Delegates approve prayer bill
Bob Brown/Times-Dispatch
Del. Charles W. Carrico, Sr., R-Grayson, (center) listens during debate with L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William, (left) and William H. Fralin, Jr., R-Roanoke.
Published: February 5, 2009
Updated: February 5, 2009
Citing Scriptures and Thomas Jefferson, the House of Delegates voted yesterday to approve legislation that would allow state police chaplains to invoke the name of Jesus Christ at state police events.
House Bill 2314 passed 66-30, close to the threshold for overriding a possible gubernatorial veto.
The bill does not specify a particular religion. It says the Virginia State Police cannot "prescribe, proscribe, regulate, limit or otherwise dictate the religious content of the volunteer chaplains' expression of religious beliefs, prayers, invocations, benedictions, spiritual counseling or spiritual guidance."
The ACLU said the measure is unconstitutional. If it survives the legislative process, the ACLU said it will challenge it in court.
Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr., R-Grayson, a former state trooper, introduced the bill after the superintendent of state police prohibited chaplains from delivering prayers invoking the name of Jesus Christ at such functions as trooper graduation ceremonies and the annual memorial service for fallen troopers. Six chaplains resigned in protest.
Carrico, professing himself a Christian, held up a Bible on the House floor Tuesday when the bill first came up for consideration.
"I do not want to interfere with anyone else's religion," he said yesterday.
Two Jewish members of the House spoke against it, saying it violates the constitutional separation between church and state.
"Vote no, so minorities can be included in the public life of Virginia," said Del. Adam P. Ebbin, D-Alexandria.
Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, said ministers open each daily session of the House of Delegates -- a public body -- with prayer and frequently invoke the name of Jesus.
"No descendants of Isaac or Jacob were struck," he said.
The House has three Jewish Members: Ebbin, David L. Englin, D-Alexandria, and Albert C. Eisenberg, D-Arlington.
Del. H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, the House Majority Leader, said not allowing Christian prayers violates the free speech and freedom of religion provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Those who say the bill violates the First Amendment by having a state entity advocating a specific religion are engaged in "Orwellian double-talk," he said.
Fifty of the 53 Republicans voted for the measure. Three did not vote. The two independents voted for it. Thirty Democrats voted against it, while 14 voted for it. One Democrat did not vote.
Before it reached the House floor, the bill was amended to provide that if a Christian prayer be uttered at a public event, the printed program include a disclaimer that the chaplain was speaking on his own, without sanctioning by the Department of State Police.
Earlier in the day, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said the decision of Col. W. Steven Flaherty, superintendent of the Virginia State Police, to limit the prayers was the right one and hinted at a veto.
"If you are getting paid to be a state chaplain and are on the clock as a state employee, you shouldn't be proselytizing," he told reporters. "You should be in these public settings offering prayers that will really be inclusive."
Also yesterday, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee delayed until Monday a vote on a similar bill, Senate Bill 1072, sponsored by Sen. Stephen H. Martin, R-Chesterfield. Sen. Richard L. Saslaw, D-Fairfax, requested a delay to get a legal opinion from the office of Attorney General Bob McDonnell.
An assistant attorney general testified that the legislation can be defended on constitutional grounds.
"The religious content of someone's prayer -- be it a priest, imam, rabbi, whatever -- shouldn't be dictated by government officials," Steve McCullough told the committee.
Contact Tyler Whitley at (804) 649-6780 or
.
Contact Jim Nolan at (804) 649-6061 or .
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
The really funny thing about all of the responses to this article is that the atheists seem to be evoking the name of “Jesus” more than anyone else. Go figure.
Religious people want to legally evoke the names of Jesus and God in public forums yet they still want to operate churches tax exempt. Want an economic stimulus? Tax churches like any other business.
I am so tired of the religion in government/school/any other location. However, in an era when we have sever budget deficits, and when people are screaming for smaller government, I find it hard to believe the state employees state police chaplains. What does a chaplain do to reduce crime or make the area safer. Please do not tell me that offering prayers reduces crimes or makes me safer.
koolaid: “If there are people offended they need to get over it.“ Unless they are christians, of course.
JackCrowX,
I think you have the atheists all wrong. They don’t believe in the Spaghetti Monster either.
Pray to Jesus one week.
Pray to Allah the nxt.
Pray to Moses after that.
Pray to the Great Earth Mother after that.
Pray to the Spaghetti Monster for atheists.
That would be fair. You could practice religion and include most everyone. Considering that at these events you are practicing religion with a captive audience.
Would Christians have a problem praying to a pagan god? They shouldn’t if the pagans don’t have a problem praying to Jesus. Fair is fair after all.
12steprevenge,
As Christians we are admonished by Christ to pray in his name, to do otherwise will be denying one of the tenets of our faith. For the government to tell us that we cant infringes upon our First Amendment rights of “free exercise” of religion.
As for knowing better that Supreme Court justices. They have been known to make some really bad decisions as kickthekoolaid has noted. I will add one more, the Kelo decision.
The Supreme Court is good at finding rights that are non-existent in the original documents and elevating those rights above those that are explicit. Their rulings may determine the law of the land, but they are flawed humans the same as all of us and make mistakes.
12steprevenge,
Regarding the Supreme Court - they’ve been known to make bad rulings in the past. A few examples:
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Plessy v. Ferguson
Look them up.
I’m with Henry on this one.
The clause “Government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” was and is meant to prevent a state religion such as the Church of England. You need to look at it in a historical context. It does not mean no religion at all. If the state forced us all to be a member of a church, that’s a different story. This is simply someone praying to God as they see fit. If there are people offended they need to get over it. Let a rabbi prayer every other week. It wouldn’t offend me if I were a state trooper! As long as they didn’t tell me I had to convert to Judaism, it’s okay with me. People need to get over worrying about ‘hurting peoples feelings’.
In this particular case, a chaplain is simply praying how they personally believe. There is no state religion involved, and the troopers do not have to bow their heads if they don’t want to.
If they want to ‘include’ everyone, then why even say a prayer? There are atheists, aren’t there? Let the chaplains pray how they want to. If you hire a Christian chaplain, of course they’re going to pray in the Lord’s name. If they didn’t they’d be doing a disservice to their own religion.
There’s no ‘separation of church and state’ - it’s a fallacy. Show me where it is in the Constitution. In no way does freedom of religion imply no religion at all in government. Governor Kaine should be ashamed of himself, since he claims to be a Catholic. He now joins the ranks of Pelosi, Kennedy, and Kerry.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.


Advertisement