A decision last Friday by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court in Winston Salem, NC has given local activist and former Rock Hall Council Candidate Gren Whitman another leg to stand on in his effort to end the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer at the onset of Rock Hall Council meetings.
The court ruled in Janet Joyner, et al. v. Forsyth County that sectarian prayer in government functions violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
In an email to Rock Hall Mayor Bob Willis, Whitman attached a copy of the decision and reiterated his hope that the council will honor his request to end the practice of “sectarian” prayer at the onset of Council meetings.
“I pass this on to help you make a rational decision with regard to my request that you stop reciting the Lord’s Prayer at Rock Hall Town Council meetings,” Whitman wrote in his email to Willis. “It is my opinion that the Protestant and the Catholic versions of the Lord’s Prayer — taken from the Gospel of St. Matthew — are sectarian. Reciting the Protestant version, as you do, can be considered an affront to Catholics, non-Christians, and Christians such as I who think the Constitution rules out sectarian prayers at public meetings.”
The court decision last Friday found in favor of the plaintiffs, Janet Joyner and Constance Blackmon of Forsyth County, NC, who objected to “sectarian prayers” at the opening of Forsyth County Commissioner’s meetings. The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of Joiner and Blackmon in 2007.
“I am very happy with the Court’s ruling today because this court order preserves freedom of conscience for people of all different beliefs, whether they are in the majority or the minority, by requiring our government to remain neutral in matters of religion,” said the plaintiff, Constance Blackmon.
Writing for the 2-1 majority, James Harvie Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee, wrote:
“Because religious belief is so intimate and so central to our being, government advancement and effective endorsement of one faith carries a particular sting for citizens who hold devoutly to another.”
In a phone interview on Tuesday, Rock Hall Mayor Robert Willis said Monday’s meeting heard feedback from the community and most of the citizens in attendance were in support of continuing the tradition of the Lord’s Prayer.
“We are still discussing how we’re going to move forward on this and we had about 50 people turn out,” Willis said. “The majority of the people there were in support of seeing the town continue the Lord’s prayer. There were about a half a dozen people who objected.”
Willis said the council went into closed session to discuss the matter with the town attorney.
“We got legal advice basically reviewing case law,” Willis said. “At this point we haven’t really come out with any decision. We’re still contemplating the best way to address this.”
Willis said the Whitman’s desire to have non-sectarian prayer is also being addressed through consultation with the citizens and church leaders to see if a non-sectarian prayer can accommodate everyone. But Willis also conceded that the courts may have the ultimate decision.
“This may be something the town will ultimately be told it can’t do.”
Whitman responded “that the United States Constitution already tells the Town of Rock Hall that it cannot recite the Lord’s Prayer at its public meetings. There should be absolutely no debate on this question and that is why I did not attend the public meeting last night.”
ChesapeakeMom says
Why not pray the Lord’s Prayer and then open the meeting? Or adjourn the town council meetings and close with the Lord’s Prayer – those who want to pray can stay a little longer.
We wonder why our towns, counties, states, and country are lacking in moral behavior. Could it be because we have “case lawed” God from these places?
Carla Massoni says
Sometimes supporting the rights of the minority can tear a great big hole in the hearts of the majority of our citizens. I love the Lord’s Prayer as a subtle reminder of our responsibility to extend mercy towards others but what is great about this extraordinary country is the simple premise that the rights of the few not to be abridged by the rights of the majority. Thank God, or whomever you choose, for this blessed country. Nothing is lost here. Perhaps there can be a moment of silence before the meeting where each and every person can ask for guidance, generosity and wisdom in their own way.
Catty One says
“There should be absolutely no debate on this question…”
Huh? Sounds a bit rigid.
Aside from constitutional argument, wouldn’t you rather have a bunch of elected representatives who
actually believe there is some value in the tradition of a short prayer at the start of meetings,
rather than,
a bunch of reps who all say we don’t give a rat’s behind about prayers, that ain’t for us……
Not a Rock Halller, don’t have a dog in this catfight,
just a disinterested observer
at the circus
Cynthia McGinnes says
If only the liberals would uphold the immigration law as it is presently written as vigorously as they uphold the law ,as they see it, against prayer.When people wonder how a merciful Gd could let bad things happen, I am sure He will answer,”But you asked Me to leave.”
It is also interesting that liberals want the rights of the minority to be hear and upheld, unless the “minority” happens to be members of the Tea Party. I agree that perhaps the best way to open the meetings is to say the Lord’s Prayer and then officially open the meeting. Gren Whitman can wait outside if he wants until the prayer is ver. Would he be offended if I said that I am praying for his soul?
Chester River Farm Boy says
This guy is running or ran for office in Rock Hall? Was his mission to end prayer at meetings? Sounds whacked to me that he wants to hold office and make a written demand requesting something and then not attend the meeting on the thing he is concerned about. Doesn’t sound like a good thing to me to vote for or support someone that draws lines in the sand. Why would he assume debate and not attend the meeting instead of inviting healthy discussion with people he wants votes from? Is this what local activist means?
