Point Pleasant Beach Councilman Says He'll Still Say Lord's Prayer, New Policy or Not
Frank Rizzo will say the Lord's Prayer if audience still does.
Videos
Point Pleasant Beach Councilman Frank Rizzo said he will continue saying the Lord's Prayer if the audience does at council meetings, despite the council passing a new policy for more of a generic prayer.
The council, including Rizzo, unanimously passed a resolution at Tuesday night's meeting to adopt a policy using a prayer that is consistent with court rulings.
That means choosing a prayer that is general enough to not show preference for any specific religion, in compliance with the state Constitution.
Mayor Vincent Barrella said at the meeting that the council has delegated the task of selecting a prayer to Clerk Maryann Ellsworth.
After the meeting, she said she would pick among four prayers deemed acceptable in a precedent-setting state Supreme Court case known as Marsa v. Wernick.
But will it really make a difference? For the past few months, the council has been observing a moment of silence after the Pledge of Allegiance.
However, a group of 15 to 20 residents have been saying the Lord's Prayer and Rizzo has been mouthing the words along with them.
Will he continue that?
"Yes, I probably will," he said in an interview on Wednesday night. "But there will be another prayer said which will take pressure off the council."
Will he ask the residents to stop saying the Lord's Prayer?
"That's up to the mayor to make that decision," he said.
Barrella said, "I'm not going to comment on that."
Councilman Jeffrey Dyer, who had been a strong proponent of the council keeping a policy to allow any prayers, has sometimes mouthed the words on and off as the audience recites the Lord's Prayer.
Dyer could not be reached for comment.
The former policy has so far cost the Beach $11,200 and it could wind up having to pay more than that.
The Beach must pay $11,200 of the $37,989.30 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sought for reimbursement of legal fees, according to a Feb. 15 decision issued by Superior Court Judge Vincent Grasso, sitting in Toms River.
The deadline to pay is April 19.
Jeanne LoCicero, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey, has said the ACLU does not charge its clients, so the Beach will reimburse fees directly to the ACLU.
LoCicero said this week she does not have any comment on the council vote.
The fees were incurred in the first of two lawsuits filed by the ACLU on behalf of Sharon Cadalzo against the Borough Council for saying the Lord's Prayer at the openings of meetings.
Cadalzo, a Beach resident who is Jewish, filed the lawsuits because she felt the council, by saying the Lord's Prayer, was showing preference for Christian religions over others.
Cadalzo filed the first lawsuit last Sept. 16 to challenge the prayer practice under the state Constitution, which provides that "there shall be no establishment of one religious sect in preference to another" and pursuant to the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, Grasso notes in his decision.
At its next meeting on Sept. 28, the council halted its longstanding practice and substituted a "moment of silence," Grasso notes in his decision.
Cadalzo then dropped her lawsuit.
At a meeting in October, the council held another "moment of silence" instead of a prayer, the decision says.
"Both moments of silence were disrupted by protestors," Grasso wrote in his decision.
The council then passed a new "Policy Regarding Opening Invocations Before Meetings of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach Council."
"Following the adoption of this policy, at the next council meeting on November 9, following the Pledge of Allegiance, the mayor introduced Councilman Dyer who closed his prayer by invoking 'Jesus Christ,' " the decision says.
"Plaintiff asserts that she remains distressed by the continued sectarian prayers that the Borough has sponsored or permitted, as well as by the new policy that permits the same," the decision states.
Consequently, on Nov. 9, the ACLU, on behalf of Cadalzo, filed a second lawsuit which is still pending.
The ACLU can also seek reimbursement of legal fees for that second lawsuit.
On Dec. 17, Grasso concurred with the ACLU's position that the secular prayers said by elected officials at their public meetings violate the state Constitution and ordered a temporary injunction against council members continuing that practice.
However, Grasso has also emphasized at court hearings in December and February that more general prayers that are not specific only to certain religions would be fine.
LoCicero has also repeatedly said that the ACLU will not challenge non-sectarian prayers or a moment of silence.
Laura
10:15 am on Saturday, April 2, 2011
You have to pay because a few Councilmen did not care how they were spending your tax dollars and ignored the judge's ruling.
puppet watcher
11:11 am on Saturday, April 2, 2011
Well said Laura. If Mr.Rizzo and Mr.Dyer want to continue this than they should pay for it out of their own pockets and not ours!!!!!!
Phil Crincoli
12:42 pm on Saturday, April 2, 2011
Why doesn't the ACLU take a stand against our Unconstitutional President rather than saving us from our belief in God? Just asking
Joe Nagy
3:22 pm on Saturday, April 2, 2011
I don't believe the ACLU is contesting anyone's belief in GOD. I believe they are contesting sectarian prayers that violate the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. There are people who don't believe one should ignore laws just because they feel like it.
Joe Nagy
3:18 pm on Saturday, April 2, 2011
The ACLU is acting on a specific matter. When elected officials ignore court orders sometimes there is a payment for that arrogance and flouting of a lawful court order.
Phil Crincoli
6:01 pm on Saturday, April 2, 2011
The Establishment Clause of the US Consitution has been abused and misquoted for over 50 years, and the ACLU is absolutely wrong here. There never was a issue with it before our "enlightened generation" of Judiciary got their filthy hands on it in the late 50s and 60s. Maybe they should wash off all those Bible quotes on all of those statues and memorials built by The Founders in Washington DC because the offend people too? Arrogance by whom? The ACLU always seems to be involved in these divisive issues while ignoring all the BIG issues. What about the scanners at the airports and pat down searches violating those clauses of the US Constitution? Where are they? I think the organization is useless and what really offends me is having to pay them anything, especially when their bill rate is around $500 per hour. I think we should tell them where to stick that invoice. God Bless you Frank Rizzo. You are courageous man standing up to a bunch of jerks.
