Greece Contradicts Its Own U.S. Supreme Court Case

For full disclosure, the one of the authors of this article, Susan Galloway, was one of the litigants against the Town of Greece in the SCOTUS case, Town of Greece vs Galloway and Stephens.

The Town of Greece was recently in a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court of the United States, Town of Greece v. Galloway, over their prayer practice. The plaintiffs argued that the Town aligned itself with Christianity, in that in over ten years the town only had 3 non-christian prayer givers and only after the Town of Greece knew that a lawsuit was imminent.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Town of Greece upholding the the Town's prayer practice in a 5 to 4 decision. All three Justices of a minority faith were on the dissenting side.

The Town of Greece had no formal written prayer policy until August 18, 2014 when the Town Board passed a policy unanimously that lacked any transparency or public input. http://rochester.indymedia.org/node/104057 The Alliance Defending Freedom is a fundamentalist Christian advocacy organization that defended the Town of Greece in the lawsuit regarding their prayer policy.  They appear to have incredible influence when deciding the prayer policy for the town of Greece in that the new policy is almost the exactly like the Alliance Defending Freedom's prayer policy model. Despite repeated claim's by the town of Greece in its court briefs and arguments that they were not aligning themselves with any specific religion, the town adopted the Alliance Defending Freedom's prayer policy model almost word for word as its own. It is hard to argue that you are not aligning yourself with a religion when the policy you adopted was written by an organization whose website states, "We must continue the fight for religious liberty, so that the life-changing message of Jesus Christ can be proclaimed and transform our culture. Each win for the Body of Christ is a loss for the opposition. Itʼs that black and white."http://alliancedefendingfreedom.org/issues/religious-liberty. ADF actively recruits lawsuits that challenge women's reproductive rights, including rights to contraception and abortion, equal marriage laws, non-discrimination laws, laws the that uphold the separation of church and state in public schools, laws that set limitations on politicking for tax exempt status for places of worship and organizations, and other issues that would break down the wall between church and state in the U.S. and abroad.

The new town prayer policy contradicts much of the argument Greece made to the Supreme Court and the press statements made by town officials. In the Town of Greece brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-696_pet.authcheckdam.pdf

The question presented by the Town was:

“Whether the appeals erred in holding that a legislative-prayer practice violates the Establishment Clause notwithstanding the absence of discrimination in the selection of the prayer-givers or forbidden exploitation of the prayer opportunity.”
The current policy adopted by the town post-decision introduces explicit discrimination that was only implicate in the practice of the town prior to the policy.

The brief is introduced as follows:

1.  “This case concerns whether the Town of Greece, New York, can open its monthly board meetings with an invocation to solemnize the proceedings, offered by any Town resident from any faith tradition (or no faith tradition) who volunteers to speak.”
The current policy violates the very premise upon which the case was argued. No longer can “any Town resident” offer the invocation, but only those who are members of “religious assemblies”.
2.  Quoting Marsh v. Chambers, the Town states that “…unless the government acts with “impermissible motive” in selecting the prayer-givers… courts may not “embark on a sensitive evaluation”.”
Again, the new policy undermines the Townʼs own argument by introducing “impermissible motive in the selecting of prayer-givers” that invites the “sensitive evaluation” that the Town claimed was not permitted.
The town further argues that “the opportunity is open to all residents”, and points to this fact as “dispositive” (conclusive in settling the issue). Thus a key “fact” in the Townʼs argument is simply no longer the case.
3.  It was also claimed that, “The Town allowed any citizen to volunteer to deliver an invocation, and never rejected such a request.”
The Town has since rejected at least two specific requests, and has now instituted a policy that will permanently bar any citizen not associated with a “religious assembly”.

To illustrate how the fact that the invocation was “open to all residents” was central to the Townʼs argument, consider the volume and specificity of the following statements in the Townʼs brief:
  “Under the Townʼs practice, atheists and non-believers were also welcome to volunteer to give an invocation.”
   “In… 2007… Town officials met with respondents and explained that anyone could volunteer to deliver the opening prayer…”
   “…any Town resident of any faith or no faith may offer the invocation.”
   “… the prayer opportunity was open to anyone…”
   “…there is no evidence that the town would not have accepted any and all volunteers who asked to give a prayer…”
   “… the Town made no restrictions on who could volunteer to offer the prayer.”
   “… it is undisputed that the Town would have welcomed atheists and nonbelievers to open the meeting with a statement of their choosing.”
   “III. The Townʼs neutral policy permitting volunteer prayer-givers of any or no faith … is Constitutional…”
    “… the Townʼs policy for selecting prayer-givers is facially neutral…” (facially neutral: does not even appear to be discriminatory)
   “The Townʼs practice would also be Constitutional if this Court chose to evaluate it under its limited public forum jurisprudence, which affords protection to private individuals who express their views in a forum created by the government for a particular purpose that is equally open to all citizens.”
   “… volunteers from any or no religion are permitted to deliver an opening statement…”
   “…the town simply provided a neutral opportunity for its citizens to speak…”
   “… the Town established an opportunity for private citizens to open the legislative session and allowed all to participate…”

Greece town officials also made statements to the press that  contradict this new prayer policy.
    In a Democrat and Chronicle article, http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/05/05/greece-town-board-prayer-court-ruling/8739551/,  dated May 6, 2014," Reilich said that while nearly all houses of worship in Greece are Christian, there's no policy prohibiting anyone from volunteering to offer a pre-meeting invocation."
  From a WHEC News 10 article, dated 05/05/2014, http://www.whec.com/article/stories/s3424461.shtml, Andrew Conlon, Greece Town Board, said, “Being a predominantly Christian community, it just happens to be that most of them are Christian, but again anybody in the community is welcome to it.”  The article went further to say that “the town board is encouraging anyone who wants to pray to simply call and get on the list. There are no rules or restrictions."

On September 16, 2014, after Susan Galloway spoke about the new prayer policy at the town board meeting, Greece Supervisor Relich stated, "The hypocrisy,  we won the lawsuit.  We are allowing Atheists to come and pray because they want us to be tolerant, but they're not tolerant of Christians, their not tolerant of others, the hypocrisy".  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVkrg5x4UYU The facts are clear that Greece argued equal opportunity to all Greece residents to the prayer at town board meetings, but have changed the rules.  Now they are saying that either you are a member of a recognized "assembly" or you are disqualified.  it should be the people that are saying "the hypocrisy" to the town.