Opening Meetings With Prayer: Constitutional?

This is family policy matter programs produced by the North Carolina family policy, profamily research and is dedicated to serving the family and up from the studio here is John Rustin, Pres. North Carolina family policy Council, thank you for joining us this week. Profamily policy matters. It is our pleasure to have attorney David Gibson third back with us on the program today.

David is Pres. and General Counsel of the national Center for life and liberty is an accomplished trial attorney and he has authored five books, including understanding the cost. David is the lead defense attorney for Rowan County, North Carolina, accounting's public invitation policy is being challenged in court by the American Civil Liberties Union or the ACLU cases made it all the way up to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which recently heard oral arguments in will be talking today with David about the Rowan County case how the oral arguments went and when we can expect a decision from the Fourth Circuit. David, thanks so much for being back with us on family policy matters on monarch to do it and appreciate your voice the great work throughout the region. Well thank you and thank you for all the work that you do standing up for religious liberty and other important important issues across our nation.

For those who may not be familiar with the Rowan County case tell us briefly about the County's long-standing public invitation policy which has been a target of the ACLU. Even before this lawsuit was filed, Rowan County has as far back they couldn't remember 70+ years in their archives. But even before that has had a moment at the beginning of their meetings where they allow commissioners to solemnize the beginning of their meeting at the moment, where they can do this with recitation, but it's that implication that beginning policy moment that has been challenged by the HBO you and what they did is they initiated litigation against the County and the County pending its policy but the policy is similar to what other counties do across stated something that has historically been part of government meetings in the United States of America rose with the founding of our country the ACLU's targeting of it has really focused on the fact that in their opinion, it's just too Christian.

Others, too many mentions of Jesus and that they have been really harassing and attempting County for many years now. Well, the ACLU filed this lawsuit against Rowan County and their prayer policy back in March 2013 and the case is known as 10M County why do you think that the ACLU feels inclined to go after counties like Rowand and other municipalities and government agencies who open their meetings with the word of prayer. Well, I can tell you what you said that the attorneys may very good attorney, or by a North Carolina is still used in Raleigh. But what they are saying it. Basically they believe it unconstitutional or really any type of religious reference but better in particular, the filing of this case. It really focused on prayers in the name of Jesus that when you say in Jesus name I pray, amen, that you're creating some difficulty in just some folks understand from a legal perspective literally remodeled open government me. Model number wanted you have a chaplain the same person that does all the time, model number two you invite outside. Yes, these would be pastors, ministers, clergy from a reading command or model number three is you have the commissioners elected officials themselves doing the invocations or the opening prayer sent out Rowan County uses that number three model but the ACLU was taking the position at that particular model is a problem as well as the fact that it was just too overtly approached Jesus in the statement differently made by various commissioners interesting to compare that with.

For example, the North Carolina state legislature that in the North Carolina Senate. There is a chaplain who typically praised on a daily basis to open sessions in prayer quite often ending those prayers in Jesus name.

And then in the house.

There has been a history recently of the members of the chamber actually being invited to pray those prayers may vary quite a bit because of the makeup of the house, but does represent really two of the different models that you talked about and I have not seen the ACLU attempt to sue the state legislature.

Yet, I wouldn't be surprised. Frankly, if I attempted to have in the future, but today they have not pursued the members of the Gen. assembly where I think is a couple reasons. Number one of the ACLU's very smart and clever, targeting an individual County with the hopes that they will have the resources or the ability to stand that's where like organizations like ours command and provide a pro bono legal representation are able to give them a defense of they might not otherwise be able to order budget but also I think with the ACLU was hoping is to get a win at this level and then go to the North Carolina legislature and so you'll have to change your policies so there's a lot of strategy involved things in the ACLU's very good at looking for what they would call the low hanging fruit or the places where they think they might be able to get a victory and enforce it on. For example, the legislature or even United States Congress and for exactly that reason were so appreciative that you are where you are and that you're able to step in and often times I know in a pro bono fashion represent cities, counties, municipalities, other clients so that the ACLU can just take advantage of a county that may not have a significant budget and would just relent as opposed to standing firm as Rowan County is done in this case.

So were really grateful for you being there. Now David, this is been a four or five year legal battle for the Rowan County commission before we talk about specifically, the Fourth Circuit hearing in this case, tell us a little bit about how the lower court ruled and how did it get up to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Well, it's sort of interesting because Rowan County had a pending case before the Trial Ct. in North Carolina judge Beatty and judge Beatty was elected we believe by the ACLU because he's never really rule in favor of the per policy so they they had a judge felt would be friendly to their argument, and so the case is pending before judge Beatty and then actually the United States print court took a prayer case. So on behalf of Rowan County and a number of other governmental agencies that we were involved with. We actually went up to the spring court as amicus and argued there that these per policy should be upheld and that was a case where the Supreme Court upheld that model of the outside ministers and lay down a number of rules and guidelines that many perceive to be very pro prayer history was a very good ruling from the United States print court so we were hopeful actually of the court. North Carolina would look at your Supreme Court ruling and dismiss the case. Unfortunately, he did not. He looked at it and while I see some I'm using my language are some loopholes in the ground. Some ways to say we still think the policy in Rowan County problem and so he ruled again the County and at that point accounting and make a tough decision, advanced elections, new official.