Joe Nagy
7:24 pm on Saturday, April 2, 2011
Statues and memorials built in Washington D.C. by the founding fathers? And which were they? I believe that the billing rate being paid per court order is less than $500 per hour. Even so have you seen billing rates lately? I just think that Judge Grasso has said the town has to pay that 11,000 bucks, if the council members continue in actions that could lead to more litigation that certainly will happen again. The Establishment Clause may or may not have been misquoted, but what counts is the ruling made by the fellow in Toms River. If one has a problem with the situation then they should hire an attorney to appeal(if they can establish standing) and then pay for that.
Phil Crincoli
7:46 pm on Saturday, April 2, 2011
Most or all of the Founding Fathers of this country were either Christian or at the very least, Deists. Here are a couple of easy to find links about the buildings. These are facts and not opinions.
http://www.godinthetemplesofgovernment.com/photo-essay.html
http://biblescripture.net/Trust.html
MrCommonSense
7:50 pm on Saturday, April 2, 2011
How many more furlough days or layoffs will now have to happen because of Rizzo and his antics. This guy is a clown and the town will be better off when he is out of office come January.
Spooner
1:26 am on Sunday, April 3, 2011
Phil.
Thanks for the links. . .but I think your missing the point of the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of religion" The key words are "a religious Establishment"
Prior to the Constitution, there were states(Colonies) requiring people to practice or belong to a religion associated with that state. . .there wasn't freedom of religion in certain colonies: Pennsylvania and New York were more tolerant. . .Religion in Mass. was interwoven with the law. . . "the Salem Witch trials"
Those who defied the Puritans risked a penalty. . . imposed on four Quakers between 1659 and 1661.. . .Virginians weren't any better. . .beginning in 1659, Virginia enacted anti-Quaker laws, including the death penalty for refractory Quakers. . .
Phil Crincoli
10:24 am on Sunday, April 3, 2011
Neither extreme is correct. If Rizzo is making a personal decision to prayer, then leave him alone. He is not breaking any law and has a right to do so. The bad guys are the people who filed this frivolous suit and they are the ones who should be shamed and ridiculed, not Rizzo
The Founding Fathers advocated freedom of religion and not freedom from religion. They are rolling over in their graves watching this embarrassing spectacle. Comparing witch trials to reciting a prayer ? And the prayer was written by a Jewish man two thousand years ago and it us not particular to one religion as falsely claimed by the plaintiffs either.
Carl Wilton
9:16 pm on Sunday, April 3, 2011
Yes, the prayer was written by a Jewish man, but he explicitly taught his followers to use it as a basis for PRIVATE prayer: "“And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Matthew 6:5-6, which occurs just 2 verses before Jesus gives his followers the Lord's Prayer). I'm curious: what do those people loudly speaking the Lord's Prayer in Council meetings see in these explicit instructions of Jesus that make them think it's appropriate to reverse those instructions and use the prayer "so they may be seen by others"?
Regarding the surprising point that the Lord's Prayer "is not particular to one religion" - I'm sure you can point us, then, to lots of synagogues, temples, mosques, shrines or ashrams where this prayer is used, right?
Spooner
11:38 am on Sunday, April 3, 2011
Rizzo; a Councilman at a town government meeting, is not making a personal decision. He is breaking the LAW! And as a representative of all the people in the Beach he has NO RIGHT to do this!
"Caldozo should be ridiculed" you say. . .how about going a couple of steps forward and trying her for heresy. . .want to demonize her as a witch too. . .just how far do you want to go with this(shamed and ridiculed). . .
Rizzo is a disgrace. . .he took an oath to up hold the laws of the state of New Jersey. . . and as a retired state police officer. . .he shows contempt for that law. . .and the people too. . . who have and will be footing the legal bill for his personal(your term) actions. . .
MrCommonSense
3:47 pm on Monday, April 4, 2011
Rizzo has been an empty suit since he took office. He simply sat there, clueless and voted whatever Hennessy and Dyer did.
Phil Crincoli
12:36 pm on Sunday, April 3, 2011
Now, you know that is not what I said. I stated that neither extreme is correct, whether its trying people for heresy or telling someone they cannot pray.
Regarding Rizzo, he is hardly a disgrace and need I remind you about your endorsement for Mayor of Point Pleasant, hardly the right one.
Phil Crincoli
10:55 pm on Sunday, April 3, 2011
Mr. Wilton,
I have sent you a private response.
Spooner
11:02 pm on Sunday, April 3, 2011
My endorsement for Mayor of Point Pleasant. . .you got to be kidding. . .go read my posts on Boro Independent . .and you say "hardly the right one". . .did you rear his latest letter to Cortland Coleman on how he never sent or received emails regarding garbage collection. . .then right underneath is two emails with his name on them regarding trash collection. . .I think he's a lot more than hardly the right one!
Laura
10:52 am on Monday, April 4, 2011
Spooner,
Most who read the comments know who you were endorsing. Get over it. It was almost 1,000 votes.
Joseph Bekasi
5:51 pm on Wednesday, April 13, 2011
PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! May ALL of our American citizens who claim to be followers of JESUS CHRIST have the boldness to do the same as your Town people...GOD bless you tremendously. Joe B.
puppet watcher
7:45 pm on Wednesday, April 13, 2011
And the town people should have the BOLDNESS to pay for it out of their own pockets as opposed to forcing the taxpayers to pay for it!!!!!!!!!Joe B, maybe you should help pay for it as you believe in it so much,,,,just sayin....
GInene Reed
7:53 pm on Monday, April 18, 2011
It's ok as long as they aren't really praying to any one it sounds like, what are they going to say, "To whom it may concern....?"