SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief

7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief

1/69

NO. 11-546

In theIn theIn theIn theIn the

Supreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States

FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,Petitioner,

v.

JANET JOYNERAND CONSTANCE LYNNE BLACKMON,Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

BRIEF OF SENATOR GEORGE E. CHIP CAMPSEN

AND 26 OTHER SENATORS OF THE STATE OF

SOUTH CAROLINA ASAMICI CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

Becker Gallagher Cincinnati, OH Washington, D.C. 800.890.5001

November 30, 2011

J.R. MURPHYCounsel of Record

TIMOTHYJ. NEWTONMURPHY& GRANTLAND, P.A.4406-B Forest DriveColumbia, SC 29206(803) 782-4100

[email protected]

Counsel for Amici Curiae


2/69

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... iiiINTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................... 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 2

ARGUMENT .............................................................. 4

Legal Background ...................................................... 5

I. THE FOURTH CIRCUITS OPINION CREATES A

SPLIT IN THE CIRCUITS. ......................................... 8II. IMPOSITION OF A NONSECTARIAN

STANDARD CREATES A HOST OF PROBLEMS IN

IMPLEMENTING AND ENFORCING SUCH A

POLICY. .................................................................. 9A. Inappropriateness of state direction of

the content of invocational prayers ............. 10B. Lack of a clear standard as to what

constitutes sectarian prayer...................... 13C. Uncertainty in enforcement of a ban on

sectarian prayers ...................................... 19D. How many sectarian references are

too many? ..................................................... 22III. QUESTIONS EXIST AS TO THE APPLICABILITY

OF PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT SPEECH AND

LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM. ...................................... 23


3/69

ii

CONCLUSION ......................................................... 26APPENDIX:

Appendix A: List of Senators joining as amici ........ 1a

Appendix B: Challenges to Public Invocations ....... 3a


4/69

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Adler v. Duval County Sch. Bd.,

250 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2000) .......................... 10, 24

Bacus v. Palo Verde Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of

Educ., 52 Fed. Appx. 355 (9th Cir. 2002) ................ 16

Berman v. U.S., 156 F.2d 377 (9th Cir. 1946),

cert. denied, 329 U.S. 795 (1946), rehg denied,

329 U.S. 833 (1947) .................................................. 20

Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania, 381 F.3d 202

(3rd Cir. 2004) .......................................................... 24

Bd. of Educ. of Westside Cmty. Sch. v.

Mergens By & Through Mergens, 496 U.S. 226

(1990) ........................................................................ 24

Coles v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 171 F.3d 369

(6th Cir. 1999) .......................................................... 15

County of Allegheny v. American Civil

Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter,

et al., 492 U.S. 573 (1989) ...................................... 7, 8

Doe v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 685 F. Supp.

2d 524 (D. Del. 2010), revd on other grounds,

653 F.3d 256 (3rd Cir. 2011) ................................ 8, 15


5/69

iv

Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 473 F.3d

188 (5th Cir. 2006), revd on rehearing en

banc on other grounds, 494 F.3d 494 (5th Cir.

2007) ......................................................................... 15

E.E.O.C. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of

Raleigh, N.C., 48 F. Supp. 2d 505 (E.D.N.C.

1999) ......................................................................... 17

Employment Div., Dept. of Human Res. of

Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) ..................... 24

Galloway v. Town of Greece, 732 F. Supp. 2d

195 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) ...................................... 8, 11, 14

Hinrichs v. Bosma, 440 F.3d 393 (7th Cir.

2006), revd on hearing en banc on other

grounds, 506 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2008)..................... 15

Joyner v. Forsyth County, N.C., 653 F.3d 341

(4th Cir. 2011) ..................................................passim

Joyner v. Forsyth County, No. 1:07-CV-243,

2009 WL 3787754 at *5 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 9,

2009) ......................................................................... 23

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) ...............passim

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) ................. 7

Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) ............ 21, 25

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) ........passim


6/69

v

Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Georgia, 547 F.3d

1263 (11th Cir. 2008) .......................................passim

Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555

U.S. 460 (2009) ................................................... 23, 25

Rubin v. City of Burbank, 101 Cal. App. 4th

1194 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) ............................. 14, 15, 16

Rubin v. City of Lancaster, No. CV 10-4046-

DSF (JCx), 2011 WL 2790273 (C.D. Cal. July

13, 2011) ..................................................... 8, 9, 11, 14

Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp., Pa. v. Schempp,

374 U.S. 203 (1963) ...................................... 15, 19, 20

Simpson v. Chesterfield County Bd. of Suprs,

404 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2005) .................................... 18

Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 159 F.3d 1227

(10th Cir. 1998) .................................................. 11, 19

State v. Weedman, 226 N.W. 348 (S.D. 1929) ......... 15

Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools, 822

F.2d 1406 (6th Cir. 1987) ......................................... 15

Turner v. City Council of the City of

Fredericksburg, Virginia, 534 F.3d 352 (4th

Cir. 2008) ................................................ 12, 16, 22, 23

Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) ............ 6, 19


7/69

vi

Walz v. Tax Commn of City of New York, 397

U.S. 664, 669 (1970) ........................................... 11, 17

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) ................. 21

Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, South

Carolina, 376 F.3d 292, 300 (4th Cir. 2004) ........... 15

Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) ............ 16, 17

Constitutional Provisions:

U.S.CONST. amend. I ............................. 10, 12, 18, 20

Legislative Materials:

S.C. Code Ann. 6-1-160 (Supp. 2010)...................... 5

S.C. Code Ann. 6-1-160(B)(3) .................................. 9

Other Authorities:

John 16:23 ................................................................ 12

John 14:13-14 ........................................................... 13

John 15:16 ................................................................ 13

Ephesians 5:20 ......................................................... 13

Colossians 3:17 ......................................................... 13


8/69

vii

Meriam-Webster online, available at

http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/sect..................................... 15

WXII12.com, Republicans, Democrats

Disagree With Sectarian Prayer Ban, Poll

Says, available at

http://www.wxii12.com/news/24424727/detail.

html .......................................................................... 18

EDWARD D.RE, THE ROMAN CONTRIBUTION TO

THE COMMON LAW, 29 Fordham L. Rev. 447,

474 (1961) ..................................................... 19, 20, 21

MIKE MACNAIR, EQUITY AND CONSCIENCE, 27

Oxford J. Legal Stud. 659, 669 (2007) ..................... 20


9/69

1

INTEREST OF THEAMICI1

SENATOR GEORGE E. CHIP CAMPSEN,

III is the state senator for District 43 in the State of

South Carolina. SENATOR CAMPSEN authored

the South Carolina Public Invocation Act, which

provides authority for state boards and commissions

to adopt ordinances allowing invocations to open

public meetings. The provisions of the South

Carolina Public Invocation Act are substantially

similar to the policy adopted by the Forsyth County.

The Public Invocation Act was enacted to provideguidance for state legislative bodies to comply with

applicable law governing invocations.

The legislative intent of the Public Invocation

Act was to help deliberative bodies become aware of

both the settled and unsettled issues in the law

governing legislative invocations, and to assist them

in making informed decisions so the policies they

adopt will pass constitutional scrutiny.

The interests of the senators, as named inAppendix A to this brief, joining as amici in this

brief are consistent with the interests of SENATOR

CAMPSEN.

1Counsel of record for all parties received timely notice of theamici curiaes intention to file this brief. All parties of record

consented to the filing ofamicus briefs in support of either or

neither party. Amici state that no portion of this brief was

authored by counsel for a party and that no person or entity

other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution

to the preparation or submission of this brief.


10/69

2

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

This Court has recognized the long history

and tradition of legislative invocations and allowed

them, provided they are not exploited to proselytize

or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith

or belief. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 794-95

(1983). The Fourth Circuit in this case imposed an

additional requirement that the prayers must be

nonsectarian in nature. The Fourth Circuits

opinion highlights a circuit split and confusion as to

the applicable standard.

Legislative bodies are facing an onslaught of

legal challenges which are forcing many legislative

bodies to curtail their practice of invocations or

abandon the practice altogether. In the past ten

years, over 100 such legal challenges have been

reported in the news media. (See Appendix B.)

Amici would show that this Court should

grant certiorari due to the split in the circuits as to

the standard for legislative invocations. Amiciwould further show that imposition of a

nonsectarian standard creates a host of problems

for implementing and enforcing such a policy.