They voted unanimously to appeal to the Fourth Circuit and the importance of this case, John is this is now the first case after the United States Supreme Court ruling in the town of Greece decision to really interpret that ruling entered implemented in a real-world way and so it's very important to see the ACLU will be successful in trying to narrow the impact that ruling or what were hoping for. Certainly are going Fourth Circuit is the ability of that case to be read exactly as it is, and that these policies should be constitutional and upheld so this is now sort of the first case after the Supreme Court ruling and so it will have a huge shadow effect across the nation as other courts will see how the Fourth Circuit handles it. Knowing the Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments in the Rowan County prayer case on January 27. Considering the distinctions between the dimension the town agrees case in this case, what question is really pending before the Fourth Circuit.

What is the issue that they are considering well. The ACLU radically changed their argument because the original arguments of the name Jesus was unconstitutional had already been struck down by the Supreme Court.

So, what they sort of what to was well you may have the right, pray but you're doing it in too much of a proselytizing manner. You're doing it in some way that you're putting pressure on the people in attendance, and so they really took great shift in strategy and instead of arguing that right of the store argued that you're doing it with too much coercion. That was sort of problem point you know you're you're asking people to stand up asking people to give up our heads are you doing things in some way that we believe is coercive order forcing of these adult dependents to participate in the choir argument took a fairly radical shift and again they argue has been arranged in their reading looked print court said they're trying to find a way to stay while the Supreme Court some quarters may be allowable. You're doing it the wrong way and that's really what Fourth Circuit focus was upon doubt. Some folks understand the Fourth Circuit covers the Carolinas and Maryland it underneath reported very powerful court and you draw three judges and you don't really know the judges you get over. They are there, so there's a lot of prayer that went into that we would receive judges that all opinion I would be fair-minded towards the case.

I we drew a good panel. The three of them asked a lot of good and poignant questions of both sides but were fairly optimistic that in light of the Supreme Court ruling, the light of the arguments made in light of what Rowan County is done that them were expecting a favorable ruling out of the Fourth Circuit will certainly ask of the listeners to be praying towards that end, our expectation would be probably by the summer that we should be getting a ruling from the Fourth Circuit and then at that point but decisions would be made of 15 favor growing County we would be pleased to victory in the ACLU would have to decide whether they choose to appeal of you to appeal routes. These are both discretionary. One would be to the full Fourth Circuit got all the judges of the court to hear your arguments or you could appeal to the United States Supreme Court. If Rowan County is denied will be believe is the right to open our meetings as they deem best that we would have to evaluate whether to appeal the county would have to make that determination. But everybody's got their eyes on the Fourth Circuit of America.

Read the ruling in a because the court will give a written basis for their decision and so that will let everyone then see how this court the first appeals court ought to look at this prayer issue since the Supreme Court ruling how they interpret and if they're going to take a real strong position on what can or can't be done, or whether they take what we believe, the Supreme Court attended a very open and freedom oriented position of that elected officials do have the ability to pray over the meetings. According to faith in anyone think I want to mention the accountability system like that is tied to the voters going after people elect a Muslim or elected atheist or by elected Christian. The commissioners are praying according to their tradition and so it's really very much a voter oriented approach what the people decide who they want to be there elected officials, but those elected officials and proceed to open meeting fading fast and we also need to remember were all adults mean, if somebody says you know what, I'm just really offended by any prayer whatsoever.

They can certainly step outside, they can cover their ears, they don't have to listen to me. I think we need to recognize in a diverse, pluralistic society is always to be differently point and sometimes everybody needs to grow up just a little bit will be adults in the room and be willing to accept the diversion people and so our hope again as of the Fourth Circuit will positively and defend the actions of Rowan County and uphold them as constitutional.

Certainly hope and pray the same, not even as we" listeners what can I do to support your efforts to support your work and to support Rowan County in this very very important defense will develop research asking the question we are a nonprofit organization.

We are doing the Rowan County case pro bono with legal words before he got.

And so, in that it folks.

I would certainly pray and if they can financially support were very grateful. Our website is NCAA L.Ward and CLL.org and that they can connect with us and I received information update and again we are honored to serve churches throughout North Carolina Christian families the rights to train and educate children.

I we stand with government officials. We work with leaders in Raleigh were certainly grateful for your excellent work, your voice, your leadership difference you're making and I were just honored to have you all have your arms up in the air and I like Moses we can prop a little better be a legal help or certainly are. And with that David gives 1/3 of all thank you so much for being with us today to talk about this case. Thank you so much for your great work and we're going to continue to pray for your success that the Lord will bless you and bless the results of this case moves along John, thank you for your prayers, your friendship and your support.

Thank you for your voice nearly family policy matters. Information and analysis, future of the North Carolina family policy Council join us weekly for discussion on policy issues affecting the family. If you have questions or comments, please contact 919-807-0800 or visit our website and see family.org