I also like what Carla M wrote.
easternshorenative says
The first problem is the ACLU. The second problem is outsiders trying to change our culture. The third problem is that our liberties and freedoms have been stolen, can you say SOCIALISM!!!!! There is more government control today in all aspects of our lives than ever before.
Joseph Mitchell says
Isn’t the Council meeting a government meeting? If you want to pray to whomever you pray to, then do it by yourself, with your family, or in church, temple, mosque, synagogue. I know it’s difficult for some people on the Shore, and elsewhere, to have to accept the idea that there are many religions and beliefs, including no beliefs at all, and that this is an important element in what this country is all about. Thank goodness even conservative judges recognize that basic fact. What century is this, anyway?
Joe says
It seems that the courts will rule on this if it goes that far, so a non-denominational prayer would be the best bet. I don’t even think that a rotating prayer of all religions would work in a government setting, whether we like it or not.
Inquiring Mind says
Apparently some people don’t have any real problems, so they have to invent them. Wish I were so lucky.
Geobart says
@ChesapeakeMom, Carla, Catty One, Cynthia, and Chester river Farm Boy – AMEN! Well said and I couldn’t agree more.
This country was founded on religious freedom and freedom of expression. I wonder how far Mr. Whitman wants this ban to go? Shall we no longer use “So help you God?” when swearing someone in? Shall we strike “In God We Trust” on our currency? Couldn’t atheists use a similar argument to the Lord’s Prayer ban rationale?
But I do have a solution for anyone who doesn’t like the way we do things (as we have been doing for over two hundred years) – leave. There are plenty of godless countries where you won’t hear the Lord’s Prayer (or any other prayer for that matter).
Clark says
“This country was founded on religious freedom and freedom of expression.” Indeed, so why does the town of Rock Hall insist on forcing one kind of religious expression on everyone? There is a place for the Lord’s Prayer. lots of places for it, but government meetings are not among them.
Chester River Farm Boy says
@Mid Class
Whacked as I suggested is if you feel so strongly about something in a place where you are running for office or hold office and then don’t want to go to the meeting to meet with the opponents of what you are asking for and who are also the people you are asking to vote for you.
It’s possible that a solution that is satisfactory to all may be reached so that all feel unwhacked and not violated.
Keith Thompson says
@Carla…nicely put.
@Cynthia…two wrongs don’t cancel each other out. Just because many liberals support “The Dream Act” doesn’t mean many Tea Party member’s views on the Constitutionally questionable practice of prayer at official town meetings should be allowed as a counter to it. I not in favor of people or groups picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution to uphold and which ones to ignore. The ACLU actively fighting for the First Amendment and ignoring the Second Amendment immediately comes to mind.
@Chester River Farm Boy…I’m in agreement, Gren should’ve been there since he’s initiating the debate.
Chester River Farm Boy says
@Keith Thompson
“I’m in agreement, Gren should’ve been there since he’s initiating the debate.”
Thanks. Also that in reading this story it indicates he asked for these people to vote for him. I think he should hear what they have to say and why they are saying it. Isn’t that what your representatives or candidates should do even if you do not agree?
Keith Thompson says
Middle Class writes “The Lord’s Prayer at council meetings recognizes an Anglo-Protestant state. This favoritism tells me as a Catholic that I am a second class citizen.”
As a corollary, would Christians and Catholics complain about a Utah town opening town hall meetings with a Mormon prayer? Or as an extreme example; would Christians, Catholics or Jews complain about a predominantly Muslim town or city in America (there’s gotta be one somewhere) opening official town meetings with residents facing Mecca and praying to Allah? If you allow a town to use a faith specific prayer, it doesn’t automatically mean they have to use a Christian prayer.
private citizen says
If a cerimonioal act offends even one person at a publuc tax paid for meeting it should not be allowed to continue. I grew up hearing the lords prayer every night when I went to sleep. (and on some really quiet nights i can still hear my late mother’s voice reciting it). I don’t need to hear it at a publuc tax paid for meeting, its already in me and its not going anywhere. If someone is so supersticious as to need to hear a sectarian chant before a public tax paid for meeting then perhaps they would be more comfortable suscribing to the muslim religion. Those cats paray to god like four times a day. They could even paint the lines in the parking lot so their cars all face towards Mecca. But I would be opposed to that in tax paid for meeting facility.
Steve Payne says
The matter seems to be . Is the Rock Hall prayer sectarian enough to trigger the establishment clause?
The case cited here doesn’t seem to be anything like the Rock Hall case. In some ways it seems to support the Rock Hall practice.
https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/files/Joyner,%20et%20al.%20v.%20Forsyth%20County.pdf
https://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/101232.P.pdf
Joe says
If we would want to know how the Founding Father’s thought about religion in their writing during the early beginnings of our Country, one might look at Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. It was ratified during the early stages of John Quincy Adams administration, but was written during George Washington’s tenure ( some scholars think that Washington wrote it himself ) , it was unanimously accepted with a recorded vote, each name, with how they voted for posterity.
