By Tony Richards
Editor-in-Chief

A proposal by Community Board 4 Chairperson D. Lee Ezell to begin board meetings with a prayer and recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance has elicited controversy and opposition within the board.

In an email sent to board members dated October 17, Ezell proposed that the following prayer would be read at the start of meetings: “Let us pray for the health and well-being of our community as we work together, harmoniously, to meet the needs of the People we serve and represent. Let us pray that our differences will never divide us but strengthen our resolve to improve the welfare of those who live, work, and travel through our neighborhoods.

Let us pray that brotherly love, professionalism, and respect will Always prevail as we relate to each other in achieving our goals. Thank you. Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.”

Ezell’s email to fellow board members also proposed a rotating list of religious leaders—all of whom are of the Christian faith —to read the prayer. Several board members strongly objected to Ezell’s plan, saying it actually worked against the stated goal of bringing more harmony to the community. “All the way to March, everybody [scheduled to be] doing the prayer was a Christian,” said board member Cyril Innis Jr. . “That’s not unity. Maybe somebody wants to read from the Torah. Maybe somebody wants to read from the Koran. Let’s be inclusive.”  Innis Jr.  also wondered whether Ezell expected those who had no religion at all to leave the room during the prayer.

Anita Antonetty, who recently resigned as recording secretary of the board after a dispute with Ezell over the recording of minutes, said she had opposed the idea of beginning meetings with a prayer since Ezell first mentioned it in a July executive committee meeting.

Antonetty said that while Ezell had promised the prayer would be non-denominational and that she would ask leaders of several different faiths to read it, her proposal in fact left out non-Christians, atheists, and people whose religion did not call for public prayer. “As chair of the community board,” Antonetty said, “she is the one who is supposed to welcome everyone and set the tone for the meeting. This is a city government proceeding, and religion shouldn’t come into it at all.”

In response to objections from the board, Ezell agreed not to institute the prayer and pledge during the October 24 general meeting, but indicated the matter would be discussed again in the future.

Ezell declined to comment for this story.

The prayer was written by Rev. Dr. Timothy Birkett, a board member and pastor of Church Alive Community Church on Findlay Avenue.  Birkett said he drew inspiration from Community Board 3, which covers Melrose and Morrisania; Board 3 has commenced meetings with a prayer for several years.

“In my opinion,” said Board 3 District Manager John Dudley, “it has served to the lay the foundation for a harmonious meeting that will begin and end in a general spirit of good will.”  However, Dudley added that he understood how some people might feel excluded by the practice, and said that if anyone on his board raised objections, he would discontinue the prayer.

Birkett scoffed at the notion that the prayer he drafted left out certain groups, asserting that because it did not mention a specific God, people of all religions were free to decide whom they were praying to. Birkett also said the presence of religion in civil and government proceedings was long-established, noting that the President of the United States is sworn into office by placing his hand on the Bible and that Congress opens with a prayer. “To raise that argument,” Birkett said of the notion that religion and government proceedings should be kept separate, “you’re going to have to answer to how your government is run.”

Dr. Charles Haynes, a senior scholar specializing in religious freedom issues for the 1st Amendment Center ,a national organization that monitors  1st Amendment  issues, said  pryaer at a community board was likely consistent with how the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the issue of prayer in government meetings during the past.  Haynes noted that in the 1983 case Marsh v. Chambers, the Court had ruled against Nebraska state legislator Ernest Chambers’ argument that opening legislative sessions in prayer was unconstitutional. Generally, Haynes said, the nation’s courts have tended to rule on the side of public prayer except in instances where it is introduced in environments where children are present.

But while he said Ezell’s proposal probably was legal, he argued it was bad policy. “If the words of the prayer are what they mean,” Haynes said, “they wouldn’t give this prayer. As soon as you invite people to pray in a setting that is supposed to represent all the people, you have excluded some of the people. ”

The proposal to recite the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of meetings was also controversial . Board member Mariano Laboy described himself as patriotic, but said Ezell’s proposal violated the rights of those who were weren’t.
Innis Jr.  said he objected to saying the pledge of allegiance in a time when he vehemently disagreed with the U.S. policies.

“It wouldn’t be very well for me to stand up and say allegiance to the flag, Innis Jr.  said, “when we are sending our troops to another country to kill and maim the citizens and to be maimed and killed on a false pretext themselves.”