This Court has recognized that it is not the

business of the government to control the content of

invocational prayers. Not only does this create

Establishment Clause problems, it interferes with

the rights of the people to recognize and pray to a

Supreme Being over which human government

exercises no authority.


11/69

3

The split in the circuits illustrates thedifficulty in defining a nonsectarian standard.

Efforts to impose such a standard have focused on

particularized censorship of the name of Jesus

Christ. This creates a perception of government

hostility to a particular group of religious adherents

and entangles the state in religious discrimination.

Other efforts at such line-drawing have failed to

reach a consensus, and some courts have expressed

dismay at the thought of attempting to determine

what is sectarian and what is not.

Imposing a nonsectarian standard also

creates problems in enforcing such a ban. Devout

religious believers may perceive a nonsectarian

standard as infringing on their religious liberty,

inviting civil disobedience. Moreover, there is no

clear standard as to how sectarian references are

to be counted and how many such references would

violate the Fourth Circuits frequency test.

Finally, questions exist as to the relationship,

if any, between legislative invocations and principles

relating to limited public fora, private speech, and

government speech. Invocations most likely trigger

at least some measure of constitutional protection of

the freedoms of speech and free exercise of religion,

but recent cases have called the parameters of these

liberties into doubt. Guidance is needed to resolve

these questions in the face of a continuing barrage of

legal challenges.


12/69

4

ARGUMENT

Beginning in colonial times and continuing

through the foundation of the United States of

America, legislative bodies have begun meetings

with invocations. The practice of legislative

invocations is firmly established in American history

and has been upheld by this Court. But in recent

years this well-established tradition has come under

attack.

Around the country legislative bodies arefacing a barrage of challenges to invocations. (See

CHALLENGES TO PUBLIC INVOCATIONS, Appendix B.)

Over 100 challenges to legislative invocations have

been reported in the news media since 2002. (Id.)

Of these, many have resulted in litigation or forced

legislative bodies to change their policies regarding

invocations. (Id.) The uncertainty in the law has led

some legislative bodies to simply abandon the

practice of having invocations altogether. (Id.)

Attempting to craft legislation and policies regarding

invocations is difficult because of the split in the

circuits. Moreover, questions have arisen as to

whether the same standard applies to legislative

bodies at all governmental levels.

South Carolinas Public Invocation Act,

reflected an attempt by the State of South Carolina

to offer guidance to legislative bodies and political

subdivisions due to the number of legal challenges.

It was enacted in a good faith attempt to comply

with constitutional law. The goal of the PublicInvocation Act is to help assure state deliberative

bodies desiring invocations to implement a procedure


13/69

5

that passes constitutional scrutiny, and to avoidEstablishment Clause litigation.

Legislative bodies need clarity in the law in

order to frame their policies for legislative

invocations. The uncertainty in the law needlessly

involves legislative bodies in disputes, burdening the

taxpayers. Additionally, the wave of challenges has

a nuisance value function which serves to effectively

align government policy with those who would

discourage the process, despite the well-established

constitutionality of legislative invocations. ThisCourt should grant certiorari to resolve the

applicable standard.

Legal background

Since 1983 constitutional law on the subject of

legislative invocations has been defined by Marsh v.

Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). The procedure

adopted by Forsyth County in this case reflected an

attempt to comply with the Marsh standard.

Likewise, the State of South Carolina has enactedthe Public Invocation Act, authored by SENATOR

CAMPSEN, which is substantially similar to the

procedure adopted by Forsyth County. See S.C. Code

Ann. 6-1-160 (Supp. 2010).

Because the Fourth Circuit opinion in this

case implicates South Carolinas Public Invocation

Act, SENATORS GEORGE E. CHIP CAMPSEN,

III and other South Carolina senators join as Amici

Curie in support of Forsyth Countys Petition for a

Writ ofCertiorari. The undersigned Senators would

show that granting certiorari in this case would


14/69

6

serve to resolve a split in the circuits and to clarifythe legal standard for legislative invocations.

The Fourth Circuit required that legislative

invocations must be nonsectarian in nature, a

requirement upon which courts are split. The Marsh

opinion expressly held that it is not for courts to

parse the content of prayer so long as there is no

indication that the prayer opportunity has been

exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to

disparage any other, faith or belief. Marsh, 463

U.S. at 794-95.

In Marsh, the majority did not base its

holding on a determination that the prayers at issue

were nonsectarian in nature. SeePelphrey v. Cobb

County, Georgia, 547 F.3d 1263, 1271 (11th Cir.

2008). The Court noted that all references to Christ

had been removed after a complaint from a Jewish

legislator a year after suit was filed, but before that

the invocations were Christian in nature. Marsh,

463 U.S. at 793 n.14; Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S.

677, 688 n.8 (2005). This Court rejected the

argument that the presence of explicitly Christian

prayers in the Judeo-Christian tradition violated the

Establishment clause. Id. This Court has not

addressed the outer limits of the freedom of

conscience of clergymen when leading in invocations

at legislative sessions. Indeed, this Court has not

directly addressed legislative invocations at all since

Marsh.

The Fourth Circuit has imposed anonsectarian standard, particularly indicating that

such prayers must not mention the name of Jesus


15/69

7

or Christ. Joyner v. Forsyth County, N.C., 653 F.3d341, 348 (4th Cir. 2011) (explaining that under the

Fourth Circuits standard, legislative prayer is

approved only when it is nonsectarian in both policy

and practice). The Fourth Circuits standard is

derived from dicta in County of Allegheny v.

American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh

Chapter, et al., 492 U.S. 573, 603 (1989).

Allegheny did not concern legislative prayer.

It was decided under the more stringent standard

set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971),a test which was not applied to legislative

invocations in Marsh. SeePelphrey, 547 F.3d at

1269 (explaining that the majority in Marsh rejected

the Eighth Circuits application of the Lemon

standard). Moreover, a careful reading ofAllegheny

does not indicate an attempt to limit Marshs

holding. This Court merely pointed out that the

prayers in Marsh did not have the effect of affiliating

the government with any one specific faith or belief

because all references to Christ had been removed.

Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 603. Thus,Allegheny did not

address the question of whether invocational prayers

by clergymen which refer to Christ could nonetheless

result in something less than effectively affiliating

the government with a particular faith or belief.

Accordingly, the Fourth Circuits holding imposes a

stricter standard and has created confusion through

a strained reading ofAllegheny.


16/69

8

I. The Fourth Circuits opinion creates a splitin the Circuits.

Forsyth County is not alone in finding the

Fourth Circuits holding contradictory to the rule in

other circuits. The confusion in the law with regard

to the imposition of a nonsectarian standard on

legislative invocations has been ably documented by

several courts. SeePelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1271-74

(11th Cir. 2008) (canvassing the law in other circuits

and concluding that there is no clear consensus

among our sister circuits about sectarian referencesin legislative prayer); Galloway v. Town of Greece,

732 F. Supp. 2d 195, 225-38 (W.D.N.Y. 2010).

(reviewing the case law at length and concluding

that no Supreme Court precedent addressed the

precise issue before the court and that the circuit

courts are divided); Rubin v. City of Lancaster, No.

CV 10-4046-DSF (JCx), 2011 WL 2790273 at *6

(C.D. Cal. July 13, 2011) (explaining that cases since

Marsh have not reached a consensus); Doe v.

Indian River Sch. Dist., 685 F. Supp. 2d 524, 534 (D.

Del. 2010), revd on other grounds, 653 F.3d 256 (3rd

Cir. 2011) (recognizing that other courts have

reached different conclusions on the issue). In

Galloway, the court specifically opined that it

disagreed with the Fourth Circuit standard.

Galloway, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 243.

The opposing positions are set forth in Rubin.

On the one hand are those who interpret Allegheny

to impose a blanket prohibition on sectarian

prayer, if prayer is permitted at all. Rubin, 2011 WL2790273 at *6. In the opposing camp are those who

interpret Marsh to allow sectarian prayers, so long


17/69

9

as they are not exploited to proselytize or advance ordisparage a particular religious belief. Id. The

Fourth Circuits opinions place it in the former

camp, as discussed below. Id.