Zoa Ann Beasley says
I would like t say I agree with ChesapeakeMom, Carla, Catty One, Cynthia, and Chester river Farm Boy – AMEN! Well said and I couldn’t agree more as well. I would like to add to this. Maybe the people who have moved to Rock Hall and don’t like the way things have been done for the past 300 years, SUGGESTION: LEAVE! MOVE AND DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE WITH YOUR LIFE. Or as council members, as you enter one by one, recite the Lord’s Prayer as you are walking to your seat.. Isn’t it still legal to have FREEDOM OF SPEECH? Your are entitled to say what you want when you walk in one by one. ACLU, GO BACK TO NY. And by the way, I’ll pray for your souls. And the others that don’t want the prayer said, find another meeting to attend, possiby at church.
Keith Thompson says
Steve, I do think what happened in the North Carolina case is far more sectarian than what is going on in Rock Hall. I also think what happened in North Carolina may be more based on a minister not following the letter of the law partly because of the county’s policy of spreading the practice of delivering prayers to different churches and perhaps one politically minded minister deciding to challenge the courts by giving a very sectarian prayer. One of the options Rock Hall is facing seems to be that of what was done in North Carolina which runs the risk of having a minister step over the line.
One other factor to keep in mind…and I think this is the more important one…North Carolina is the buckle of the Bible Belt and a politically conservative state with politically conservative judges. Rock Hall is a politically conservative town, but Maryland is a very liberal state with far more poltically liberal judges. Rock Hall’s practice doesn’t likely need to be as sectarian as North Carolina to be found unconstitutional.
JIM says
“…when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you”
— Matthew 6: 5-6
Liz Smith says
How about a moment of silence and those who wish to pray may do so as a private expression. I grew up in a generation that recited the Lords Prayer regularly, and am not bothered by it, but frankly I feel that a quiet moment may better respect our diversity.
sheila says
why does everyone automatically assume I’m a liberal just because I’m an athiest? I know I’m not welcome in the republican party or the boy scouts, but the fact that I think that religion should be kept out of politics doesn’t make me liberal or conservative. It makes me a person who supports the separation of church and state.
Keith Thompson says
Middle Class writes…
“@Keith…I don’t know of any laws that allow someone to carry their religion into a public/bgovernment meeting, and “Guns” are not allowed in town meetings either. Do you also find this offensive?”
I’m not sure I understood your question, but I’ll attempt to answer…
…a person is certainly is allowed to “carry” their religion into a public meeting and certainly can pray or even cite a deity while addressing a town meeting. I don’t think a town or a town official can lead a sectarian prayer as a part of its official proceedings.
Personally I would not be “offended” if someone carried a gun into a public meeting although in this day and age, I would likely be concerned and depending on the situation, quite alarmed (especially if I don’t have my own to defend myself). I don’t think someone (other than a convicted felon or someone otherwise deemed legally incapable such as a mental illness) can be denied the right to own a gun. I do believe that both public and private facilities can prevent a gun (or weapon) from being brought onto its property for security reasons as long as the rule applies to everyone in a non-discriminatory manner.
Neither of these are absolutist First and Second Amendment views, but I don’t claim to be an absolutist.
Chrissy Price says
Why is one man having such a crisis over one part of a small town meeting? Aren’t there bigger issues and problems to fight about? No matter what Christian religion it is, dont they all use the SAME BIBLE? How is saying one little Prayer to ask GOD to protect us such a problem? Doesn’t the constitution say that it is to SEPARATE not PREVENT? How does the LORDS PRAYER offend someone, did it hurt your feelings somehow? Mr. Whitman how does the LORDS PRAYER hurt your feelings? I have read it, said it, prayed with it, and heard it, and nowhere in the Prayer did it say one thing bad about anyone or another religion.
I for one think the court system has better things to do such as putting thieves, drug dealers and vagabonds in jail. Stop wasting tax payers money over this and grow up. Leave tradition alone, and stop trying to change what already works. As the saying goes “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”.
Mr Whitman, if you are bored, find a different hobby like enjoying the town of Rock Hall the way it is in ALL its beauty!!
By the way just because i am the daughter of one council member, my views are strictly mine!!!!
Chestertownie says
If I am not mistaken, every session of the Maryland House of Delegates, Maryland State Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate are opened with a prayer. Not the Lord’s Prayer, but a prayer (almost always offered by a member of the clergy). I think the congressional chaplains are on the payroll. If these four legislative bodies can begin each day with a prayer, why can’t Rock Hall’s legislative body do likewise?
