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
Well, Henry, apparently you do think yourself to have a better understanding than the judges on the highest court in our counrty. Fortunately, under the Constitution, THEY are responsible for interpreting the law, not you.
There is nothing that prohibits the free exercise of religion OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ACTIVITIES. Heck, no one even suggested that there be no prayer, simply that it was non-denominational and inclusive of faiths other than Christianity. Why is that a problem? Why do you and your kind feel the need to exclude others in order to feel satisfied in matters of faith?
If you were a devout Jew and a state trooper, would you feel the same? Or does the First Amendment only refer to Christians? I guess I missed that part in Constitutional Law class.
12steprevenge,
Why is it you guys always overlook the part that says “,or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof;“?
Sorry Henry, but you’re absolutely wrong in your assertion (unless you consider yourself more of a scholar of the Constitution than the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States). I will draw on my post from another thread:
For all of you invoking the 1st Amendment in favor of this bill, your understanding of the Constitution is a shallow one. What part of “Government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” is unclear? When the government clearly endorses one religion over another (note the clear inclusion of the name of Jesus in the bill), it is a violation of the Constitution. Is the State Troopers’ graduation ceromony a publicly sponsored event? Is the prayer endorsing one religion over another? If the answer is yes to both questions, the General Assembly is acting in an unconstitutional manner. If you want to go into the federal/state powers argument, may I refer you to the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom.
This law will be struck down by the Spureme Court, just like in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet. May I quote Justice Souter, in speaking for the majority: “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion”.
Either way, this is more a political ploy than anything else. The politicians are using a wedge issue to drum up peoples’ sentiments and promote the “us vs. them” mentality which benefits them, not us. Those of you who think this is the real work of government are dupes.
Being a police chaplain I find it strange that having a Bible which affords all believers of it the option to invoke the name of Jesus, offends so many who say they believe in the God of the Bible.
The legislature saw the irony of having their meetings open with prayer and skirt promoting religion by inviting various religious faiths.
,
It was a violation of the First Amendment to forbid them from doing it in the first place.
It seems to me that “public” prayers are offered to God for the building up and comfort of the citizens participating. Shouldn’t a public servant want to be sensitive to include all those present in such prayer? Praying to “GOD” does not exclude Christians, but praying to “Jesus” may exclude and offend part of the audience. Doesn’t God want ALL his children to be loved, honored and respected? I don’t think God is offended when this happens.
Hey JTVA if your a government employee, I hope your not on our time .
YES, YES, YES, YES, YES and AMEN!
As a practicing Christian, I pray daily. And today, after reading this article, I pray that our members of the G.A. turn focus to crucial issues—such as our crumbling economy. How much time and attention (and money) did this fringe issue take away from true governance?
Since this is non-religion-specific, surely they won’t mind if someone delivers a prayer to the Almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster? All hail his noodly appendage! (look up http://www.venganza.org if you’re confused.)
Seriously, though, this is an incredibly stupid law. The state is going to spend oodles of money defending the case against the inevitable lawsuit, and the state is most assuredly going to lose because it’s blatantly unconstitutional. Where are all the fiscal conservatives outraged at this blatant waste of taxpayer money?
We’ve had separation of church and state for over 200 years and, guess what folks - Christianity is still going quite strong. In fact, I would argue Christianity flourishes precisely BECAUSE it is kept out of the public realm, and people are free to choose whatever religion they want.
Personally, I’m Jewish. If I were a state trooper I’d be royally peeved if I were summarily made to feel unwelcome at a graduation ceremony because I didn’t believe in Jesus.
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