The bright-line rule of nonsectarianism

conflicts with the Marsh mandate that courts should

not embark on a sensitive evaluation or . . . parse

the content of a particular prayer. Marsh, 463 U.S.

at 794. It is therefore appropriate for this Court to

grant certiorari to resolve the split among the

circuits.

II. Imposition of a nonsectarian standard

creates a host of problems in implementing

and enforcing such a policy.

Setting aside the technical distinctions

involved in viewing the question in the abstract, it is

appropriate to consider the practical realities in

attempting to implement and enforce a

nonsectarian standard. Assuming that a state

entity engages in a constitutionally neutral selectionprocess, it is faced with a series of thorny questions

under the standard adopted by the Fourth Circuit.

The invocational speakers are not necessarily state

agents; they are often professionals who have been

invited based upon a list of clergymen in the area.

See S.C. Code Ann. 6-1-160(B)(3). First of all, is it

appropriate for a civil authority to instruct a

clergyman as to how to pray to the Deity? Secondly,

what exactly is a nonsectarian prayer? Thirdly,

what if the clergyman refuses to follow the standard,or includes sectarian content after agreeing to


18/69

10

comply with the standard? Fourth, how manysectarian prayers are too many?

A. Inappropriateness of state direction ofthe content of invocational prayers

In Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), this

Court held that states may not control the content of

invocational prayers because such control violates

the Establishment Clause. Id. at 588. This Court

held that a directive from the state that prayers

must be nonsectarian constitutes governmentcontrol. Id. Government control of the content of

prayers violates the Establishment Clause. Id. The

government entanglement resulting from having the

state control the content of prayers creates greater

Establishment clause problems than simply allowing

a clergyman to pray according to his or her freedom

of conscience. Id. at 589 (But though the First

Amendment does not allow the government to stifle

prayers which aspire to these ends, neither does it

permit the government to undertake the task for

itself.); see alsoAdler v. Duval County Sch. Bd., 250

F.3d 1330, 1337 (11th Cir. 2000) (The ability to

regulate the content of speech is a hallmark of state

involvement.).

This Courts holding in Lee supports the view

that Marsh should not be construed to require

parsing of invocational prayers by the state. In fact,

Lee rejected the whole notion of a distinction

between sectarian and nonsectarian prayers if

mandated by the government. This Court found thatthe danger of a state-created orthodoxy

threatening freedom of belief and conscience was


19/69

11

too great. Id. at 592. Other courts have agreed thatneither state legislators nor the federal judiciary

should be in the business of composing official

prayers for clergymen. Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1278;

Galloway, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 225; Rubin, 2011 WL

2790273 at *6.

Judge Niemeyer has identified another

concern for states if they are required to mandate

the language of invocational prayers. Prayer is the

sacred dialogue between humankind and God.

Joyner, 653 F.3d at 356 (Niemeyer, J., dissenting).Imposing a state-mandated ban on nonsectarian

prayers has two important effects. It treats prayer

agnostically and reduces it to a civil nicety.

The effect of treating prayer agnostically is

produced by the failure of a state-mandated ban on

sectarian references to recognize that prayer is a

communication with the Divine Being over which

the state exercises no authority. Id. at 366; see also

Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 159 F.3d 1227, 1234

n.10 (10th Cir. 1998) (The very act of praying to a

supreme power assumes the existence of that

supreme power). This countrys first President

recognized that prayer is directed to a supreme

authority in his first official act as President. See

Lee, 505 U.S. at 633 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (quoting

Washingtons prayer to that Almighty Being who

rules over the universe, who presides in the councils

of nations). By acting to regulate the content of

prayer, courts take sides with those who do not

believe in a Divine or Supreme Being, thus violatingthe Establishment Clause. Walz v. Tax Commn of

City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 669 (1970)


20/69

12

(explaining that one of the general principles of theFirst Amendment is that this Court will not tolerate

. . . governmental interference with religion).

The effect of reducing prayer to a civil nicety

is produced by imposition of a government-controlled

orthodoxy. It is not for courts to legislate, based on

the imprecise notion of nonsectarianism, bowing to

political correctness or universal inoffensiveness . . .

without regard to the dangers of governmental

censorship of religious expression. Joyner, 653 F.3d

at 367 (Niemeyer, J., dissenting); see alsoMarsh, 463U.S. at 794-95 (refusing to parse the content of

invocations).

One of the manifest purposes of legislative

invocations is to invoke Divine guidance. Marsh,

463 U.S. at 792. Washington, in his first official act

as President, sought from the Divine Being whose

providential aids can supply every human defect,

that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties

and happiness of the people of the United States a

Government instituted by themselves for these

essential purposes. Lee, 505 U.S. at 633 (Scalia, J.,

dissenting). Washington thus expressed his belief

that invocational prayer invokes divine benefits on

the legislative body.

Many Christians believe prayers must be

offered in the name of Jesus Christ to be effective.

See Turner v. City Council of the City of

Fredericksburg, Virginia, 534 F.3d 352, 354 (4th Cir.

2008). This view is derived from a number ofScriptural references which are taken as

authoritative and to be followed literally. See John


21/69

13

16:23 (quoting Jesus as stating, Truly, truly, I sayto you, if you ask the Father for anything in My

name, He will give it to you.); see also John 14:13-14

and 15:16; Eph. 5:20; Col. 3:17. Denying these

people the freedom to pray according to the dictates

of their consciences infringes on their religious

liberty and results in disparate treatment as

compared to those who believe nonsectarian prayers

are sufficient.

But at a deeper level, a government mandate

that legislative prayers be nonsectarian runs therisk of undermining a recognized purpose of

legislative prayer, which is to invoke divine

guidance. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 792. Government is

not in a position to make judgments on the religious

issue of what constitutes an effective prayer or to

pass on the truth or falsity of religious beliefs. It

therefore should refrain from interfering with the

professional judgment of religious leaders on the

subject. By mandating nonsectarian invocations,

courts may be denying legislatures the benefit of

invocations, thus reducing them to a civil nicety.

B. Lack of a clear standard as to whatconstitutes a sectarian prayer

The Eleventh Circuit articulated its difficulty

in defining the difference between sectarian and

nonsectarian prayers. Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1272.

The court explained, We would not know where to

begin to demarcate the boundary between sectarian

and nonsectarian expressions. The court furtherrecognized that this confusion will be experienced by

state entities as they attempt to implement a ban on


22/69

14

nonsectarian prayers. Id. This Court also hasrecognized the difficulty in attempting to formulate

such a standard. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 819 n.42

(Brennan, J., dissenting) (explaining that fashioning

nonsectarian prayers may not be possible and

would likely be offensive to devout members of all

religions).

As the court warned in Lee, courts are not in a

position to determine what is sectarian and what is

not. The Eleventh Circuit expressly declined this

role of ecclesiastical arbiter. Pelphry, 547 F.3d at1274. Justice Souter has written that courts are not

competent to distinguish between what is sectarian

and what is ecumenical and that this practice

should be avoided where possible. Lee, 505 U.S. at

616-17 (Souter, J., dissenting). Two lower courts

have also abstained from embarking on such a

perilous process. Galloway, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 242-

43; Rubin, 2011 WL 2790273 at *6.

The attempts by courts to formulate a

standard have underscored this difficulty. The

Fourth Circuit required legislative invocations to

embrace a nonsectarian ideal and make efforts at

ecumenism. Joyner, 653 F.3d at 347-48. This

smacks of the very government-controlled orthodoxy

that Lee warned against.

Moreover, the meaning of sectarian is

elusive. The term sectarian has been defined as

relating to or characteristic of a sect. Rubin v. City

of Burbank, 101 Cal. App. 4th 1194, 1205 (Cal. Ct.App. 2002). But what is a sect? The Rubin court

quotes one component of the definition, an


23/69

15

organized ecclesiastical body, or a religiousdenomination. Id. (quoting Websters 10th

Collegiate Dictionary (2001), p. 1053). However,

Merriam-Webster defines sect as a dissenting or

schismatic religious body, especially: one regarded as

extreme or heretical. Meriam-Webster online,

available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/

dictionary/sect. The legal definition of sectarian is

something of a moving target, meaning different

things at different times. See, e.g., State v.