Carol Adams says
I’m Catholic and am certainly not offended by the form of the Lord’s Prayer being recited at the Rock Hall meetings. What I am offended by is if the ambulance chasing ACLU gets involved in our community. They don’t realize who they’re dealing with. Mr. Whitman is more than welcome to attend meetings and not take part in reciting the prayer ~ it would offend no one. The city of Rock Hall is made up of not only family oriented, hard working watermen and farmers it is also made up of people who are thankful they are not locked into the political circus that has taken over the rest of the country. As the saying goes “love it or leave it.” In other words “don’t sweat the small stuff” there are a lot bigger problems you could be facing. Besides a little prayer never hurt anyone.
BankStreet says
Easy call. It’s either meaningless pretty words, recited as a pleasant “tradition,” or it’s a prayer to the Christian deity as mandated by the Messiah. If it’s the former (and its proponents are prepared to say so publicly), then it can continue. If it’s the latter, then it is clearly inappropriate and unconstitutional.
Elizabeth Hoskins Jackson says
We had to stop prayer in schools because it offends other religions. Thank God that we can still recite The Pledge of Allegiance including “One Nation Under GOD” I have a suggestion for the Rock Hall Town Council, showing respect to the Foundation on which Rock Hall was built why don’t they ring ALL THE CHURCH BELLS in town to signal the beginning of the meeting? Besides Mr. Whitman, who should be able to hear them loud and clear on Liberty Street, who would this offend? I still remember every Tuesday 8pm the fire siren going off once to signal the beginning of the Fire House meeting……lets use this as a tradition the children of Rock Hall will remember.
Karen says
It’s okay for someone else to do something as long as we agree with what they are doing. The problem arises when something makes us uncomfortable. What if a Muslem prayer were being recited? Or perhaps a Buddhist chant? Would we still be in agreement? Our country’s origin is based on freedom of religion not based on one religion. Let us respect other’s feelings and right to worship as they see fit. As a Christian I would rather others see me as a caring, loving individual not as someone trying to force my religious beliefs on others in a political arena. Reciting the Lord’s Prayer is not going to win anyone over to Christ. That is God’s job. Others witnessing me being thoughtful, forgiving, empathetic may cause them to question why I act the way I do. Hopefully,someone will tell them “why she’s a Christian.” I would suggest to the people of Rock Hall that this should not be a case of majority rules. Pray before you attend the meeting. Pray silently during the meeting. But don’t make this an issue that turns people off to Christianity. God will be there anyway. Invite him in your heart. He may surprise you and act in ways you never thought possible.
Carla Massoni says
Karen – what lovely sentiments. I recall from my studies of the early church that the very comment you used – “Why she’s a Christian” brought more people to the faith than all the pious incantations could ever do. Nice job of framing your response.
Louann Taggart says
I agree with Carol Adams… point on! I attended the RH Town meeting and want to address the question Susan Francis asked of those people who agreed to remove prayer and I am paraphrasing Susan’s question…. ‘why after so many years of including prayer before our meetings, are you asking to remove it now, today’. No one answered Susan’s question!
My opinion is this is the mo of political activists and Gren Whitman is a career political activist/agitator that moved to RH and is doing what activists do……create disruption. If you review public information available on the internet you will see the long trail of Grenville Whitman’s activism. In my opinion, Gren Whitman does not care one iota about removing the Lord’s Prayer, he is viewing this as a target of opportunity as an activist. This is an area he recognized would create disruption within our community of RH. It is my opinion that once this passes, he will find another area to attack/create disruption. This is what radical political activists do.
MBTroup says
I agree with Gren Whitman on very little. There isn’t a large enough font to bold the last two words. Including “oxygen as necessary to human life,” we can count our points of agreement on our fingers, and I would still have enough fingers left to throw a good split-fingered fastball. But there are two things I want to contribute:
1) This is not some trojan horse that Gren introduced. He clearly listed it as part of his campaign platform.
2) As I previously wrote, I’m tired of seeing freedom of religion being confused with freedom from religion; however, I think many are starting their thought process in the wrong place. Many are starting with the local tradition and trying to retrofit it to something in the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause in Article 6 establishes the Constitution’s place. All else should flow from that, not the other way around.
When the Council is not in session, its members are ordinary citizens. It seems that they could lead this tradition outside of the building prior to calling the meeting to order. And that process may actually become more sacred – an odd pairing of spiritualism and civil disobedience.
nuther voice says
Did anyone bother to look up the Treaty of Tripoli as Joe suggested? It states very clearly what the founding fathers thought of government and religion (and of Muslims). Also lets remember that, for most of us frantically typing opn this topic – The words “one nation under God” or the motto “In God we trust” were not part of our money or pledge of allegiance when we were born. They cam about when McCarthy tried to bully the country with the first edition of the tea party. LOOK IT UP
Pasqual says
Poor Grenville: So much idle time…never fully recovered from the “agony” of hearing all those bells in the late 1950`s
What else would you have on your agenda had you been elected to the Rock Hall Town Council? As a 2nd generation American, lets work out the real big problems faced by this beautiful nation. Thank you!
