Pelphrey v- Cobb

Change The Channel

It’s been a rather tough week for our friends over at the ACLU. On the same day they were slapped down by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning public displays of religious symbols, Governor Bob McDonnell reversed a discriminatory policy that censored prayers of volunteer state police chaplains. One of the funniest and most outrageous statements in response to the governor's action came from Virginia ACLU director Kent Willis, who’s not exactly known for legal precision:

There is no reason for the governor to bow to pressure from groups that are encouraging the police to break the law by delivering sectarian prayers at government events. (Emphasis added.)

Seriously. Is it any wonder that no reasonable, thoughtful person anywhere pays a bit of attention to what the ACLU says? Getting legal advice from the ACLU is like getting medical advice from Dr. Kevorkian. It can't end well.

I'd try to explain what the law is to Mr. Willis, but it won’t do any good. But for those of you not blinded by ideology, needless to say, there is no law anywhere that says sectarian prayers at government events are illegal. Even in the ACLU's vision of our government where the Supreme Court makes law as opposed to the legislature, it's still not the case. But don’t take my word for it, here is what the Eleventh Circuit Court in Pelphrey v. Cobb (2008) said in its analysis of this issue:

The taxpayers (ACLU) argue that Marsh (U.S. Supreme Court precedent in this area) permits only "nonsectarian" prayers for commission (government) meetings, but their reading is contrary to the command of Marsh that the courts are not to evaluate the content of the prayers absent evidence of exploitation.  …The court never held that the prayers in Marsh were constitutional because they were "nonsectarian."

Oh, and about that Fourth Circuit case (Turner v. Fredericksburg) that the ACLU alleges requires non-sectarian prayers. Here is what the decision actually says:

We need not decide whether the Establishment Clause compelled the Council to adopt their legislative prayer policy because the Establishment Clause does not absolutely dictate the form of legislative prayer.

In Turner, while the Court upheld Fredericksburg's discriminatory censorship policy, it clearly stated that the constitution does not compel the policy. Again, in Pelphrey, the Eleventh Circuit says:

Although it upheld the policy of the (Fredericksburg City) Council, the Fourth Circuit expressly declined to hold that Marsh required a policy of nondenominational prayers. (For interested parties I encourage you to read Pelphrey for yourself. In it the court rejects every typical ACLU argument.)

So what can we learn from all this? Well, one thing we already know, the ACLU is wrong almost all the time. They live under the creed of "If you say something enough, loud enough, people will start believing it." Luckily, the only people who seem to believe them are in the MSM and some confused elected officials.

More importantly, we can learn that it really is ok to still "exercise" our faith in the public square, even if you are a government agent (ACLU words). This week’s actions by the Supreme Court and Governor McDonnell verify that.

And finally, to those who are offended by the name "Jesus," I say to you what you say to me when you shove your smut in my face in the public square. Change the channel.

Official Statement Of The Family Foundation On State Police Chaplain Prayer Policy

Statement of Victoria Cobb

President, The Family Foundation of Virginia

Monday, February 23, 2009

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia states:

"That all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." [Emphasis added]

Today, thanks to the action of the Virginia State Police Superintendent and its endorsement by Governor Tim Kaine, Thomas Jefferson's words are little more than ink on paper. The words of the Statute for Religious Freedom that is the foundation for the tradition of religious liberty in our nation and the precursor to the First Amendment rings hollow in the ears of those state police chaplains who have had their opinions in matters of religion diminished and their civil capacities affected simply because they refuse to silence their faith.

As is usual with the issue of religious liberty, the debate surrounding the policy and legislation before the General Assembly to correct it, including several editorials in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, is replete with misinformation, misunderstanding and confusion. Some, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, falsely claim that prayers offered before legislative or government bodies must be nonsectarian or non-denominational. Fortunately, the First Amendment and case law regarding this issue is absolutely clear and on the side of the chaplains.

Simply put, in no case involving public prayer at government-sponsored events (with the exception being public schools) does either the U.S. Supreme Court or any circuit court require that prayers offered be so-called "nonsectarian" or "nondenominational." In fact, the opposite is true. In the clear words of the Supreme Court's Marsh v. Chambers decision:

"In light of the history, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, a violation of the Establishment Clause; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."

Recently, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Pelphrey v. Cobb dismissed the argument that Marsh permits only "nonsectarian" prayers:

"The taxpayers argue that Marsh permits only "nonsectarian" prayers for commission meetings, but their reading is contrary to the command of Marsh that the courts are not to evaluate the content of the prayers absent evidence of exploitation. ... The court never held that the prayers in Marsh were constitutional because they were "nonsectarian."

Supporters of censorship, like the ACLU, are claiming that the Fourth Circuit Court's Turner v. Fredericksburg decision requires the state police's policy of censorship. Again, this is blatantly false.

While that case upheld a policy in Fredericksburg that censors prayers, it does not require that policy. In fact, in the words of Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote the Turner decision:

"We need not decide whether the Establishment Clause compelled the Council to adopt their legislative prayer policy because the Establishment Clause does not absolutely dictate the form of legislative prayer."

Again, in Pelphrey, the Eleventh Circuit says:

"Although it upheld the policy of the [Fredericksburg City] Council, the Fourth Circuit expressly declined to hold that Marsh required a policy of nondenominational prayers." Adding, "[The courts] . . . have applied the precedents of the Supreme Court irrespective of the level of government involved."

Interestingly, in arguing against legislation reversing the state police policy in a recent Washington Post article, Kent Willis of the Virginia ACLU makes our case saying, "Maybe the worst part of all this is now you have the government deciding what's a proper prayer and what's not a proper prayer."

I couldn't agree more! The government should not be telling people how to pray or not to pray, and that is exactly what the state police policy does. Whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or any other faith, chaplains should be able to pray at public events according to their beliefs, and those prayers should not be censored by the government. The legislation that has been presented to the General Assembly this year would simply protect chaplains of every religion.

Virginians are growing tired of these attacks on public faith. Our Commonwealth and nation are founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and no amount of revisionist history or politically motivated anti-religious bigotry will erase the truth. The First Amendment and the Statute for Religious Freedom protect the right of individuals to profess their faith in public. They do not protect a crowd from hearing about an individual's faith.

Once again our sacred rights are being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Unfortunately, expunging our religious heritage from the public square seems all too in vogue in 21st century America, with elected officials and their political appointees leading the way. In the name of tolerance, public faith is not tolerated. While we would hope that Virginia's rich heritage of freedom would insulate us from such discrimination, recent history proves this not to be the case.