Weedman, 226 N.W. 348 (S.D. 1929) (holding that

the King James Version of the Bible was notsectarian, but instruction based on Protestant or

Catholic doctrine was sectarian in nature); Sch. Dist.

of Abington Twp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 210

(1963) (citing expert testimony that the Bible is not

sectarian). By implication, a state becomes

entangled in religious disputes as to what is

orthodox and what is heretical or schismatic by

labeling a particular prayer sectarian.

The courts finding a particular prayer

sectarian in nature have agreed on only one point:

that mentioning the name of Jesus Christ infuses a

prayer with a sectarian character. SeeDoe v.

Indian River Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 256, 285 (3rd Cir.

2011); Joyner, 653 F.3d at 349; Wynne v. Town of

Great Falls, South Carolina, 376 F.3d 292, 300 (4th

Cir. 2004); Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 473

F.3d 188, 204 (5th Cir. 2006), revd on rehearing en

banc on other grounds, 494 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2007);

Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools, 822 F.2d

1406, 1410 (6th Cir. 1987); Coles v. Cleveland Bd. ofEduc., 171 F.3d 369, 385 (6th Cir. 1999); Hinrichs v.

Bosma, 440 F.3d 393, 399 (7th Cir. 2006), revd on


24/69

16

hearing en banc on other grounds, 506 F.3d 584 (7thCir. 2008); Bacus v. Palo Verde Unified Sch. Dist.

Bd. of Educ., 52 Fed. Appx. 355, 356 (9th Cir. 2002);

Rubin, 101 Cal. App. 4th at 1203-04. This

understanding is not only inconsistent with

historical notions of what is considered sectarian, it

appears to evidence a government policy of singling

out a particular historical/religious figure, Jesus

Christ, for particularized disapproval and

censorship.

In Turner, 534 F.3d at 354, the City Attorneyconcluded that invocations should not mention Jesus

Christ. The Fourth Circuits opinion in this case

continues down this road of discrimination against

believers in Christ. Yet this Courts cases have not

required such a result.

In Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952),

this Court held that the Constitution does not

require government hostility to religion:

When the state . . . cooperates withreligious authorities . . . it follows the

best of our traditions. For it then

respects the religious nature of our

people and accommodates the public

service to their spiritual needs. To hold

that it may not would be to find in the

Constitution a requirement that the

government show a callous indifference

to religious groups. That would be

preferring those who believe in noreligion over those who do believe. [W]e

find no constitutional requirement


25/69

17

which makes it necessary forgovernment to be hostile to religion and

to throw its weight against efforts to

widen the effective scope of religious

influence.

Id. at 314. Under Zorach, government should

respect and accommodate religious observances and

traditions, but may not endorse them. Government

may not interfere with religion. Walz, 397 U.S. at

669. Additionally, many founding fathers cautioned

against the separation of principles expounded byreligion from the governance of the state:

Of all the dispositions and habits which

lead to political prosperity, religion and

morality are indispensable supports. In

vain would that man claim the tribute

of patriotism who should labor to

subvert these great pillars of human

happinessthese firmest props of the

duties of men and citizens. The mere

politician, equally with the pious man,

ought to respect and to cherish them. A

volume could not trace all their

connections with private and public

felicity.

E.E.O.C. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, N.C.,

48 F. Supp. 2d 505, 509-10 (E.D.N.C. 1999) (quoting

George Washingtons Farewell Address, September

26, 1796).

Singling out Jesus Christ for particularized

disapproval does not constitute neutrality. Instead,


26/69

18

it promotes the view among the general public thatcourts are taking sides in a religious debate or

exhibiting hostility toward religion. Moreover, most

people disagree with a policy of government

censorship of the name of Jesus Christ in legislative

invocations in the state from which this case arises.

See WXII12.com, Republicans, Democrats Disagree

With Sectarian Prayer Ban, Poll Says, available at

http://www.wxii12.com/news/24424727/detail.html

(finding that 70% of voters disagreed with a policy of

banning mentioning Jesus in opening prayers at the

North Carolina House of Representatives).

Whatever sectarian means, the use of it to

focus on the name of Jesus Christ for disapproval

violates the constitutional mandate of government

neutrality. SeeLee, 505 U.S. at 590 (explaining that

the central meaning of the Religion Clauses of the

First Amendment, which is that all creeds must be

tolerated and none favored). Since no other

workable standard has been found, the Fourth

Circuits mandate that legislative prayers be

nonsectarian should not stand.

Furthermore, questions exist as to whether

other religious names, terms, and means of

addressing the Deity should be considered

sectarian. What about references to God,

Jehovah, or Allah? See, e.g., Simpson v.

Chesterfield County Bd. of Suprs, 404 F.3d 276, 284

(4th Cir. 2005) (commending the board for using

wide and embracive religious terms but not

Christ). A possible solution is to allow invocationsin my saviors name. Would prayers of this type

pass constitutional muster? Guidance from this


27/69

19

Court is needed to resolve these perplexingquestions.

C. Uncertainty in enforcement of a ban on

sectarian prayers

Attempts to enforce a ban on sectarian

references present another dilemma for legislative

bodies. Instructing a religious leader not to say

certain things during legislative invocations invites

civil disobedience because of the conflict it produces

between civil and religious authority.

As this Court has recognized, religious people,

including the Founding Fathers, believe in a

Supreme Deity in whom are rooted the very

unalienable rights of man upon which the Bill of

Rights is based. Schempp, 374 U.S. at 213. If this

countrys institutions presuppose a Supreme

Being, then by what authority does a court impose

restrictions within the religious sphere? See Van

Orden, 545 U.S. at 683; Snyder, 159 F.3d at 1234

n.10.

The concept of divine supremacy over civil

government has deep roots in the law. EDWARD D.

RE, THE ROMAN CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMON LAW,

29 Fordham L. Rev. 447, 474 (1961). The principles

of natural law underlying both the Declaration of

Independence and the Magna Carta derive from civil

law as informed by canon law of the Christian

Church. Id. at 452, 474-77, 484-85. It was through

the influence of Christianity that the concept of

equity developed in ecclesiastical courts. Id. at 460-


28/69

20

62. The law therefore recognizes the idea that civilauthority may not exercise control of religion.

Ironically, the injunction requested in this

case is based on the equitable power of the

ecclesiastical court to mitigate the rigors of the

common law. Id. at 478-80. The chancellors power

as the keeper of the Kings conscience can be traced

to the denunciation evangelica procedure of the

canon law, which had its roots in the Gospel of

Matthew. Id. at 482-83; see also MIKE MACNAIR,

EQUITY AND CONSCIENCE, 27 Oxford J. Legal Stud.659, 669 (2007). The existence of injunctive relief

presupposes the sovereignty of religious authority

over civil law when the government tramples on the

fundamental rights of man. It was an equitable

appeal to the Deity in the Declaration of

Independence due to the abuse of power by the King

that lead to the religious liberty the First

Amendment embodies. Schempp, 374 U.S. at 213.

Courts have held that it is belief in a supreme

authority that separates a religious belief from a

mere philosophy or personal belief not entitled to

constitutional protection. Berman v. U.S., 156 F.2d

377, 381 (9th Cir. 1946) (The essence of religion is

belief in a relation to God involving duties superior

to those arising from any human relation.)

(citations omitted). This makes sense, since

avoidance of the military draft implies exemption

from a basic duty to secular government.

Government interference into the content ofprayers invites civil disobedience because it forces a

conflict between religious and civil authority.


29/69

21

Religion does not allow itself to be confined withinthe mind of its adherents, but seeks expression

through obedience to God. SeeLee, 505 U.S. at 645

(Scalia, J. dissenting); see also Wisconsin v. Yoder,

406 U.S. 205, 219-20 (1972) (holding that conduct

based on religious convictions is entitled to

constitutional protection). Those who have spoken

out to maintain the balance of power between church

and state have faced the wrath of the state,

including imprisonment and execution. RE, infra at

474. Governmental encroachments on religion led to

the signing of the Magna Carta. Id. at 475-76.Accordingly, governmental attempts to control the

content of prayer create more Establishment Clause

difficulties than the sectarian strife feared by those

who seek to avoid governmental recognition of

religious observances. SeeJoyner, 653 F.3d at 347.