Catty One says
MB, if you are his pal, did you encourage him to pursue this complaint?
Or were you a true friend, meaning, you might have pointed out to him all the reasons this is maybe a bad idea.
You both knew this would create a huge firestorm in such a small town as R.H.
Clearly, he is enjoyng the attention. Likes to announce on other boards that he proudly lives on L-i-b-e-r-t-y Street, and don’t you forget it, folks!
Local activist? What else has he done to deserve that accolade. Besides running unsuccessfully for office and creating this unpleasantness, some of us are scratching our heads on that one.
The Spy may call him an activist. Others may say crank or crackpot.
Did you tell him to enjoy all the attention he is sure to get. Because when this is over, and it looks like it will be soon, he will be left with little else than his internet rants and fellow junkies to occupy the time.
I don’t see Time, Newsweek, or NY Times sending anyone out to do a big feature piece on this “activist”. Did you tell him that, MB?
What sane person goes out of their way to create ill will, antagonize his neighbors, then refuse to show up and discuss the controversy thus created?
In other words, just generally seems bent on making himself the biggest pariah in a very, very small town.
Constitution aside, is it really worth it
MBTroup says
Catty One says: “MB, if you are his pal, did you encourage him to pursue this complaint?”
What part of what I wrote indicates that he and I are friends? If we’re friends, then he surely needs no enemies. I prefer to think we have discourse that doesn’t have to devolve into suggesting my castration or some other nonsense. Also, I believe I suggested a way where the mayor and council could continue their tradition. Finally, if you want to go through the archives of “the other boards” you mention, you will see that I suggested he “let this one go.”
The only thing that I can think of to explain this gross mischaracterization of what I just wrote is that you think I wrote the article. A quick check of the bi-line would say otherwise.
Catty One says
MB, it is considered bad netiquette to paste (cross post) from other boards. So I won’t.
And, I was making my comments based on your POST to this thread. Not the article or whose byline.
Suffice it to say that anyone reading the constant, daily internet banter that goes back and forth between you two could reasonably
conclude you are pals. Differing political philosophies, but still pals.
And you are coming to his defense here. As friends do for friends.
If you keep feeding a stray cat….
P.S. Thank you for calling my attention to the position you took in the archives. Unfortunately, I will be unable to take you up on the offer to visit the tombs. I
I don’t hold a current permit from the county for sewage haullng.
Geobart says
@Clark “Indeed, so why does the town of Rock Hall insist on forcing one kind of religious expression on everyone?” Forcing? Who is “forcing” anything? Mr. Whitman (or anyone else) can decide to participate (or not) in the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer. Although I have never attended a Rock Hall town meeting, I’m pretty sure it is not compulsory to recite the Lord’s Prayer. What happened to tolerance and respect for others and others’ traditions? Where does this insanity stop?
Are we going to stop reciting the pledge of allegiance at public meeting because of it’s reference to God? “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.”
The Town is not forcing anyone to accept the Lord’s Prayer and therein lies the crux of this argument. They are not promoting a religion. It is a tradition, not a requirement and Town meeting attendees can decide for themselves whether or not they wish to participate.
Seems to me, as another person commented earlier, this is nothing but grandstanding. And with the myriad of challenges facing elected officials, I would think Mr. Whitman’s objection is merely a distraction from the real work that needs to be done.
MBTroup says
“Suffice it to say that anyone reading the constant, daily internet banter that goes back and forth between you two could reasonably
conclude you are pals. Differing political philosophies, but still pals.”
The train is getting off the tracks. I’ll try to hold it together. There are times when Gren Whitman makes my blood boil. You refer to “daily internet banter.” Perhaps. I really don’t keep a tab. If engaging people respectfully regardless of their persuasion makes two people friends, then I ought to join Facebook. Sometimes you get more flies with honey.
In any event, since you gleaned so much from what I wrote, let’s revisit:
1) This is not some trojan horse that Gren introduced. He clearly listed it as part of his campaign platform.
This is not a defense, but a statement of fact. Read the tenor of this discussion. People are shocked (shocked!) to learn that he wanted to do this. Some suggesting that it is tied to the election result. He was pretty up front about this intention. And he was summarily defeated. The fact that his sticking to this must mean that he cares about this. Or as you say, he may want attention. I don’t know the guy to know what’s really in his heart.
2) As I previously wrote, I’m tired of seeing freedom of religion being confused with freedom from religion; however, I think many are starting their thought process in the wrong place. Many are starting with the local tradition and trying to retrofit it to something in the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause in Article 6 establishes the Constitution’s place. All else should flow from that, not the other way around.
Hmmm…that first sentence looks like the typical conservative lament regarding the current treatment of religion and spirituality in our society. But I did write “however” because the Constitution specifies how the government should conduct business and interact with the people. Town meetings flow from what is written in the US and State Constitution, not the other way around. This is simply another statement of fact that I made as an observer of an issue introduced by someone else.
