Public Prayer & Government in Winston; neither side is the victor

by Matt Comer, December 12, 2006, 11:36 am

I have sat quiet listening to the on-going debate in my hometown of Winston-Salem over the place of sectarian prayers during public meetings, such as meetings of the Winston-Salem City Council and Forsyth County Board of Commisioners.

Not long ago, the North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to both the Winston-Salem City Council and Forysth County Board of Commissioners. Backed up by both the city and county attorneys, the letter informed the Council and Board that the presence of sectarian prayer in the public meetings were are violation of the Consitution’s Establishment Clause.

The ACLU said that the Council and the Board has two options: Allow for non-sectarian prayers which do not specifically mention any recognized diety (i.e. Jesus, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, etc.) or allow for a moment of silence.

Everyday I read the editorials and letters to the editor and I have to say that I actually agree with the consiervatives on this one, which shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who knows me.

The prayers at both the City Council meetings and Board of Commissioner meetings are offered by private citizens; they aren’t led by the elected officials themselves. If the Council or Board tells that private citizen how they should pray or if they censor certain words or phrases out of the prayer, then the Council or Board are doing exactly what the ACLU wants it not to do: establishing a set of rules and systems on religion, over the sets of rules and systems of others.

In my opinion, the Establishment Clause does not mean that the United States of America is a secular country. There is a huge difference between a government which garauntees religious freedom for all (and will not interfere in any religious matters as a matter of law) and a secular one (as in France) which prohibits any public mention or recognition of religion at all.

While I agree with the conservatives and say that I believe that private citizens should be able to offer any prayer they want (so long as the Council and Board allow for the periodic rotation of religious views represented by the private citizens), I do not agree 100% with the total argument of some conservatives, such as the infamously anti-gay, anti- “anything if it doesn’t match up to his personal translation of the Word” Reverend Ron Baity of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem.

In a letter to the editor today (“Where it is going”), Reverend Baity explains that “our nation has a history permeated with Christian values.” Although I agree that our history is, indeed, full of Christian values, I also believe it is full of other religious values as well. I am also wary of using that line of argument also, as it it is extremely close to arguing that the United States is a “Christian nation and people,” which it certainly is not.

But maybe for the first time ever in my history with the good Pastor, I agree with the Reverend Baity:

When a government body censors the prayer of a private citizen, it is engaging in the very violation of the establishment clause that it was attempting to prevent. When we are dictated to as to how we approach our God, then we have a governmental establishment of religion. “Yes, you can pray, but we will tell you how to pray,” drove our forefathers to these shores. Our faith should dictate our prayers, not the government.

Our laws guard our freedom from excessive intrusion by the government into our religious affairs as private citizens. I challenge our city leaders to make decisions based on facts and not the silly smoke screens of the liberal ACLU.

Again, I agree ONLY IF the Council and Board allow for the periodic rotation of those religious views being presented by those private citizens.

But get this: Neither side is the victor in this debate. While I believe that legally, according to the Constitution, private citizens should have the right to offer their own prayers at public meetings without government intervention, Christ’s own teachings tell Christians not to do exactly what is being debated.

In the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 6, verses 1 through 6 (RSV, src), Christ states the following:

1: “Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
2: “Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
3: But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4: so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
5: “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
6: But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. [this passage of Scripture is, of course, followed by Christ's teaching of the Lord's Prayer, verses 7 through 15]

So while I believe that the Constitution may be on the side of those wanting to offer prayers uncensored and unfettered by the government, I also recognize that those very types of public prayers so ostentatiously undertaken during public government meetings are among some of the very types of behaviors Christ Himself warned his followers against.

The answer to this debate is simple: The City Council and Board of Commissioners should be able to allow sectarian prayer, if it is offered only by private citizens and if there is a rotation of religious views presented, but at the same time, followers of Christ would do well to remember Matthew 6:1-6 and humbly bow out of the business of public prayers at meetings of the City Council and Board of Commissioners.