Similarly, if the purpose of an invocation is to

seek Divine guidance in its deliberations and

pronouncements, may a civil court interfere in such

an appeal any more than a state government may

interfere in an appeal to this Court on a federal

matter? See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 675

(1984). Because prayer is the articulation of words

addressed to the Divine Being which cannot be

determined by a civil court of law, a state-mandated

limit on sectarian references places courts and

legislative bodies in the untenable role of regulating

the content of religious expression. Joyner, 653

F.3d at 366 (Niemeyer, J. dissenting).

Secondly, what is a legislative body to dowhen sectarian references are made? Despite the

fact that legislative invocations have been held to be


30/69

22

government speech, this Court has held that stateentities may not control the content of invocations.

Turner, 534 F.3d at 354; Lee, 505 U.S. at 588. This

places legislative bodies in the difficult position of

being held responsible for something over which they

have no control. States surely cannot punish

religious leaders for expressing their faith. To

comply with the Fourth Circuits directive,

legislative bodies must either refrain from allowing

invocations altogether or impose sectarian quotas.

See Joyner, 653 F.3d at 366 (Niemeyer, J.

dissenting). Once a sectarian reference is made, alegislative body will now have to actively seek for

religious leaders who will either offer nonsectarian

prayers or pray to some other deitysomething the

government is prohibited from doing. Lee, 505 U.S.

at 590.

D. How many sectarian references are too

many?

The Fourth Circuit held that sectarian

references in approximately 80% of the invocations

violated the Constitution. Joyner, 653 F.3d at 349-

50. On the other hand, courts have refused to enjoin

legislative invocations when 68 to 70% of the

invocations contained Christian references.

Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1267. The Fourth Circuit

majority recognizes that courts should not be in the

business of policing prayers for the occasional

sectarian reference. Joyner, 653 F.3d at 351.

At what point does the occasional sectarianreference become one too many? Must legislative

bodies keep a running total of sectarian references


31/69

23

and take action when a certain percentage isreached? How is such a percentage to be calculated?

Must this percentage have a relationship to the

percentage of individuals of various religions in the

community? These and other questions are raised

by the Fourth Circuits frequency test, and

necessitate guidance from this Court.

III. Questions exist as to the applicability of

principles of government speech and

limited public forum.

Forsyth County argued that the legislative

invocations given by outside speakers constitutes

private speech, rather than government speech.

Joyner v. Forsyth County, No. 1:07-CV-243, 2009 WL

3787754 at *5 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2009). The District

Court rejected this argument based on prior Fourth

Circuit precedent. See Turner, 534 F.3d at 354-55.

The Fourth Circuit ignored this issue. However, the

rationale for the characterization of invocations as

government speech is not apparent. A prayer does

not seem to fit within the parameters of government

speech, which has been defined as the government

speaking for itself. Pleasant Grove City, Utah v.

Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467-68 (2009).

An invocational speaker is not making a

statement on behalf of the government. Rather, a

purpose of invocations is to invoke Divine guidance

on a public body entrusted with making the laws.

Marsh, 463 U.S. at 792. This implies communication

with the Deity, in addition to others present in theroom. Thus, the freedoms of speech and free exercise

of religion are implicated, potentially triggering


32/69

24

strengthened constitutional protections for thespeakers. See Employment Div., Dept. of Human

Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 881-82 (1990)

(noting that when Free Exercise concerns are

implicated in conjunction with other fundamental

rights, courts have applied heightened scrutiny);

Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania, 381 F.3d 202, 209 (3rd

Cir. 2004) (holding that laws that target religiously

motivated conduct violate the Free Exercise clause).

Moreover, governmental control over the content of

invocations has not been permitted. Lee, 505 U.S. at

588.

When the government does not control the

content of the speech, religious statements in a

limited public forum have been upheld even in the

public school context. Adler, 250 F.3d at 1332-33,

cert. denied 534 U.S. 1065 (2001); Bd. of Educ. of

Westside Cmty. Sch. v. Mergens By & Through

Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990) (explaining the

difference between government speech endorsing

religion, which is forbidden, and private speech

endorsing religion, which is protected). An

invocation is not a limited public forum in the sense

that a soapbox is created for the public to express its

views. However, due to the constitutional

prohibition on government control of the content of

invocations, they may partake of the nature of a

limited public forum in the sense that once an

invocational speaker has been selected, the free

exercise and free speech of that speaker should be

respected. SeeLee, 505 U.S. at 588.

Marsh can be read to imply that legislative

invocations present a special kind of forumnot a


33/69

25

forum for the free debate on specific issues, but aforum for prayers offered for a particular purpose

and within certain limits. The purpose of

invocations is to invoke Divine guidance, as well as

to solemnize the proceeding. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 792;

Lynch, 465 U.S. at 693 (OConnor, J., concurring).

The content-based limits have also been set forth in

Marsh. First, the prayers are offered for the benefit

of the legislative body. Id. at 792. Second, they

must not be exploited to proselytize. Id. at 794.

Within these limits, the Free Exercise and Free

Speech clauses should permit invocational speakersto pray within the dictates of their own consciences.

However, the application of these principals is

uncertain without a ruling from this Court.

Even in the context of government speech,

this Court has upheld government support of

monuments containing incidental religious

messages. Summum, 555 U.S. at 466-67. Like

monuments, invocations have deep roots in the

history of this country and legislatures should not be

forced to either impose government censorship or

abandon the practice altogether. See id. at 479-80.

However, the application of this Courts government

speech jurisprudence to invocations is also unclear.

Courts analyzing constitutional implications

of legislative invocations have employed the concepts

of limited public forum, government speech, and

private speech in analyzing the law under the Free

Speech Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, as well as

the Establishment Clause. In doing so, they havereached contradictory results. Therefore, this Court


34/69

26

should grant certiorari and provide guidance as tohow these rights should be protected.

CONCLUSION

The more stringent nonsectarian standard

imposed by the Fourth Circuit has confused the law

regarding legislative invocations. As they face an

increasing number of legal challenges, legislative

bodies need clarification of the standard to apply.

Furthermore, the problems created by imposition

and enforcement of a nonsectarian standard oninvocations cry out for guidance from this Court.

The above-referenced Senators respectfully join in

Petitioners request that this Court grant certiorari

in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

J.R. MurphyCounsel of Record

Timothy J. Newton

Co-CounselMURPHY&GRANTLAND,P.A.

4406-B Forest Drive

Columbia, SC 29206

(803) 782-4100

[email protected]

Counsel for Amici Curiae

November 30, 2011


35/69

APPENDIX


36/69

i

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A: List of Senators joining as amici . . 1a

Appendix B: Challenges to Public Invocations . . 3a


37/69

1a

APPENDIX A

A total of 27 Senators of the State of SouthCarolina have joined in this brief as amici curiae.

These Senators are:

George E. Chip Campsen, III

Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr.

Glenn F. McConnell, President Pro Tempore

Harvey S. Peeler, Jr.

John E. Courson

David L. Thomas

William H. ODell

Robert W. Hayes, Jr.

Larry A. Martin

Luke A. Rankin

W. Greg Ryberg

Thomas C. Alexander

Michael L. Fair

Lawrence K. Larry Grooms


38/69

2a

Daniel B. Danny Verdin, III

John M. Jake Knotts, Jr.

Ronnie W. Cromer

Kevin L. Bryant

Raymond E. Cleary, III

Paul G. Campbell, Jr.