In some sense, I agree with Louann Taggart. But at the end of the day, someone decided to stir this pot, because people have to pick their own battles. I just made statements of fact based upon what I saw (and they call me the visceral one around here – pfft).
You wrote: “You both knew this would create a huge firestorm in such a small town as R.H.”
This implies that this fiasco is somehow my brainchild. I respectfully request that you backtrack from this statement. Funny, you’ll make reference to other boards when you want to mischaracterize what I say. But you refuse to do the same if information on said boards would make someone have to do a mea culpa.
Keith Thompson says
MB Troup writes “Many are starting with the local tradition and trying to retrofit it to something in the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause in Article 6 establishes the Constitution’s place. All else should flow from that, not the other way around.”
To expand on that statement…as long as the town deals with the issue in a way that addresses the Constitutional questions raised by Gren Whitman, the end result will likely lead to a resolution that most of the people in the town can at least reasonably live with because the town will be involved in making the decision. If this issue gets turned into a personal crusade against Gren, the likely outcome will be out of the town’s hands and the resolution will leave a great many people very upset. I applaud the way that Mayor Willis is handling the controversy by keeping the focus on the Constitutional issues along with the legal challenges and by encouraging the town to not turn this into a personality conflict.
MBTroup says
Too add to Keith’s thought…I would recommend reading the Mayor’s thoughts on RWK’s Wave. I think it’s the best execution of “arguing to negotiate,” which is all I sought to do with my contribution to the conversation.
Chester River Farm Boy says
These Rock Hallers are no dummies. While we are arguing they probably are getting out the booze for the pirate party.
You aren’t taking nothing away from these people. You might get them to stop praying in a meeting but that won;t stop them from thinking it about or praying somehow else. How long has that bunch been together anyway.
Catty One says
@MBTroup
I apologize if I was mistaken in characterizing you two as pals. Since you now seem to be determined to distance yourself from the gentleman, .. it seems only right to call me out as being wrong.
Personally, if I was posting on a message board with someone who “makes my blood boil”, as you put it,
I would greatly decrease the amount of replies directed to that member by name. Decrease it to zero.
But, that’s just me.
Since I now know you aren’t pals, your internet banter is all serious discourse worhty of Great Books inclusion, I am guessing, you won’t be socializing with him at any of Rock Hall’s upcoming social events –
you won’t be able to ask him a question some of us have.
Since the election was over May 7, why hasn’t he taken down his “Vote For Me” website?
You know, the one that says :
“Rock Hallers love their families, their town and their history, and they protect them all very strongly.
I want to do what I can to help the town protect its history and traditions as well as move steadily and confidently into the future”
Are there two G. Whitmans living in R.H.??
The one who wrote THAT,
and the “activist” one…….
But, as you say, he “clearly listed it as part of his campaign platform”
MBTroup says
“Personally, if I was posting on a message board with someone who “makes my blood boil”, as you put it,
I would greatly decrease the amount of replies directed to that member by name. Decrease it to zero.”
If I wanted to hear myself talk, and only talk to those who will “give the governor a harumph” like Hedley Lamar to William LePetomane, I’d call Sean Hannity.
Does this banter between you and I make us pals? That’s a rhetorical question.
Gren Whitman says
For further discussion, go to:
https://forums.delphiforums.com/warfortheshore/messages/?msg=3794.1
https://forums.delphiforums.com/warfortheshore/messages/?msg=3795.1
“Catty One” does live up to her (his?) name!
Keith Thompson says
Catty writes to MBTroup…”Personally, if I was posting on a message board with someone who “makes my blood boil”, as you put it, I would greatly decrease the amount of replies directed to that member by name. Decrease it to zero. But, that’s just me.”
There’s a lesson to be learned here. It is possible to vehemently disagree with someone’s point of view and still have respect for them as a human being. I believe my view of Gren is similar to Michael’s in Gren’s postings often make my blood boil too (and I think my posts makes his blood boil), and while we’re not friendly…we don’t hate each other. Since my usual disagreements with Gren are not tempered by hate, it makes it easier for me to agree with him when our points of view converge as they occasionally do.
Catty One says
@Keith, all that loud music has affected your hearing.
Nobody “hates” anybody here. The suggestion was this – if reading something makes your “blood boil”,
just don’t reply. Why encourage someone who is obviously an intransigent?
Someone on another board had a terrific suggestion!
As soon as the meeting convenes, a member makes a motion to recite a prayer, motion is seconded, and
then carried out.
Maybe that wouldn’t suit the intransigent Mr. Whitman
But would it pass the constitutional test……?
Keith Thompson says
Catty One writes…”Maybe that wouldn’t suit the intransigent Mr. Whitman
But would it pass the constitutional test……?’
Ah, the Constitutional test. As I recall, that’s the crux of Mr. Whitman’s argument. Somebody is finally paying attention.
