Supreme Court Right to Not Interfere with North Carolina Prayer Case
Church-State Watchdog Group Says Government Should Never Show Favoritism Toward One Religion
The U.S. Supreme Court today announced that it will not intervene in a controversy over sectarian prayer before meetings of the Forsyth County, N.C., Board of Commissioners.
The justices’ action leaves in place an appellate court decision barring the county from regularly opening its meetings with Christian invocations.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, one of the groups sponsoring the lawsuit, said the high court was right not to intervene.
Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “When government meetings are opened regularly with Christian prayer, it sends the unmistakable message that non-Christians are second-class citizens in their own community. That’s unconstitutional, and it’s just plain wrong.
“All Americans ought to feel welcome at governmental meetings,” he continued. “The Constitution clearly forbids government to play favorites when it comes to religion.”
The record in the Joyner v. Forsyth County case indicates that 26 of the 33 invocations given from May 29, 2007, until Dec. 15, 2008, contained at least one reference to Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christ, Savior or the Trinity.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Janet Joyner and Constance Lynn Blackmon, two county residents and members of the Winston-Salem Chapter of Americans United. They are being represented by Americans United and the ACLU of North Carolina.
On July 29, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the county’s prayer practice is unconstitutional.
"Faith is as deeply important as it is deeply personal,” wrote Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson, “and the government should not appear to suggest that some faiths have it wrong and others got it right."
Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan said the appeals court came to the correct conclusion.
“America is extremely diverse when it comes to religious opinion and government must respect that diversity,” Khan said. “Government preference for one faith over others is a recipe for social discord.”
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Faith is as deeply important as it is deeply personal,” wrote Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson, “and the government should not appear to suggest that some faiths have it wrong and others got it right." Maybe I'm mistaken, but I didnt read any comment by the Commisioners that suggest they were preaching to those in attendance or comparing their beliefs to others. This judge seems to have a personal opinion that someone should not be allowed to pray in our country. He can have that opinion but it cant be used to interfere with the 1st Amendment. The 1st amendment does not contain the words "seperation of church and state", it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof;. Therefore, if Congress can make no law, no federal court can make a ruling on laws that dont exist. The courts do not write laws, only Congress. The commisioners should ignore the ruling & continue to pray. If I were them, I would just announce before the meeting that anyone not wishing to participate could leave the room for a moment, or, those that claim to be so tolerant could actually show tolerance & just not participate & stand in silence as I would until prayer is over. We will all lose our freedoms if a few people have to sue every time something isnt exactly the way they want it. Some people just dont seem to understand, Government would gladly take away rights of others to satisfy someone's grievance, therefore making it easier to take more rights in the future.