not only my number in that line, but the identity of the others ahead of me in that line. Please advise if you need an official public record's request to provide the information that I seek.

Respectfully yours,

Richard White
Reply · Like · 23 minutes ago

David Suhor ·  Top Commenter · Singing telegrams at ShamaLamaGram.com
Richard White Spot on. I hope you'll speak out at the meetings as well. FYI: The BOCC uses the same discretionary (unwritten) policy, with the choice rotating between commissioners. Except that Mr May allowed me to pray (after much prodding). Mr Robertson straight up refuses non-Christians, also calling Pagans "Satanic". I suggest emailing your requests. The contact info is deep in my blog - September, I think. One thing I'll say good about Jeff - he speaks his mind.
Reply · Like · 2 seconds ago