May 04 • 01:58
flag image
  • BPTea Party

Fourth Circuit rules against Forsyth County in prayer case

July 29, 2011
On December 17, 2007, Janet Joyner and Constance Lynn Blackmon decided to attend a meeting of the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners. Like all public Board meetings, the gathering began with an invocation delivered by a local religious leader. And like almost every previous invocation, that prayer closed with the phrase, "For we do make this prayer in Your Son Jesus' name, Amen." The December 17 prayer also made a number of references to specific tenets of Christianity, from "the Cross of Calvary" to the "Virgin Birth" to the "Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Friday (7-29-11) the Fourth Circuit of Appeals upheld a District Court ruling that the prayer and the practice of using such prayers before every meeting was an unconstitutional establishment of religion by a government agency.

The court ruled:
The district court's ruling accords with both Supreme Court precedent and our own. Those cases establish that in order to survive constitutional scrutiny, invocations must consist of the type of nonsectarian prayers that solemnize the legislative

task and seek to unite rather than divide. Sectarian prayers must not serve as the gateway to citizen participation in the affairs of local government. To have them do so runs afoul of the promise of public neutrality among faiths that resides at the heart of the First Amendment's religion clauses….

In sum, invocations at the start of legislative sessions can solemnize those occasions; encourage participants to act on their noblest instincts; and foster the humility that recognition of a higher hand in human affairs can bring. There is a clear line of precedent not only upholding the practice of legislative prayer, but acknowledging the ways in which it can bring together citizens of all backgrounds and encourage them to participate in the workings of their government.

At the same time, both the Supreme Court and this circuit have been careful to place clear boundaries on invocations. That is because prayer in governmental settings carries risks.

The proximity of prayer to official government business can create an environment in which the government prefers — or appears to prefer — particular sects or creeds at the expense of others. Such preferences violate "[t]he clearest command of the Establishment Clause": that "one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another." Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). After all, "[w]hatever else the Establishment Clause may mean . . . it certainly means at the very least that government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed." Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 605. More broadly, while legislative prayer has the capacity to solemnize the weighty task of governance and encourage ecumenism among its participants, it also has the potential to generate sectarian strife. Such conflict rends communities and does violence to the pluralistic and inclusive values that are a defining feature of American public life.

The cases thus seek to minimize these risks by requiring legislative prayers to embrace a non-sectarian ideal. That ideal is simply this: that those of different creeds are in the end kindred spirits, united by a respect paid higher providence and by a belief in the importance of religious faith. Yet an ideal so much in evidence in our coinage, in the Pledge of Allegiance, in our own "God save the United States and this Honorable Court"—an ideal long thought to be both meaningful and unifying—now strikes the dissent as unacceptably bland. For the dissent astonishingly disparages this ideal, dismissing non-sectarian invocations as mere "civil nicet[ies]" that treat prayer "agnostically." Post at 28. This view not only diminishes meaningful observances offered every day across this country. It denies to invocations their inclusive aspect.

This decision, whether appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court or not, will no doubt be misconstrued. Some will say the court "outlawed prayer." When you read the decision you see clearly that is not the case. What it did do is to say that people who render prayers cannot express a preference for one particular brand of religious belief. The Fourth Circuit's decision is binding on Beaufort County unless and until it is overturned by the Supreme Court.

Click here to read the actual decision of the court.

  1. reply print email
    Forsyth Prayer
    July 31, 2011 | 08:04 AM

    It would be interesting to see what would be said if it had been a muslim prayer.

    George Schryer
  2. reply print email
    July 31, 2011 | 10:42 AM

    George, if it had been a muslim prayer, and someone complained, they probably would have been charged with a hate crime, and the prayer would have been allowed to contine.

  3. reply print email
    Forsyth Prayer
    August 03, 2011 | 02:56 PM

    Frances, why not say things that actually make sense? The issue is single-faith prayer, regardless of the faith. Pretending Christians are persecuted in this country is childish. What you're mistaking for persecution is the removal of all the special privileges we've enjoyed until now. Sorry, this is a secular nation, and prayer from any one faith has no place in government.

  4. reply print email
    Head in sand
    August 03, 2011 | 07:26 PM

    You need to dig it out Jeff. Take a good look around at what is happening and on what principles this once great country was founded. I am old enough to remember when we had prayer in public school every morning followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. The constitutions says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" What they are doing is prohibiting the free exercise of religion. And yes Christians are persecuted all over the world and in the USA, also and mainly by the government. When was the last time you heard DHS call people of the Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc... faith possible terrorist the way they have called Christians? Removal of privileges protected by the Constitution, is wrong. I for one am offended by the removal of Jesus from prayers. Just as the Muslims would be offended if you forced them to remove Allah from their prayers, but I won't get violent about it.

Reader Feedback Submission
Please do not use ALL CAPS or tabs.
* required value
Your Name*

Email (not shown on website)*



Secure Expo
Site Search

Give Blood tomb
Please consider supporting the Beaufort Observer with a donation to help defray expenses or to make a contribution to one of our columnists.

To designate a particular recipient of your donation please include or email instructions to: We appreciate your support.

05 - 04 - 16
beaufort mobile
HR Block 2016
Arnolds 1-2014
Richardson PA
Farm Bureau

Copyright 2008-2013, Beaufort Observer Online, Inc. No part of this website may be used without permission