Christians Protest Christian-Only Prayers

In Spartanburg, South Carolina, the county council has been opening meetings with Christian prayers -- not general prayers, but Christian-only prayers. The lowest point came when Councilman O'Neal Mintz delivered a veritable sermon in which he condemned abortion and gay marriage. That was a clear attempt to meld religion with politics and may be one reason why Council Chairman Jeff Horton has chosen to retain Chaplain Jerry Clevenger from the Sheriff's office as the sole person to deliver prayers.

Even Clevenger, though, ends all his Official City Council Prayers with "in Jesus' name." Courts across the country have consistently found this sort of practice to be illegal. Rev. Don Rollins, interim minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spartanburg, doesn't approve of governments privileging one religion like this -- even if it's his own -- and his formally objecting.

"Clevenger does not condemn anyone," said Horton, who identifies himself as a Christian. "He prays for all council members and everyone in Spartanburg, and always includes our fire personnel and police officers and our military personnel. He doesn't try to convert anybody to Christianity in our service, I mean our, um, meeting. He doesn't disparage anyone. He prays for County Council to do the right thing. And I'll tell you, we need all the prayers we can get, because we are in some very difficult times in Spartanburg."

Source: GoUpState

Jeff Horton just doesn't seem to get it: not condemning anyone and not making any overt political statements is an improvement, but being better than the absolute worst doesn't suddenly make a prayer legal and constitutional. What's more, a person who ends their prayers with "in Jesus' name" is manifestly not praying "for all council members and everyone in Spartanburg" because not everyone in Spartanburg is a Christian. Chaplain Jerry Clevenger is delivering a Christian prayer for Christians, not a generic prayer for everyone.

Horton even effectively admits that he's favoring Christianity with a Christian prayer by his reaction to the complaints:

Horton reiterated the county was sticking with Clevenger. "As chairman, I understand we have a lot of diverse groups here. And everyone's a taxpayer," Horton said in a May interview at his office. "As a Christian, I don't want the cock to crow three times on me where I said I didn't know him (Jesus). So, as far as what we're going to do going forward, until someone questions, threatens what we do, I think we continue to go with Reverend Clevenger and his prayers. And if we're deemed to be out of line ... we could render the Lord's Prayer or print a copy of one of the prayers given in Congress."

He continued: "But as a Christian, I cannot ask anyone not to say Jesus' name."

By saying "As a Christian, I don't want the cock to crow three times on me where I said I didn't know him (Jesus)," Jeff Horton is admitting that he's making his decision as a Christian instead of as an elected official who is obligated to represent everyone of any religion equally and make decisions based on the law rather than on personal religious beliefs. He is also admitting that he is specifically privileging Christianity with specifically Christian prayers because the prayers are supposed to publicly and officially admit to "knowing" Jesus.

As an elected official, Jeff Horton has a legal obligation to ensure that the law is adhered to -- and part of the law is that Christianity cannot be favored, promoted, or privileged by the government. Since that's precisely what happens when the Spartanburg County Council only allows one person to deliver official prayers and all those prayers are "in Jesus' name," then he has a legal obligation to tell Clevenger to change. Instead, Jeff Horton is effectively admitting that he refuses to do his job and is placing his personal religious beliefs ahead of his professional duties. Such a person cannot be permitted to stay in office.

It's common to hear about atheists challenging Christians who abuse their political power to promote their religion with the government, but it's important to remember that not all Christians agree with such behavior either. Christians, too, can be found objecting these problems and even challenging them in court if necessary. That's why the complaints of Rev. Don Rollins should get more attention -- not just generally, but from atheists in particular.

In May, [Rollins] formally asked council to reconsider its policy on prayer -- "to signal to persons outside the dominant religious paradigm that they are welcome at the council's theological table." Rollins acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue and said he had seen clashes in other areas between established cultural traditions and an influx of people with different world views. But, he said, Spartanburg has "thousands of spiritual seekers who look at their elected county officials and see no acknowledgment of their equally cherished traditions." ...

Rollins maintains the county should allow its opening prayer to be given by different faith leaders in the community. Horton said that would require the county to identify and contact every such leader in Spartanburg County -- which means some may be missed.

But, Rollins said, "If they made that kind of commitment, it would need to be tweaked. I'm not saying it would be a simple thing. ... All I'm asking at this point is that council make accessible the prayer. I don't know how many faith leaders would respond to this. I don't know what the ratio would be. The first step is to say, 'There's room at the theological table for people who are not evangelical.' "

Don Rollins is offering Jeff Horton a compromise which other government bodies have accepted and which the courts generally find constitutional: rotating prayers. The best way for a government body to argue that they aren't privileging any one religion and that a sectarian prayer is actually personal expression (which is protected by the First Amendment) rather than official government speech (which is not protected by the First Amendment) is to open the position of "prayer giver" to whomever wants to try. Rollins is offering the Spartanburg politicians a way out of this that is legal, will avoid a costly court fight, and which still lets them have some prayers.

If they refuse -- and that's what seems to be the path they are choosing -- then they only underscore the message that they want to officially promote, endorse, and privilege a particular religion.

S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster ...believes the courts are leaning too heavily on one clause of the First Amendment while ignoring another. The Amendment states, in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." McMaster said courts tend to focus too much on the first clause dealing with religion and not the second. The first is commonly referred to as the Establishment Clause; the second, the Free Exercise Clause.

"A lot of people read that second part as allowing people to pray in public any way they want to, and read the prohibition as a limited prohibition -- that is, if it's a voluntary prayer, people are not required to join in," McMaster said. "In the future, I'm hopeful the courts will begin basing (decisions) on the Free Exercise Clause."

McMaster said the judicial branch of the federal government was telling people how to pray, which he called "awkward." He said the courts have overthought the issue.

Did Henry McMaster graduate law school, or did he only have to read a couple of books in order to be qualified for Attorney General in South Carolina? The courts focus on the Establishment clause when it comes to government speech because that's the clause that applies -- the Free Exercise Clause guarantees the rights of individuals and only applies when it comes to the private actions of individuals.

A Christian's right to pray in public is protected by the First Amendment when they are acting on behalf of themselves or some other private organization. When they are acting on behalf of any government body or in their official capacity as an officer of the government, the Free Exercise Clause no longer applies; instead, the Establishment Clause applies. This is Constitutional Law 101: the Constitution protects the rights of individuals and limits the authority of the government.

Henry McMaster either doesn't understand this (in which case he should never have been awarded a law degree) or he does but is deliberately misleading people (in which case he definitely earned the law degree but shouldn't be allowed to hold public office).