And that is an answer that many (although most likely, not all) people on either side of the debate do not want to hear. I guess the debate will continue.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Public Prayer & Government in Winston; neither side is the victor”

  • The problem here is that the City Council chooses who offers the prayer. Sure, the priest/pastor who prays is a private citizen. However, if an elected public official (city council) essentially is responsible in directly or indirectly choosing who offers the prayer, is that not a state-endorsed prayer? Suppose the school superintendent chose a pastor who offered a prayer, sectarian or nonsectarian, over the loudspeaker before a high school football game. We know this is not appropriate – the courts have ruled so. How is that scenario any different from a priest being chosen to pray before a city council meeting Separation means separation. The architects of the 1st Amendment were separationists not accommodationists.

    I understand your argument. But do you think most Christians want to sit and listen to the prayer of a Muslim? It’s not fair for me to attend a government-sponsored city council meeting and be forced to listen to the prayer of a Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, or fundamentalist Christian. You put alot of faith in the City Council if you think they are capable of being both fair and balanced when it comes to who gets to pray. Minority religions always get screwed in these situations. And the 1st amendment also entails freedom from religion? What about the humanist or the atheist? Should they be subjected to a sectarian prayer at a government-sponsored event.

    The ACLU is wrong about non-sectarian prayers. Non-sectarian prayers are a mere act of Civil Religion. As you know, prayers are personal. Watered-down prayers only serve to trivialize religion and are an insult to our faith. A moment of silence seems to be the best answer.

    Clearly, America is not a secular country. We have a secular government but religious participation in the United States is higher than any other country. Religion should remain and will remain in the public square.

    And you are deadon about Chapter 6 of Matthew.

  • The problem here is that the City Council chooses who offers the prayer. Sure, the priest/pastor who prays is a private citizen. However, if an elected public official (city council) essentially is responsible in directly or indirectly choosing who offers the prayer, is that not a state-endorsed prayer? Suppose the school superintendent chose a pastor who offered a prayer, sectarian or nonsectarian, over the loudspeaker before a high school football game. We know this is not appropriate – the courts have ruled so. How is that scenario any different from a priest being chosen to pray before a city council meeting Separation means separation. The architects of the 1st Amendment were separationists not accommodationists.

    I don’t know how the clergy members are “chosen.” If it is a simple sign up sheet, publicly announced and first-come-first-serve, then the City Council and Board of Commissioners aren’t really “choosing” anyone.

    I understand your argument. But do you think most Christians want to sit and listen to the prayer of a Muslim? It’s not fair for me to attend a government-sponsored city council meeting and be forced to listen to the prayer of a Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, or fundamentalist Christian. You put alot of faith in the City Council if you think they are capable of being both fair and balanced when it comes to who gets to pray. Minority religions always get screwed in these situations. And the 1st amendment also entails freedom from religion? What about the humanist or the atheist? Should they be subjected to a sectarian prayer at a government-sponsored event.

    As for “fair” I don’t know. But yes, I do have faith in my leaders, at least here in Winston-Salem. Maybe I’m an optimist and idealist (uh, yeah… I am actually, lol). The humanist and atheist could have a chance at offering, maybe not a prayer, but a brief message according to their morals, ethics, life code, etc. in the place designated for the invocation… that would put them on the same level as a person offering a prayer.

    The ACLU is wrong about non-sectarian prayers. Non-sectarian prayers are a mere act of Civil Religion. As you know, prayers are personal. Watered-down prayers only serve to trivialize religion and are an insult to our faith. A moment of silence seems to be the best answer.

    Yes… I agree… What the ACLU wants its censoring of a person’s religious speech… an imposition of Civil Religion.

    Clearly, America is not a secular country. We have a secular government but religious participation in the United States is higher than any other country. Religion should remain and will remain in the public square.

    Ditto.

    And you are deadon about Chapter 6 of Matthew.

    Thanks.

  • 3
    Natasha Sell Says:

    While Jesus warned of prayers to make yourself look good in front of others, basically to be a show-off, there is nothing wrong with people praying at meetings like the city council. The bible also states that where two or three are gathered, he would be in the midst. Now, if the board was doing the prayer just to do it or show off, that’s one thing, but a genuine prayer is quite another.

    But perhaps a moment of silence would work in this instance. I mean, I’m sure everyone has their own way of praying and would prefer to do it themselves, unless their Methodist and incapable of doing it themselves. lol. (I grew up Methodist so no one get offended!)

Leave a Reply

InterstateQ.com welcomes your comments. Leave a reply and join the conversation! Rude, offensive or inappropriate comments, or those directly attacking any person or group of people, may be removed by the administrator at any time.