Letter to Peoria Mayor Jason Beck

Re: State of the City Address at Christ’s Church of the Valley

Take action: Peoria Arizona Mayor Jason Beck has, for the second year in a row, chosen to hold tonight’s official Peoria State of the City address in a local church. This is a clear violation of both the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions.

Please read the letter from Secular AZ Legal Director Dianne Post, below, then remind the Mayor (and the Peoria City Attorney) of his oath to uphold the Constitution:

• Peoria Mayor Jason Beck: mayor@peoriaaz.gov

• Peoria City Attorney Emily Jurmu: cityattorney@peoriaaz.gov

RE: State of the City address

Dear Mayor Beck,

I am writing on behalf of Secular Communities for Arizona, a statewide 501 (c )3 organization.

Our purpose is to ensure secular government by endorsing the constitutional principle of separation of church and state in both the Arizona and U.S. Constitutions.

According to the attached announcement on your city web site, you plan to hold your “State of the City” address at Christ’s Church of the Valley in Peoria. I am writing today to advise you that events like this, promoting a governmental preference for any religion let alone a single religion, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. To that end, I am writing to provide you with the opportunity to immediately move this event before we are forced to evaluate other options.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the First Amendment “mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between nonreligion and nonreligion.” McCreary Cnty. v. Am. Civil Liber3es Union, 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968); Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 15-16 (1947).

Accordingly, it is flatly unconstitutional to hold an event like this in a church when there are many other available spots and, by so doing, send a message to those who do not believe in “Christ” that they are not “favored members of the political community.” Cty. of Allegheny v. Am. Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Ch., 492 U.S. 573, 595 (1989); see also Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (religious events by government officials send the unconstitutional message to non-participants “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.”)

More, the First Amendment prohibits even the appearance of religious endorsement by government officials. See, e.g., Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 787 (1995) (Souter, J., concurring) (“Effects matter to the Establishment Clause, and one, principal way that we assess them is by asking whether the practice in question creates the appearance of endorsement to the reasonable observer.”); Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 593-94 (“The Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief . . . .”).

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits government sponsorship of religious messages. It is inappropriate for the government to endorse a particular religion, one religion over another, or religion over non-religion according to both the State and Federal ConsStuSons. According to the Encyclopedia of American Religions, there are 1,584 different religions in the world (or according to another source 4,200) ranging from Ancient Order of the Druids to Zotheria. In the U.S., at least 300 groups claim to be religions.

Elected officials should not use their government position and government property to promote their religious views. The mayor’s job is to represent and protect the rights of all residents of Peoria, including those who do not believe in a monotheistic god or any gods at all. Therefore, it is inappropriate for government entities to hold official events in a religious institution when other suitable locations exist.

No resident of Peoria seeing that the event is at a religious institution should be made to feel excluded and like “outsiders, not full members of the political community,” McCreary, 545 U.S. 860 (citations omitted) because a government employee, in fact the mayor, is professing a personal religious preference while speaking on behalf of the city government. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S 668, 688 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring)

Courts have struck down symbolism that unites government with religion. In Harris v. City of Zion, Lake County, Ill., 927 F. 2d 1491 (7th Cir. 1991) the court ruled that the city seals of Zion and Rolling Meadows that contained Christian symbols endorsed religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. Such symbols convey a message that is inconsistent with the first amendment (Harris at 1412). The state must be even-handed and avoid any appearance of bias toward some citizens, and hostility toward others.

Additionally, government employees and elected officials have a constitutional right to be free from religious indoctrination including while participating in government sponsored events. The Supreme Court has continuously struck down proselytizing at government events, including events occurring outside the regular workday. See Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (declaring unconstitutional clergy-delivered prayers at a public-school graduation).

Every person who attends or would like to attend the event would be at risk of religious coercion or endorsement. See e.g. Doe ex rel. Doe v. Elmbrook Sch. Dist., 687 F.3d 840, 850 (7th Cir. 2012) (holding that conducting a public-school graduation ceremony in a church runs afoul of the Establishment Clause). They would undoubtedly encounter a cross that carries deeply significant meaning for people who adhere to the Christian faith and is pregnant with expressive content. See Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 405 (1989). While renting a religious facility may be the only appropriate choice in a small town with no other large venue, Peoria has ample venues to choose from that would be more appropriate and secular.

It makes no difference how many attendees wouldn’t be offended by the venue; the courts have continually reaffirmed that the rights of minorities are nonetheless protected by the Constitution. As the Supreme Court has said, “fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Id. at 304-05 (quoSng W. Va. Bd. of Educ. V. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)). “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” Barnette, 319 U.S. at 638. The government has a constitutional duty to remain neutral toward religion. By holding a government event where religious iconography would be forced on unwilling viewers, the city would abridge its duty and needlessly alienate the public and staff members who are of a different religion or religiously unaffiliated.

The Arizona State Constitution provides even stronger assurances to maintain the separation of church and state than does the U.S. Constitution. Article II section 12 of the State Constitution provides: Section 12. The liberty of conscience secured by the provisions of this constitution shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned touching his religious belief in any court of justice to affect the weight of his testimony.

Spending taxpayer money hosting a government event in a religious institution is not allowed. Even if the church donates the space, the message of government endorsement of religion and one particular religion is not allowed.

This action also violates Article XX §1 of the Arizona Constitution that provides:

• First. Toleration of religious sentiment

• First. Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured to every inhabitant of this state, and no inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship, or lack of the same.

Overall, 23% of Americans identify as non-religious. That 8-point increase since 2007 and 15-point jump since 1990 makes the “nones” the fastest growing identification in America. Nationally about 35% of millennials are non-religious. The most recent Pew Research poll found that 27% of Arizonans say they have no religion, compared to 23% nationally. For the city government to sponsor any kind of religious message immediately alienates more than a quarter of Peoria citizens in violation of the Arizona Constitution.

On behalf of citizens and taxpayers, we urge you to move the State of the City event immediately to a neutral venue and to desist in the future from such violations. The government must abide by the state and federal Constitutions and respect the rights of conscience of all citizens.

Sincerely,

Dianne Post

Legal Director

Contact Mayor Kevin Beck: mayor@peoriaaz.gov

Contact City Attorney Emily Jurmu: cityattorney@peoriaaz.gov