Yet most members of the City Council of Redwood City seem resigned to the fact that those who lead the invocation at the beginning of their meetings sometimes invoke the name of Jesus Christ.
“I’d personally prefer if the invocations were more generic,” said Jewish council member Ira Ruskin, a member of Temple Beth Jacob in Redwood City. “But nothing’s perfect.”
His rabbi, who has in the past led the invocation at the council meetings, agreed that “the city leaders I’ve spoken to are uncomfortable about” the occasional non-ecumenical opening prayer. The practice continues, even though they “totally get that a prayer that mentions Jesus is inappropriate,” said Rabbi Nathaniel Ezray.
They are “good people” who “were all present at our recent rally for stopping hatred,” he added.
The Anti-Defamation League’s San Francisco office, however, finds the council’s seeming indifference somewhat unsettling.
“It concerns me that city council members are uncomfortable with the situation and yet they don’t feel as if they can say anything or act on this,” said Karen Zatz, associate director for the ADL’s Central Pacific region. “If all of us know this isn’t a legal activity occurring and yet we’re choosing not to do anything about it, what kind of message does it send to the community?”
A sectarian invocation invoking the name of Jesus may not be the most egregious of church-state violations, but “it does not mean we should dismiss it,” she said. Apart from breaching the constitutional separation of church and state, “it sends a message early on in the city council meeting,” that those who do not embrace Jesus are not welcome in Redwood City.
Zatz recently received a complaint about the religious nature of the invocations from a person who attended several meetings over the past few months.
She has since sent a letter to the city attorney of Redwood City, Stan Yamamoto, expressing the ADL’s desire to see the practice change.
In the letter, Zatz explained that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, invocations before public bodies must not be used “to inculcate any particular religion or to proselytize. In our view, prayers said in Christ’s name before the Redwood City Council violate this constitutional principle and also ignore the foundation of religious freedom upon which our country was built.”
While not opposed to the act of prayer itself, the ADL encouraged Yamamoto to ensure that only nonsectarian prayers that “retain the spiritual aspect of the invocation, but do so in a manner that is respectful and inclusive,” are delivered, or none at all.
She included a list of suggested guidelines for prayers at city council meetings, drafted by the ADL — and as suggested by the Supreme Court. It included a suggestion that the prayer contain “no reference to a particular deity, sect or denomination, or to any of the central religious figures associated with a particular religious belief.”
Yamamoto did not have a chance to review the letter as of press time Wednesday.
The issue of prayer at public meetings is one that the ADL faces quite often. In fact, Zatz recently sent a similar letter to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors encouraging the halting of sectarian invocations.
Last October, the Alameda City Council discontinued its invocations after community leaders, including members of Alameda’s Temple Israel, objected to the longstanding practice. Alameda had been the last city in the East Bay to open its council meetings with prayers.
Barbara Pierce, a council member in Redwood City since 1999, explained that a pastor from an ecumenical community group, not the city council, invites “priests, ministers, rabbis and people of all different faiths” to lead the decades-old invocation.
She admitted that “occasionally” the prayer crosses “the fine line,” but she believes “the intent behind it is good. I know they’re just doing it because that’s what they do at their own specific church.”
The city council was concerned “it was getting to be too much” in recent months, she said, and therefore began addressing the issue beforehand with those who were to lead the invocation. “There has since been a special attempt on the part of the people doing it to be more inclusive — even if they have used the name of Jesus, they have at least made remarks beforehand indicating that it’s not meant to be offensive.
“Each of us holds values that may offend a certain number of our residents and citizens because we don’t all approach politics, decisions and religion the same way. What matters is that we’re all working towards the greater good.”
Ruskin agreed. While he personally would prefer that the prayers “are non-denominational, sometimes when a religious leader is invited they, in terms of their own conscience, prefer to be more specific to their own beliefs.”
It’s difficult, he said, to control this. But “we are doing the best we can to handle a situation that’s very complex.”
Zatz said she was skeptical.
“I don’t think the city council is powerless to decide how their own meetings are run.”
She added that she hopes to soon be in conversation with Yamamoto and that he will “advise the council how to proceed.”