At most staff meetings for any job, the leaders will try to close the meeting with any updates, announcements, or encouraging words. Can a prayer be included in this list? Officer Marrero-Mendez was a police officer at the Puerto Rico Police Department. At a meeting with a few other officers, Officer Marrero-Mendez witnessed his supervisor close the meeting with a Christian prayer. Officer Marrero-Mendez is an atheist and did not feel comfortable participating in the prayer, which he expressed to his supervisor. His supervisor ordered Marrero-Mendez to step aside but remain in earshot of the prayer. Officer Marrero-Mendez refused to take part in any of the closing prayers his supervisors did and expressed to them his concerns for closing the meetings with a Christian prayer. After expressing his concern, his supervisors took his gun away and removed him from his patrol position. This resulted in him being reassigned to washing department vehicles and doing clerical work after working over ten years at this police department. Officer Marrero-Mendez’s supervisors argued that their actions were justified because they were entitled to “qualified immunity”. This is a legal shield that protects government officials, like law enforcement, from being sued if it was not established beforehand that their conduct was unconstitutional.
This case presents the issue of whether incorporating a closing prayer at the end of the Puerto Rico Police Department meetings violates the Establishment Clause. William Ramirez, the executive director of the ACLU in Puerto Rico explained that "government agencies cannot require employees to take part in prayer in their workplace. To do so runs afoul of one of the great pillars of both the U.S. Constitution and the Puerto Rico Constitution, which mandate separation of church and state." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed that the government cannot penalize someone for not participating in a prayer. This case is unique in the sense that it is dealing with a mandatory prayer in a police department. However, cases like Engel v. Vitale show us that the Supreme Court believes that a prayer composed by government officials is unconstitutional regardless of whether or not the prayer is optional and denominationally neutral. Justice Black explained the dangers of having a prayer present within the governmental sphere which is exactly what is happening in this case. He explained, “whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect, and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs.” What Justice Black feared would happen is exactly what happened to Officer Marrero-Mendez. This case is a clear representation of government employees allying themselves with a religion through an authorized prayer at the end of meetings. Officer Marrero-Mendez believes that the courts should order his supervisors to cease the prayer and the poor treatment he has received for not participating in the prayer.
In my opinion, I agree with Officer Marrero-Mendez that he should not be penalized for not participating in the closing prayer. I also believe that a prayer has no place at meetings in a police department. Even though this prayer is not mandatory, Marrero-Mendez faced severe consequences for not participating as he was demoted from his patrol position. This clearly violates the Establishment Clause because there are government officials creating and organizing a prayer. In addition to creating this prayer, those who do not participate run the risk of being demoted. I believe that Officer Marrero-Mendez should not have been demoted for refusing to participate in the prayer because it is within his free exercise rights to not be forced to pray when you don’t believe in God. In Justice Black’s opinion in the Engel v. Vitale case, he said “the First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say,” Using Engel v. Vitale as a precedent, I believe that the Puerto Rico Police Department should remove the prayer from the closing of their meetings. I also believe that Officer Marrero-Mendez should assume his original position in the police department and not have to worry about losing his position for maintaining his beliefs.
10 comments:
I agree with the author in this case. Coercing a police officer, a public employee, to participate in a sectarian religious practice clearly creates an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Compelling that officer to remain within earshot, then demoting him to desk and janitorial duties clearly shows punishment in response to the officer's beliefs, which is clearly religious-based discrimination.
I also agree with the author in this case. I do not believe that someone should be punished for opting out of a prayer in the office. While I believe people may have the option to pray before or after meetings voluntarily, I think forcing someone into participating in a religious ceremony is wrong. Employees should not have to worry about how their religious beliefs may jeopardize their position in the work place.
I firmly agree with the author here. This is clear coercion to participate in religious prayers, as those who do not participate are penalized, and thus is a violation of the Establishment Clause. Truthfully, if the officer was not penalized for not participating, I think the case would be very different; but here, there is no "opt-out" path to not participate without severe repercussions.
Like the other commenters I agree with the author. Unless you are in a religious setting you should not be judged or penalized for not participating in a prayer. In addition, while I fully support police officers rights to personal prayer while they are on the job, group prayers lead by an authority figure do not seem to have a valid place in the workplace or at the closing of meetings.
I agree with the author and my other classmates this is a clear case of coercion and misuse of power. Officer Marrero-Mendez is essentially being discriminated against and punished for his religious beliefs that deviate from this boss, by deciding not to prayer Officer Marrero-Mendez was removed from his position and reassigned for no reason. I agree with District Court for the District of Puerto Rico in their ruling that the supervisor was not protected by qualified immunity (general I do not believe in qualified immunity for police officers and other public servants) and thus violated Officer Marrero-Mendez First Amendment rights.
I agree with the author and think that officer Mendez should not be penalized for participating in the closing prayer. Officer Mendez is being discriminated against and punished because his beliefs aren't the same as the majority especially the authority figure. It is in his free excursive rights to not be forced to pray when it's not what you believe in. I do believe people should have the option to pray, but it should be voluntary.
I agree with the author that Mendez should not be penalized for opting out of the police stations prayers. His punishment is unfair and discriminates against his lack of religious beliefs. However, I fundamentally disagree with any limits placed on prayer at the police station. Of course, prayer should not be coerced on officers but I find it wrong that police officers or any government officials should be limited from prayer on the job simply because this could be perceived as government endorsement of religion. The original intent of the establishment clause was to prevent the government from establishing and official state religion. The intent was certainly not to prevent prayer amongst anyone who works in an official capacity for the government. There is a healthy balance that can be reached where the religious are allowed to pray in a way that is not coercive to non-religious people even if they are acting as government officials like police. This case is also different from Engel v. Vitale because the individuals involved are adults and the level of coercion to participate in the prayer is far lower than the coercion associated with a teacher praying with a classroom of children.
I think it is easy to see that the author's point of view in this piece is the correct one. Being discriminated against for not joining in on a prayer is unconstitutional. Officer Mendez should have the option of whether or not he wants to be a part of the prayer that is taking place. If he decides not to, like he did in this case scenario, he should not be punished or discriminated against. To be honest, nothing should even be said about the issue and Mendez' boss should understand everyone has the freedom to their own religion and their own prayers.
I agree that this is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Officer Mendez was clearly punished for refusing to participate in the prayer and it is clear discrimination. A prayer should not be allowed to be incorporated into a government work place because it shows an establishment of religion. I agree with Lily's comment that police officers have the right to personal prayer while on duty, but they should not be coerced into saying one as a group because it can go against many of the officers religious beliefs.
While it is clear that the burdens that Officer Mendez faced was unconstitutional, it is also important to recognize the burden of the option of an individual to leave when a prayer or something religious is occurring. The option of leaving often results in a social burden or some sort of social ostracism to those who are non religious as well.
Post a Comment