Catty One says
Well, actually, no, that’s not the crux, Keith. It’s all in the details.
The real crux, as I recall, is that Mr. W has declared the Lord’s Prayer to be a sectarian, not a non-sectarian,
prayer, because it comes from the new testament, book of Matthew, was it…
The constitution doesn’t prohibit non-sectarian prayer. That’s why so many other gov’t bodies offer it routinely.
I’m not convinced that the source of the Lord’s Prayer automatically makes it unconstitutional.
Seems to me the content would be the litmus test, not the origin.
But what do I know – I don’t try and practice law w/out a license, as Mr. W seems to be doing.
If he cared enough to show up at the council meeting and explain just what his legal sources were for his position…..but he chose not to.
R.H. doesn’t need a constitutional scholar here. Or a bunch of lawyers.
Apparently, what is needed are a bunch of theological scholars.
I-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-e-n-t scholars, that is.
Not the kind from the ACLU
Peggy Clothier says
My personal opinion is that perhaps Mr. Whitman and others are misinformed about why the Mayor and Council say the Lord’s prayer prior to conducting their meetings. I don’t believe that anyone there is trying to change anyone’s faith or religion. I believe they are praying for their Lord and Savior to guide them to do the right thing. Also I, for one, would not go into another town/city/or country that had a council membership practicing another religion (s) and expect them to change their traditions just because I didn’t think it was right. I am from a generation that we all went to school together, whether black or white, Jew or Christian, and we prayed and said the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the day and none of us was offended or tried to change it. I personally think we did the following generations a great disservice when we took religion out of school. We were not taught one religion was right but were taught a brief overview of many religions. Children today are not taught about any religion in school and, therefore, miss out on learning about many values and principals that they would all benefit from. Once again I say that we (and I am a born Rock Haller!) are a community of faith-that doesn’t read a community of Christians but of many faiths. FAITH in our religious leaders and our community are what make this town what it is and what many of you moved here for-PLEASE stop trying to change us and let us live our lives the way we always have. Although I understand that tourism is a major source of income to this town I don’t think that gives them the right to try to change this town’s traditions-why should that right be given to anyone else?
Keith Thompson says
Peggy Clothier writes…”Also I, for one, would not go into another town/city/or country that had a council membership practicing another religion (s) and expect them to change their traditions just because I didn’t think it was right.”
Well, you can’t go into another country and do that since the Constitution only applies to the United States, but as for a town or a city, the Constitution still protects the rights of the minority since there can be no religious test required for residency in any American town. Also, it is possible for a town to have longstanding traditions get overturned if enough new residents move to that town.
Consider a small town of a couple of hundred people anywhere in America that has an overwhelmingly Christian population and they, like Rock Hall, start their town meetings with “the Lord’s Prayer”. A group of well-heeled Muslims decide to build a very large mosque in or near the town and this new mosque attracts hundreds of Muslims to this town and they win a majority of town council seats. Because of the town’s long standing tradition of holding the Lord’s Prayer, the new town leaders now decide to open town meetings by facing Mecca and praying to Allah. This is not something that would sit well with the long-time Christian residents, but at that point how do you maintain the rights of the tradition over the rights of the majority? In this case, the decision over which religious practice is used to open government meetings gets chosen by the majority. The only fair compromise is to look to the First Amendment of the Constitution which puts the rights of the traditional residents of this hypothetical town on the same footing as the new residents who now make up the majority. While the First Amendment means that your religious beliefs can’t be given official sanction by a town government, is also means that a religion that you don’t agree with ALSO can’t be given official sanction by a town government. If you give a government the opportunity to establish a religion, there is no guarantee that it will be YOUR religion that will be sanctioned. The Constitiution is a document built on compromise and this is precisely one of those compromises it’s built upon.
Peggy Clothier says
Excuse me Mr. Thompson but apparently now we are going to discuss theoretical situations. Therefore, theoretically, yes if the town council became predominantly Muslim they could start the meeting by facing Mecca and praying to Allah.
Keith Thompson says
And Peggy if everyone was like you and they don’t have a problem with this, this wouldn’t be an issue. I think most people would have a problem with this which is precisely why this is an issue.
Robin Wood Kurowski says
Peggy…..it is my experience that if you speak your mind and feelings that you will viewed by some as being too personal, critical, wrong, unconstitutional and a hater. This is even if the opposing people of your opinions or feelings have been way too personal, critical, wrong, unconstitutional and a hater of you.
You and I both know how we were raised and how we were raised to love and care for others no matter who they are/were. Your business is the epitome of this and so are you and Miss Virginia.
If some really just got to know us instead of presuming they know us and our life stories.
Even the most primal of species knows to protect its self and family. I guess if anything, people like you and me view this as we are being attacked and not those that disagree us or are against prayer in our meeting.
I saw Alan and Cathy yesterday at the service at Rock Hall Church of God. I was so glad to see them and that Alan is doing better. Thank you also for all your help with my mom. I am returning your tray this week.
