There was a good article in Saturday’s Winston-Salem Journal, concerning the controversy over sectarian vs. non-sectarian prayer at the meetings of the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners.

A while back, the ACLU of North Carolina sent letters to various government bodies throughout the state, including the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners and the Winston-Salem City Council, stating that sectarian prayers (those which invoke a specific deity) are unconstitutional. In response, the City Council changed their policy and will now only offer non-sectarian prayers (those which do not invoke a specific deity, but rather only “God,” “Creator,” etc.) at the beginning of their meetings.

The Forsyth County Board of Commissioners was not so open to the suggestion from the ACLU. They passed a resolution adopting a policy which would provide for prayers (PDF) given by a multitude of religious leaders (first come, first serve), allowing those religious leaders to offer the opening prayers in any way they saw fit.

Some in the community, including leaders of the local Unitarian-Universalist congregation and of the local Jewish community, feel as though only non-sectarian prayers should be given. They believe that non-sectarian prayers are the best bet in ensuring that all persons of faith within the community are represented.

Furthermore, a lawsuit has been filed. The three plaintiffs – Janet Joyner, Constance Lynn Blackmon and Osborne Mauck – are all members of the Unitarian-Universalist congregation led by the Reverend Charlie Davis.

Both Janet and Charlie are good friends, mentors and colleagues of mine.

I totally understand their thoughts, feelings and opinions on the matter, but I’m not yet totally convinced that the current policy is one which inhibits religion, excludes other religious faiths or one which “establishes” any particular faith over another. As it stands, the policy allows for all faith groups to be represented and each religious leader or leader of a faith institution has the ability to give his or her opening prayer un-censored by the Board.

In a past post, I stated that I was in disagreement with the ACLU and others and more in agreement with the conservatives. One pastor, the Reverend Ron Baity, with whom I have had a great many disagreement in the past, put part of the argument well (although I disagree with him on the United States being a “Christian nation”):

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.

Legally, I’m not quite sure where I stand, but I’m leaning more toward allowing individual, private citizens to pray in the way they see fit and not allowing the government to dictate how a person prays.

In that same past post, however, I made it quite clear where I stand religiously. As Christ said in the Gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 6 (RSV, src):

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]

A commenter on that past post, Big Daddy Weave, may have offered the best insight, both secularly and religiously:

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.

I agree with Big Daddy Weave, from a religious stand-point: Watered-down prayers do trivialize religion. I also agree with his point on Civil Religion.

What may be the most important thing to remember in this on-going debate is that there are two sides — two sides which may lead people to come to two differing conclusions, based upon their religious beliefs. One side – the legal side – may very well say that nonsectarian prayers, or a moment of silence, is best. The other side – that which is religiously and faith based – may very well say that prayers are personal and best left to the individual, said in secret as Christ taught as is best.