A. Shane Massey

Lee Bright

Tom Davis

Shane R. Martin

Michael T. Rose

Phillip W. Shoopman

Chauncey K. Gregory


39/69

3a

APPENDIX B

CHALLENGES TO PUBLIC INVOCATIONS


40/69

4a

Date Media/Press City State

August 23,

2002

Los Angeles Times Burbank California

November

7, 2002

Associated Press Murray City Utah

May 5,

2004

ACLU.org La Mesa California

November

22, 2004

Associated Press Culpeper

County

Virginia

April 14,

2005

ReligionNewsBlog/

Associated Press

Chesterfield Virginia

June 9,

2005

ABC News.go.com Amite Louisiana

July 2,

2005

World Net Daily Great Falls South

Carolina

August 21,

2005

Atlanta Journal

Constitution

Cobb County Georgia

December

1, 2005

Covenantnews.

com

Indianapolis Indiana


41/69

5a

DeliberativeBody Status Notes

City Council Resulted in

Litigation

http://articles.latimes.com/2

002/aug/23/local/me-rubin23


Litigation

http://www.freedomforum.o

rg/templates/document.asp?

documentID=17220

City Council Unknown http://www.aclu.org/religion-

b e l i e f / a c l u - s a n - d i e g o -

challenges-sectarian-prayers

-city-council-meetings-behalf

-resident

Town Council Abandoned

Practice

http://www.firstamendment

center.org/ruling-limiting-

prayers-at-public-meetings-

causes-stir-in-bible-belt

Board of

Supervisors

Resulted in

Litigation

http://www.religionnewsblo

g.com/10930/appeals-court-

rules-against-wiccan-in-

virginia-prayer-lawsuit

Tangipahoa

Parish SchoolBoard

Resulted in

Litigation

http://abcnews.go.com/US/B

eliefs/story?id=1028366&page=1


Litigation

http://www.wnd.com/?pageI

d=31129

County

Commission

Resulted in

Litigation

http://www.aren.org/news/d

arla/SC-towns-prayers-

provoke-lawsuits.html

Indiana House

of Represen-

tatives

Resulted in

Litigation

http://www.covenantnews.c

om/newswire/archives/0165

78.html


42/69

6a


February

6, 2007

Independentmail

.com

Oconee

County,

Walhalla

South

Carolina

January 3,

2008

Ccn-usa.net Delaware

County

Ohio

March 9,

2008

The Grand Rapids

Press

Grand

Rapids

Michigan

May 6,

2008

Journal news.net Charles

Town

West

Virginia

June 30,

2008

Onenewsnow.com Greenfield Ohio

July 22,

2008

Wspa.com Clemson

Council

South

Carolina

August 30,

2008

World Net Daily Mesa County Colorado

December

2, 2008

Journaltimes.com Racine City Wisconsin

January 6,

2009

Roanoke.com Roanoke City Virginia

January

16, 2009

USA Today Newton New Jersey


43/69

7a


County

Commissioners

Abandoned

Practice

http://www.independentmai

l.com/news/2007/feb/06/ocon

ee-county-open-meetings-

silence

County

Commissioners

Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http:/ /www.ccn-usa.net/

contents.php?typeid=5&id=

526

City

Commissioners

Unknown http://www.mlive.com/news/

index.ssf/2008/03/most_loca

l_governments_practic.html

City Council Abandoned

Practice

http://www.mlive.com/news/

index.ssf/2008/03/most_loca

l_governments_practic.html

City Council Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.onenewsnow.co

m/Legal/Default.aspx?id=15

7778


Uncensored

Prayer

http://www2.wspa.com/news

/2008/jul/22/clemson_city_co

uncil_discusses_prayer_at_

monday_me-ar-8439County

Commissioners

Unknown http://www.wnd.com/?pageI

d=73757

City Council Unknown http://www.journaltimes.co

m/news/local/article_3ddd6a

2 1 - 8 8 7 4 - 5 7 b 2 - b 0 c 4 -

f1cabb06e5b6.html

City Council Unknown http://www.roanoke.com/ne

ws/roanoke/wb/190130

Town Council Abandoned

Practice

http://www.usatoday.com/n

ews/religion/2009-01-16-atheist-prayer_N.htm


44/69

8a


February

11, 2009

One News Now Juneau

(Dodge

County)

Wisconsin

February

23, 2009

Christian News

Wire

Richmond Virginia

March 24,

2009

BCNN1.com Accomack

County

Virginia

March 25,

2009

Washingtonpost

.com

Annapolis Maryland

April 24,

2009

Fredericksburg.com Stafford Virginia

July 9,

2009

Clickability.com Tracy City California

July 10,

2009

Smmercury.com San Marcos

City

Texas

August 22,

2009

The Modesto Bee Turlock California

August 24,

2009

Examiner La Crosse Wisconsin


45/69

9a


Board of

Supervisors

Abandoned

Practice

http://www.onenewsnow.co

m/Legal/Default.aspx?id=41

5572

State Police

Chaplains

Abandoned

Practice

http://www.christiannewswi

re.com/news/869929530.html

Board of

Supervisors

Mandate

Censorship

of Sectarian

Reference

Not Available Any Longer

General

Assembly

Unknown http://voices.washingtonpos

t.com/annapolis/2009/03/sco

lded_pastor_this_is_how_i_

p.html

School Board Abandoned

Practice

http://fredericksburg.com/N

ews/FLS/2009/042009/0424

2009/461600

City Council Unknown http://www.nbcbayarea.com

/news/local /Foundation-

Protests-Prayer-in-Tracy-

City-Council.htmlCity Council Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http://smmercury.com/4037

2/san-marcos-council-to-

continue-prayers


Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.modbee.com/200

9/08/21/826074/turlock-

council-prayers-targeted.

html


Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.examiner.com/e

vangelical-in-national/city-

o f f i c i a l s - a d o p t - r e c o mmended-invocations-policy-

despite-threats


46/69

10a


August 25,

2009

Pegasus News North

Richland

Hills

Texas

August 27,

2009

WTOL 11 Toledo Ohio

September

9, 2009

Turnto23.com Tehachapi

City

California

September

13, 2009

Commercialappeal.

com

Memphis

City

Tennessee

September

21, 2009

Gainesville.com Alachua

County

Florida

October 2,

2009

The New York

Times

Lodi California

October

15, 2009

Ohio Votes 2011 Shelby Ohio

October

23, 2009

Hampton Roads Chesapeake Virginia

October26, 2009 Houston AreaPastor Council Houston Texas


47/69

11a



Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.pegasusnews.co

m/news/2009/aug/25/north-

richland-hills-city-council-

called-out-prayi

City Council Mandate

Censorship

of Sectarian

References

http://www.wtol.com/Global/

story.asp?S=11005823


Practice

http://www.turnto23.com/m

ountain/20821439/detail.html


Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.commercialappe

al.com/news/2009/sep/13/co

uncil-prayers-draw-protest

County

Commissioners

Unknown http://www.gainesville.com/

article/20090921/COLUMN

ISTS/909211003


Censorship

of SectarianReferences

http://www.nytimes.com/20

09/10/02/us/02lodi.html

City Council Unknown http://www2.ohiovotes2011.

com/news/2009/oct/15/mayo

r_vetoes_city_council_praye

rs-ar-18501


Censorship

of Sectarian

References

http://hamptonroads.com/20

09/10/chesapeake-council-

meeting-invocations-be-

nonsectarian

City Council Resulted inLitigation http://www.imakenews.com/hapc/e_article001578349.cf

m?x=bgkKfSm,b11,w


48/69

12a


November

9, 2009

FFRF.org Wheaton CityIllinois

November

28, 2009

Richmond Register Richmond Kentucky

December8, 2009

Bakersfield.com BakersfieldCity

California

January

12, 2010

Hesperia Star Hesperia California

February

4, 2010

St. Petersburg

Times

Tampa Florida

February

5, 2010

Mysuburbanlife

.com

Elmhurst

City

Illinois

March 4,

2010

Lompoc Record Lompoc California


49/69

13a



Uncensored

Prayer

http://ffrf.org/publications/fr

eethought-today/articles/ffrf-

protests-illinois-city-council-

prayers

City

Commission

Mandate

Censorship

of Sectarian

References

http://richmondregister.com

/localnews/x546340955/Com

missioner-stands-up-to-

ACLU-s-concerns-about-

prayer

City Council PermitsUncensored

Prayer

http://richmondregister.com/localnews/x546340955/Com

missioner-stands-up-to-

ACLU-s-concerns-about-

prayer

School Board Abandon

Practice

http://www.hesperiastar.co

m/articles/board-3125-school-

invocation.html

City Council Unknown http://www.tampabay.com/n

ews/localgovernment/atheis

ts-object-again-to-tampa-

city-council-prayer/1070731

City Council Unknown http://www.mysuburbanlife.