Catty One says
For further discussion go to
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1575764.html
The Forsyth County NC case Mr. W is basing his arguments on is quite different from Rock Hall.
In Forsyth County, a diff. member of the clergy was invited to give the prayer at each meeting. The court
noted in its opinion that in nearly all cases, the clergyperson ‘s prayer
SPECIFICALLY used the words Jesus, Jesus Christ, or Our Lord Jesus Christ, thus making it sectarian.
I don’t find those words in the Lord’s Prayer, do you
I think our friend is trying to pull a fast one here.
I would like to hear an opinion from the R.H. attorney after he has read the full text of the 4th’s decision.
John Sirna says
Anyone who would discount GOD in these times is a fool.
Catty One says
@John Sirna,
Then, you better stay away from that other forum, WFTS
(Where Folks Talk Superior)
Keith Thompson says
Catty…as a regular contributor to WFTS, that’s a good one! Seriously, I got a good chuckle out of that one. 🙂
EJ May, Rock Hall, MD says
The Constitutional issue here is clear and is embedded in the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers recognized the long history of religious persecution in Europe that brought the victimized minority religions to America’s shores. Jefferson, Adams and Franklin (“the Framers”) were all professed Deists and did not believe in the fundamental belief of Christianity, the Holy Trinity. They knew that such a position in Europe at one time would have led to their execution. For this reason, the Founding Fathers created a clear and unquestionable separation of religion and government within the body of the Constitution. This is not a matter of the existence of God, but is our responsibility as Americans to abide by and uphold the greatest Constitution ever drafted. A loose interpretation of the First Amendment could lead to a government controlled press or a prohibition of public gathering (i.e., Democrat, Republican or Tea Party rally). Or, it could lead to a loose court interpretation of a citizen’s rights to bear arms, as set forth in the Second Amendment. And so on, and so on…..
Jacquie says
Look…our money say “in God we trust”, the pledge was changed in the ’50s to include the phrase “one nation under God..”, so my question is…why is all this ok but opening a small towns meeting with a prayer is so long? There is little to no separation, when have we had a Jewish President? Well, I feel there are so many more important issues, like I just saw they will discuss more tax hikes during the special session. De dwarf is looking better and better.
Jacquie says
Oops…deleware is looking better.
EJ May, Rock Hall, MD says
The use of “God” is fine…. It is well documented that the Founder’s use of the word God was the Deist definition and not associated with any one religion:
[Deism (i/ˈdiːɪzəm/ US dict: dē′•ĭzm)[1][2] in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is a creation and has a creator. Furthermore, the term often implies that this Supreme Being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that a god (or “the Supreme Architect”) has a plan for the universe that this god does not alter by (regularly or ever) intervening in the affairs of human life.]
What makes this a Constitutional issue is that the Town is only recognizing one religion over all others. The Lord’s Prayer in out of the New Testament and is only recited by Christians. Maybe the Town should consider recognizing a moment of silence at the beginning of each meeting to allow the participants to pray silently in whatever form they wish, or not.
Consider this please: There are municipalities in Detroit, MI that are almost entirely Muslim. What would the public’s reaction be if municipal meetings in that area were started with a reading from the Koran because the community was predominantly comprise of followers of Islam? This is same premise for the supporters of this practice in Rock Hall. In both cases, it is a practice that flies in the face of the Constitution.
EJ May, Rock Hall, MD says
Here is a helpful summary of a Supreme Court decision regarding prayer at a government venue. Based on the Supreme’s opinion in this case, I personally beleive that the RH Town Meetings can open with the Lord’s Prayer, but must also include an opportunity for others to offer an alternative prayer on occasion. The Town Council should of course have authority to vet the suggested prayer based on content, not on the religious belief.
[Due to a pivotal United States Supreme Court case in 1983, the constitutionality of legislative prayers, at least for the federal Constitution, has been firmly established. In Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the Court held that a state legislature’s practice of opening each legislative day with a prayer performed by a state-selected and paid chaplain did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Rather than examining the case under the usual Establishment Clause framework, the Court looked to the history of the use of prayer before legislative sessions, in both the state and federal systems, and relied on this history when finding these prayers to be constitutional. (1) “This unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from the practice of prayer similar to that now challenged.” Id. at 791. The Court was not troubled by the fact that a Presbyterian chaplain had been selected for the past 16 years. “Absent proof that the chaplain’s reappointment stemmed from an impermissible motive, we conclude that his long tenure does not in itself conflict with the Establishment Clause.” Id. at 793–94. In addition, the Court was not concerned that the chaplain was paid with public funds, because “remuneration is grounded in historic practice initiated … by the same Congress that drafted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” Id. at 794. Finally, in response to the plaintiff’s claim that the prayers were in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the court explained it would not “embark on a sensitive evaluation” or “parse the content of a particular prayer” unless “the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.” Id. at 794–95.]