Debating Government Prayer

Darla Kaye Wynne's suit in South Carolina to end sectarian prayers before city council meetings is having repercussions: other communities are being forced to decide whether to continue with similar prayers or drop them in order to avoid possible lawsuits.

The Star Exponent reports on events in Culpeper, Virginia:

Attorney Bob Bendall, who represents the town of Culpeper, was quick to inform Town Council members of the ruling, advising them in August to take definitive action on the matter. ... At the request of Town Council, Bendall prepared a letter and mailed it to local clergy - members of the Culpeper Ministerial Association, who are invited on a rotating basis to pray at council meetings. The letter explained the recent court decision, other related court decisions and the implication of these rulings for Culpeper.

In Bendall’s opinion, the ruling of the Fourth Circuit Court made “very little distinction” between the prayers of government officials and private citizens. “The ruling applies to public meetings,” he said. “That’s what I’ve found.” Bendall said the Fourth Circuit Court is very conservative and its rulings are rarely overturned.

Actually, the issue is one of prayers by private citizens who are speaking as part of an official government function. These clergy aren't simply standing up to say what is one their mind, they are being invited to speak officially for an official reason during an official meeting. The fact that they are private citizens disappears at this point.

In the letter, Bendall requested that prayers at council meetings “be nonsectarian in nature.” Bendall continued, “Avoid references to ‘Jesus,’ ‘Christ,’ or any other variation on those names or the names of other specific deities. A prayer is ‘addressed’ to Jesus if it contains the phrase, ‘in Jesus’ name we pray’ or anything similar.”

He recommended the use of “neutral, ‘civil religion’ terms such as ‘God,’ ‘Almighty God,’ ‘Creator,’ ‘Providence,’ and ‘Heaven.’” Bendall also suggested that pastors “consider praying for wisdom, unity and/or blessings of peace and prosperity.” He concluded, “Failure to adhere to the Wynne decision may result in considerable expense to the town in the form of defense costs, lost time, distraction from town business and payment of plaintiffs’ damages and attorney fees.”

Kent Willis, state director of the ACLU, interpreted the recent court ruling to apply to any prayer that is “an official part of a public meeting,” regardless of who utters it. “It doesn’t matter who says the prayer,” he said. “If it’s an invited member or a councilman, the prayer must be non-sectarian if it’s part of the official meeting.” That said, it would be entirely legal for a citizen to offer a specific prayer with the name of Jesus in it during the public comment session, said Willis. “You have to look at where the prayer is and what the conditions are,” he said. “Government must remain absolutely neutral on religion. An official prayer during a government meeting is considered government speech. It’s part of the formal opening.”

Willis seems to have it just right — he recognizes the distinction between a person speaking on their own, as a private citizen, and a person speaking as part of an official government function. Why can't others understand this?

Read More:

• Separation of Church and State 101
• Church and State News
• Secularism 101