|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tue, Jun 9, 2009
|
|
No one is talking, but
Sussex has prayer policy in hand
|
|
|
Religious watchdog group submits strategy
|
|
|
|
|
|
It’s the hottest topic no one is talking about. Sussex County Council members are meeting behind closed doors and will not speak in public about starting meetings with a prayer.
At least two letters from national watchdog organizations have been circulated among members over the past month asking council to reevaluate what it does.
But actions speak volumes. Even as the controversy over separation of church and state circles around them, council members continue to begin each meeting with the Lord’s Prayer led by the council president.
The most recent letter, dated May 20, comes from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and includes a detailed six-page policy regarding legislative invocations for council to consider.
Council President Vance Phillips, R-Laurel, said he would not comment on any move to adopt a policy because any discussion on the issue would take place in an executive session. He said there is the potential for litigation over the matter.
“As you know, I am not in a position to talk specifically about that issue, but any council member can make a motion to do anything they want and with three votes we’ll do it,” Phillips said.
In a letter to council, J. Michael Johnson, ADF senior counsel, wrote there is no question that a legislative body may open its sessions with an invocation.
“Contrary to some recent claims, such prayer can also include sectarian references without running afoul of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,” he wrote.
Johnson included a policy adopted by other government entities with his letter. It includes a specified list of what the council can do legally to begin meetings with a prayer.
Adopting the policy would mean changes – including halting the current practice of Phillips leading the prayer. Under the suggested policy, a rotating group of volunteer clergy members would lead the prayer for the benefit of council. The invocation would not be considered part of the public meeting.
A disclaimer would need to be printed on each agenda stating the council does not endorse the speaker’s views.
Johnson said the alliance is so confident the policy will stand up in court, if the county adopts the policy and later faces a legal challenge to it, the alliance will defend the county free of charge.
As with the letter from the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State sent to council April 28, Johnson included several examples of legal references to back up his organization’s claims.
He also pointed out that elected officials in several cities and counties have received threatening correspondence from groups such as Americans United. “These groups have made extraordinary demands for public invocations to be censored or altogether prohibited,” he wrote.
One of those legal opinions hit close to home, involving the Indian River school board. In Dobrich v. Walls (Aug. 2, 2005) the federal district court in Delaware reviewed and approved as constitutional the prayer policy of the school board. The policy allowed for opening prayers, even though representatives were predominately of one faith and there was occasional sectarian content in the prayers.
Johnson wrote the court found that the practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer is acceptable under the Constitution. “The Dobrich case was not appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and is still good law,” he wrote.
Johnson wrote the general rule of thumb is that government cannot compel someone to pray in accordance with one preferred religious viewpoint.
“For this reason, a policy which mandates only nonsectarian prayer would itself likely be unconstitutional.”
Johnson wrote the best policy is one that provides an open forum for individuals to pray according to their own consciences – on a rotational basis.
“Under such a policy, the viewpoint expressed – whether sectarian or nonsectarian – is then left to the individual prayer-giver, rather than the government,” Johnson wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed policy excludes council president from leading prayer
The following are highlights of a proposed invocation policy provided by the Alliance Defense Fund to Sussex County Council:
• The invocation or prayer would be for the benefit of council only
• It would not be listed as an agenda item and not be included as part of the public portion of the meeting
• No one would be required to participate in the prayer
• The prayer or invocation would be led by an eligible clergy member volunteer on a rotating schedule with no more than three appearances per year
• If the clergy member was unable to attend, the council president would announce a moment of silence for those who wished to participate
• The policy would state the council did not have preference for or against any faith or religious denomination
• The policy would also include a disclaimer to be printed on the agenda: “The views or beliefs expressed by the invocation speaker have not been previously reviewed or approved by the council, and the council does not endorse the religious beliefs or views of this or any other speaker.”
|
|
Comment
|
|
|
|
|