com/elmhurst/newsnow/x64

4559574/Foundation-joins-

residents-aldermen-in-

opposition-to-public-prayer


Censorship

of Sectarian

References

http://www.lompocrecord.co

m/news/ loca l /govt -and-

politics/article_7a4a367c-

2758-11df-bf60-001cc4c

03286.html


50/69

14a


March 13,

2010

The Mountain

Press

Sevier

County

Tennessee

March 19,

2010

Examiner.com Manteca, San

Joaquin

County

California

March 23,

2010

Akroncitycouncil

.org

Akron Ohio

April 8,

2010

FFRC.com Birmingham

City

Alabama

April 12,2010

Arkansasnews.com North LittleRock

Arkansas

April 14,

2010

Star News Online Brunswick

County

North

Carolina

April 21,

2010

Examiner.net IndependenceMissouri


51/69

15a


County

Commissioners

Unknown http://www.themountainpre

ss.com/view/full_story/6671

9 4 8 / a r t i c l e - - W a t e r s -

standing-up-for-prayer--

Despite-threat-of-lawsuit--

mayor-says-meeting-will-

have-invocation


Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.examiner.com/a

t h e i sm- i n - l o s -an g e l e s /

another-cali fornia-city-trouble-over-sectarian-

prayer

Akron City

Council

Mandate

Censorship

of Sectarian

References

http://www.akroncitycouncil

.org/News/entry/Council_ch

anges_opening_prayer_proc

edures

City Council Unknown http://ffrf.org/news/releases/

f f r f -ob jects - to -counc i l -

prayers-in-birmingham-ala

City Council MandateCensorship

of Sectarian

References

http://arkansasnews.com/2010/04/12/aclu-wants-end-to-

nlr-city-council-prayers

County

Commissioners

Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.starnewsonline.

com/article/20100414/ARTI

CLES/100419842

City Council Unknown http://www.examiner.net/ne

ws/news_columnists/x57962

951/Deweese-City-Council-

remains-firm-on-issue-of-

prayer-at-meetings


52/69

16a


April 23,

2010

The Suburbanite Hartville Ohio

April 25,

2010

Honoluluadvertiser

.com

Honolulu

City

Hawaii

April 28,

2010

Jacsonville.com Jacksonville

City

Florida

May 5,

2010

Los Angeles Times Lancaster California

May 18,

2010

Digtriad.com Greensboro North

Carolina

July 12,

2010

Star News Online Raleigh North

Carolina

July 14,

2010

Foundation for

Moral Law

Hoover Alabama

July 20,

2010

News Channel Augusta City Georgia

July 27,

2010

Breaking Christian

News

Wichita Kansas


53/69

17a


Village Council Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.thesuburbanite.

com/communities/x1394806

430/Hartville-battles-with-

prayer-and-religious-issues


Censorship

of Sectarian

Reference

http://the.honoluluadvertise

r.com/article/2010/Apr/25/ln

/hawaii4250358.html


UncensoredPrayer

http://jacksonville.com/news

/metro/2010-04-28/story/counci lmans-use- jesus-

prayer-leads-legal-questions


Litigation

http://articles.latimes.com/2

010/may/05/local /la-me-

lancaster-prayer-20100505


Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.digtriad.com/ne

ws/story.aspx?storyid=1423

51

General

Assembly

Mandate

Censorshipof Sectarian

Reference

http://divine.blogs.starnews

online.com/12307/praying-in-jesus-name-controversy-

reaches-general-assembly

Board of

Education

Abandoned

Practice

http://morallaw.org/blog/201

0/07/foundation-supports-

school-board-prayer/

City

Commissioners

Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http://www2.wjbf.com/news/

2010/jul/20/augusta-gets-

stop-prayer-letter-ar-603418/


UncensoredPrayer

http://www.breakingchristia

nnews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=8074


54/69

18a


August 4,

2010

GoUpstate.com Woodruff South

Carolina

August 7,

2010

World Net Daily Greece New York

August 9,

2010

CNS News Aiken South

Carolina

August 15,

2010

GoUpstate.com Spartanburg South

Carolina

August 20,

2010

The Ledger.com Lakeland Florida

September

12, 2010

Thecabin.net Searcy City Arkansas

October 5,

2010

MPNnow.com Canandaigua

City

New York

October

14, 2010

Star Local News Rowlett Texas

November

3, 2010

Isuvoice.com Pocatello Idaho


55/69

19a



Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.goupstate.com/a

rticle/20100804/articles/804

1024

Town Board Resulted in

Litigation

http://www.wnd.com/?pageI

d=188617


Censorship

of Sectarian

References

http://cnsnews.com/node/70

784

County Council Mandate

Censorship

of Sectarian

References

http://www.goupstate.com/a

rticle/20100815/articles/815

1035

City

Commission

Resulted in

Litigation

http://www.theledger.com/a

rticle/20100820/NEWS/8205

042


Uncensored

Prayer

http://thecabin.net/news/20

10-09-12/group-asks-searcy-

council-not-pray-meetings


Prayer

http://www.mpnnow.com/canandaigua/x1616324528/Pr

ayer-at-meetings-to-be-

considered-by-Canandaigua-

City-Council


Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.lakeshoretimes.

com/articles/2010/10/28/row

lett_lakeshore_times/news/

8305.txt


UncensoredPrayer

http://isuvoice.com/?p=3613

65


56/69

20a


November

19, 2010

Roanoke-Chowan

News-Herald

Jackson

(Northamp-

ton County)

North

Carolina

November

22, 2010

NBC-2.com Cape Coral Florida

December

7, 2010

nbc4i.com Chillicothe Ohio

December

10, 2010

San Antonio

Express

Bulverde

City

Texas

December

16, 2010

WXII12.com High Point North

Carolina

December

17, 2010

CBSNewYork.com Point

Pleasant

Beach City,

Toms River

New Jersey

December

25, 2010

Tulsa World Tulsa Oklahoma

January 5,

2011

KJCT8.com Grand

Junction

Colorado


57/69

21a


County Board

of

Commissioners

Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.roanoke-chowan

newsherald.com/2010/11/19/

commissioners-reinstate-

prayer/


Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.nbc-2.com/Glo

bal/story.asp?S=13553302


Uncensored

Prayer

http://www2.nbc4i.com/new

s / 2 0 1 0 / d e c / 0 7 / p r a y e r -

chillicothe-council-meetings-ar-318666/


Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.mysanantonio.c

om/community/bulverde/art

icle/Prayer-controversy-

distracts-City-Counci l -

926496.php


Censorship

of Sectarian

References

http://www.wxii12.com/r/26

157885/detail.html


Litigation

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/

2010/12/17/judge-voids-new-

jersey- towns-policy-on-

council-prayers/


Censorship

of Sectarian

Reference

http://www.tulsaworld.com/

news/article.aspx?subjectid

=11&articleid=20101225_18

_A11_InAnni21488


Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.kjct8.com/news/

26370618/detail.html


58/69

22a


January

10, 2011

FFRF.org Des Moines Iowa

January

13, 2011

Freedom From

Religion

Foundation

El Paso

County

Colorado

January

16, 2011

NorthJersey.com Ocean

County

New Jersey

January

27, 2011

Secular News Daily Madison Wisconsin

January

28, 2011

thenewamerican

.com

Honolulu Hawaii

January29, 2011

fredericksburg.com Fredericks-burg

Virginia

January

30, 2011

GJ Sentinel Garfield

County

Colorado

February

5, 2011

The Ledger.com Polk County Florida

February

5, 2011

Yakima Herald

Republic

Yakima Washington


59/69

23a


State

Legislature

Unknown http://ffrf.org/news/ajax-

releases/

County

Commission

Unknown http://ffrf.org/news/ajax-

releases/

Borough

Council

Abandoned

Practice

http://www.northjersey.com/

news/113835669_local_issu

e__Prayer_at_Public_Meeti

ngs_Councils_reviewing_tra

dition.html

State Assembly Unknown http://www.secularnewsdail

y . c o m / 2 0 1 1 / 0 1 / 2 7 / f f r f -

wisconsin-state-assembly-

shouldn%E2%80%99t-have-

a-prayer-2

Hawaii Senate Abandoned

Practice

http://thenewamerican.com/

usnews/politics/6085-despite-

ban-hawaii-senators-open-

session-with-prayer

City Council Resulted inLitigation http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/012011/0129

2011/603881

County

Commissioners

Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.gjsentinel.com/n

ews/articles/garfield_prayer

_debate_begins

School Board Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.theledger.com/a

rticle/20110205/NEWS/1020

55024


UncensoredPrayers

h t t p : / / w w w . y a k i m a -

herald.com/stories/2011/02/05/legal-issues-abound-over-

city-s-prayer-policy-proposal


60/69

24a


February

7, 2011

Suwannee

Democrat

Live Oak Florida

February

7, 2011

Wsau.com Marshfield

City

Wisconsin

February

22, 2011

The Oregonian Damascus Oregon

February

23, 2011

Freedomblogging.

