news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

NEWS

Forsyth files objection in public prayer suit

Article
Comments (13)

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

(Updated 10:57 am)

By Winston-Salem Journal

WINSTON-SALEM (MCT) — Forsyth County is defending its public prayer policy in a new court filing.

The filings comes after a magistrate judge's recommendation last month that the county's policy is unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs, who objected to sectarian prayers, have 10 days to file their own response to Friday's filing.

Sometime after that, Chief Judge James A. Beaty Jr. of District Court is expected to rule on the case.

Under the county's policy, clergy are invited to give the invocation before board meetings on a first-come, first-served basis. Although the county asks prayer-givers to refrain from trying to convert people or disparage other faiths, the board makes no effort to monitor the content of the prayers.

Members of the clergy who pray frequently mention Jesus in their prayers. Residents who objected to those references filed suit against the county in March 2007, asking that all prayers of a sectarian nature be banned at board meetings.

On Nov. 9, Magistrate Judge Trevor Sharp recommended that the federal district court for the Middle District of North Carolina make a ruling that Forsyth County's prayer practices are unconstitutional.

Sharp said that because most of the prayers delivered at board meetings make Christian references, they show a preference for Christianity by the government. Sharp also rejected the argument put forward by the county that the prayers before meetings are private prayers because they are not formally part of the agenda.

The county's new filing -- an objection to Sharp's recommendation -- asks the court to find that the prayers are private speech because the government doesn't control their content.

The county also argues that Sharp erred by focusing on the Christian content of the majority of prayers and by maintaining that court precedent in the Fourth Circuit of the federal courts, of which North Carolina is a part, requires only nonsectarian prayer.

The attorney representing the plaintiffs in court, Katherine Parker of the American Civil Liberties Union, said yesterday that "it is clear in case law that (the prayers are) government speech."

Neither Parker nor Michael Johnson, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund representing the county, was willing to predict when Beaty might make a ruling.

''I expect it will be a timely ruling, but I couldn't guess whether it would be by the end of the year," Johnson said.

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

nippded twistle

December 1, 2009 - 9:03 am EST

You know, this all boils down to each side having their will forced upon another. I want prayer, I don't want prayer. Either way someone is going to lose their spiritual preference. Where is the middle ground?

brkscott

December 1, 2009 - 9:49 am EST

Get over your high and mighty rules of religon. It doesn't matter.

uncwgm

December 1, 2009 - 9:54 am EST

Seems like they should be more concerned with job creation and the economy, this is petty.

Panacea

December 1, 2009 - 10:23 am EST

It's about equal access to government.

Sectarian prayers set an appearance (real or not) of religious preference by government. Those who have different religious views become minimized or shut out.

This is a very real issue. Romney's Mormonism was an issue in the Republican primary. It shouldn't have been.

blackstream

December 1, 2009 - 9:57 am EST

I often wonder what this is truly all about. Prayer by our elected leaders is a really big issue. We have judges agreeing that it is unconstitutional for government leaders to have prayer during government functions. This truly has all the ear markings of a small group trying to destroy the Constitution itself. It's not just about prayer by our leaders, but more about taking the Constitution of the United States apart, piece by piece. There have been those that complained about soldiers on the battlefield having prayer while in uniform. When you start making that complaint, you're just a heartless SOB that needs to be shot! What business is it of yours if those folks pray while in uniform? This is about those Athiests who wish to do away with religion entirely, and this is one more step towards that goal. Here's an idea... go stick your sorry, worthless self in a fox hole, and see how long it is before your calling God to come save your miserable carcass!

williag_1998

December 1, 2009 - 10:03 am EST

Well said, and I could not agree with you more.

Get A Clue

December 1, 2009 - 10:33 am EST

Spoken like a true Christian. (smirk)

williag_1998

December 1, 2009 - 9:58 am EST

First Ammendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The solution to this is to allow the County commissioners to take a vote on how they want to start the meeting; With a prayer or without a prayer. The US Congress is not the county commissioners of a local municipality. People who attend the meetings, will have to respect the wishes of the commissioners. A magistrate has no right to interpret Constitutional law, that is the why we have a Supreme Court.

Panacea

December 1, 2009 - 10:59 am EST

You misunderstand the constitutional role of the courts.

The Supreme Court is not the only entity that is able to interpret the constitution. It is the role of both state and federal courts to ensure that legislation meets constitutional standards. It is part of the checks and balances.

The Commissioners do not have carte blanche to impose their religious preferences on the community. The community does not have to respect the wishes of the commissioners. It is the Commissioners who must respect the community by being all inclusive.

Get A Clue

December 1, 2009 - 10:52 am EST

Any prayer offered by any religious figure automatically disrespects all other religions as well as the various sects of the branch of religion to which the minister (rabbi, priest, etc.) belongs.
Any prayer that purports to be non-denominational truly offends those of specific sects and/or faiths because it waters down or denies the basic tenets of said sects and/or faiths.
Take any facet of any religion to its written and interpreted core and you will find a group of people who in fact believe they are the only people going to 'heaven' and that all others will be denied entry. Go on, I'll wait while to choose to actually pay attention to the faith you profess and finally decide to ponder the deeper uncomfortable truths you've somehow managed to deny all these years.

The truth is you are free to pray any time you wish anywhere you wish. No one can stop you. Perhaps you have chosen to ignore the fact that prayer (some call it meditation) is not defined by location or body position or even speaking aloud. Is the being to whom you're praying really so petty as to not hear your heartfelt yearnings simply because you're not exactly facing Mecca or you're not on your knees with hands clasped just so or because some appointed leader isn't rushing through it before you play football or dig into a chicken dinner or start another government meeting?

How about a moment of silence so those who feel the need to focus on spiritual matters can do so to whichever god they find fashionable and those who need a moment to gather their thoughts may also do so.

See, I don't even need to get into the atheism and agnosticism to stir up a hornets' nest of trouble. Thoese who believe in a god (or two) have done a remarkable job of killing each other throughout history to prove their prince of peace is better than the other guy's prince of peace.