com

Denver City Colorado

February

25, 2011

FFRF.org Brazo County Texas

March 1,2011

Corning Observer Corning California

March 2,

2011

Wcax.com Franklin

Town

Vermont


61/69

25a



Uncensored

Prayer

http://suwanneedemocrat.co

m/x2072624126/Suwannee-

C o u n t y - C o m m i s s i o n -

Prayers-will-continue

City Council Unknown http://wsau.com/news/articl

es/2011/feb/07/marshfield-

faces-lawsuit-over-city-

council-prayer

City Council Unknown http://www.oregonlive.com/

h a p p y - v a l l e y / i n d e x .ssf/2011/02/post_2.html

House of

Representative

Unknown http://thebroadside.freedom

blogging.com/2011/02/23/in-

the-separation-of-church-

a n d - s t a t e - t i m i n g - i s -

important

County

Commissioners

Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

City Council Unknown h t t p : / / w w w . c o r n i n g -observer.com/articles/invoca

tion-9270-council-city.html

Town Council Resulted in

Litigation

http://www.wcax.com/Globa

l/story.asp?S=14171934

http://www.acluvt.org/blog/2

011/03/02/aclu-sues-over-

town-meeting-prayer


62/69

26a


April 2,

2011

Carroll County

Times

Carroll

County

Maryland

April 19,

2011

Orlando Sentinel Lady Lake Florida

April 20,

2011

Leadertelegram

.com

Eau Claire

County

Wisconsin

May 4,

2011

Orange County

Register

Los Alamitos California

May 14,

2011

Baltimore Sun Salisbury Maryland

July 22,

2011

YubaNet.com Colton City California

July 22,

2011

YubaNet.com Highland

County

California


63/69

27a


Board of

Commissioners

Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.carrollcountyti

mes.com/news/local/commis

sioners-say-prayers-before-

meetings-adhere-to-their-

o w n - b e l i e f s / a r t i c l e

_51a57072-5d87-11e0-a646-

001cc4c002e0.html

Town

Commissioners

Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.orlandosentinel.

com/news/local / lake/os-

prayer-controversy-lady-l a k e - 2 0 1 1 0 4 1 9 , 0 ,

4683000.story

County

Commissioners

Abandoned

Practice

http://www.leadertelegram.

com/news/front_page/article

_cd248420-6b0d-11e0-8ea1-

001cc4c002e0.html


Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.leadertelegram.

com/news/front_page/article

_cd248420-6b0d-11e0-8ea1-

001cc4c002e0.html


Practice

http://articles.baltimoresun.

com/2011-05-14/news/bs-md-

public-prayer-20110514

_1_invocations-lord-s-prayer-

prayer-at-public-meetings

City Council Unknown http://yubanet.com/californi

a/Southern-California-full-of-

prayin-politicians.php

County

Commissioners

Unknown http://yubanet.com/californi

a/Southern-California-full-of-

prayin-politicians.php


64/69

28a


July 25,

2011

Ardemgaz.com Conway Arkansas

July 25,

2011

Secular News Daily San

Bernadino

California

July 25,2011

Orange CountyRegister

Yorba Linda California

July 29,

2011

Dailypress.com Newport

News City

Virginia

August 3,

2011

SandSspringsLeade

r.com

Sand Springs

City

Oklahoma

August 8,

2011

Fayobserver.com Fayetteville

City

North

Carolina

August 15,

2011

The New American Selbyville Delaware


65/69

29a



Uncensored

Prayer

http://epaper.ardemgaz.com

/webchannel/ShowStory.asp

?Path=ArDemocratNW/201

1/07/25&ID=Ar00802

Board of

Supervisors

Mandate

Censorship

of Sectarian

References

http://www.secularnewsdail

y.com/2011/07/25/southern-

california-full-of-prayin

%E2%80%99-politicians


Prayer

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-309460-council-

religion.html


Censorship

of Sectarian

Reference

http://articles.dailypress.co

m/2011-07-29/news/dp-nws-

nn-council-prayers-20110729

_1_council-meetings-generic-

prayer-government-prayer


Uncensored

Prayer

http://sandspringsleader.co

m/news/prayers-at-council-

m e e t i n g s - c h a l l e n g e d /article_a7293d26-bde0-11e0-

b9e8-001cc4c002e0.html

City Council Unknown http://www.fayobserver.com

/articles/2011/08/07/110973

4?sac=Home

Indian River

School Board

Resulted in

Litigation

http://thenewamerican.com/

usnews/constitution/8582-

federal-court-outlaws-school-

board-prayers-in-delaware-

district


66/69

30a


August 16,

2011

Sanford Herald Lee County North

Carolina

August 16,

2011

JDNews.com Onslow

County,

Jacksonville

North

Carolina

August 18,

2011

WBNG-TV Broome

County

New York

August 21,

2011

BlueRidgeNow.com Henderson North

Carolina

August 22,

2011

Richmond Times

Dispatch

Chatham

(Pittsylvania

County)

Virginia

August 22,

2011

11 Alive.com Peachtree

City

Georgia

September

14, 2011

Delaware Law

Weekly

Sussex

County

Delaware

September

26, 2011

KTBS.com Bowie

County

Texas


67/69

31a


Board of

Commissioners

Mandate

Censorship

of Sectarian

References

http://sanfordherald.com/bo

okmark/15115426-OUR-

VIEW-Board- forced- to-

address-prayer

County

Commissioner

Mandate

Censorship

of Sectarian

Reference

http://www.jdnews.com/arti

cles/county-94072-invocation

-commissioners.html

County

Legislature

Mandate

Censorshipof Sectarian

References

http://www.wbng.com/news/

local/Invocation-to-Include-All-Faiths-128038498.html

Board of

Commissioners

Mandate

Censorship

of Sectarian

References

http://www.blueridgenow.co

m/article/20110821/ARTICL

ES/108211009

Board of

Supervisors

Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http://www2.timesdispatch.

com/news/virginia-politics/

2011/aug/22/tdmet01-aclu-

letter-doesnt-stop-pittsyl

vania-count-ar-1253289/


Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.11alive.com/new

s/article/202575/40/PEACH

TREE-CITY-Public-prayers-

attacked

County Council Resulted in

Litigation

http://www.delawarelawwee

kly.com/news.php?news_id=

3786

County

Commissioners

Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.ktbs.com/news/2

9307822/detail.html


68/69

32a


October 4,

2011

Christian Post Sumner

County

Tennessee

October

06, 2011

ENCToday.com La Grange

Town

North

Carolina

October

10, 2011

The Chestertown

Spy

Rock Hall

City

Maryland

October

21, 2011

San Antonio

Express

San Antonio Texas

October

26, 2011

BCNNI.com Laguna

Niguel

California

October28, 2011

New-record.com ForsythCounty

NorthCarolina

November

6, 2011

Ashland Current Ashland Wisconsin

November

15, 2011

Bradenton.com Manatee

County

Florida


69/69

33a


County Board

of Education

Resulted in

Litigation

http://www.christianpost.co

m/news/tenn-residents-

express-their-frustration-

with-faith-attacks-57279/

Town Council Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.kinston.com/arti

cles/grange-76803-prayer-

bring.html

City Council Unknown http://www.chestertownspy.

com/to-the-editor-rock-hall-

should -copy -us-senate -prayer-policy/


Litigation

http://www.mysanantonio.c

om/news/local_news/article/

Mayor-sued-over-council-

prayers-2228850.php


Uncensored

Prayer

http://blackchristiannews.co

m/news/2011/10/california-

city-lifts-prayer-ban-at-

council-meetings.html

Board ofCommissioners Resulted inLitigation h t t p : / / w w w . n e w s -record.com/content/2011/10/

28/article/forsyth_files_petit

ion_to_take_prayer_case_to

_the_us_supreme_court


Uncensored

Prayer

http://ashlandcurrent.com/a

rticle/11/11/06/councilors-

consider-ending-prayer-

meetings

County

Commission

Permits

Uncensored

Prayer

http://www.bradenton.com/

2011/11/15/3652554/manate

e-county-commissioners-asked html

Documents

SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief