Who’s invited to the meeting isn’t the operative question. The question is whether or not the government is endorsing religion, and to determine that, you look at the intent of the speaker and the message conveyed. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 687-689 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring). Additionally, the Fourth Circuit case law says that prayers given by private individuals at government meetings can be government speech. Turner v. City Council of Fredericksburg, Va., 534 F.3d 352, 354 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 909 (2009). (Interestingly, Justice O’Connor also wrote the opinion in Turner as a retired justice riding circuit.) And if the prayers are government speech and they’re endorsing a particular religion, we have an Establishment Clause problem under Supreme Court precedent.

The issue here is that while Forsyth County may have invited everyone, that’s simply not good enough. They, as part of the meeting, held a prayer that endorsed a particular religion. They can’t do that, according to Magistrate Judge Sharp.

You’re absolutely right that the First Amendment guarantees you the right to practice your faith. But it does not guarantee you the right to have the government practice your faith on your behalf. In fact, Congress cannot even pass a law that advances religion over non-religion. Texas Monthly v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989). The right to practice your faith is not absolute either. When it comes in conflict with a neutral law of general applicability, the law wins out. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990).

And your attack on the ACLU for defending NAMBLA’s right to speak is inapposite to the Establishment Clause issue at hand. But to quickly address the Free Speech Clause issue, once we start censoring speech because we find it to be “disgusting” or “immoral,” where does it stop? That’s difficult even with obscene materials, where we apply “contemporary community standards.” Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 22 (1973). NAMBLA has their right to speak, and you have your right to disagree.

I want my country to be free. If that means that sometimes I have to be exposed to things I don’t like or that people have the right to do things I disagree with, so be it. I will defend to the death your right to pray, but I will fight to the death government attempts to make me pray.

I really don’t see how even nondenominational prayer can be allowed. It’s still excluding those of us who don’t believe in any of the nonsense or deities of any sort.

What’s interesting is that the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), counsel for Forsyth County, is advising the county to appeal the decision, but the county may not want to do so because they may be liable for attorney’s fees of well over $100,000 (what it’s at now) if they lose.

Full disclosure: I am a former intern for and a member of the ACLU of NC.

I attended the oral arguments for this case about three weeks ago in Greensboro and have been following this case since its beginning in 2007.

I won’t judge, but I will say to hell with them all of them..

*sigh*. Unfortunately, I live just a few counties away.

I hope this is the precedent for all the court cases to come, like the upcoming ones in super awesome Nor-Cal

What upcoming ones in super awesome Nor-Cal? Wasn’t this settled in in super bitchin’ So-Cal for all of Republic of Cal Uber Alles in Rubin vs. City of Burbank? i.e. no prayer to any specific gods no heavenly fathers or in the name of Jesus’ or in your names, stuff like that, I thought Cali was done with that. Case closed no deities need apply, Did something change this?

Yeah, but then they’d get buses with atheist ads, and they’d refuse to drive the bus, and there would be more trouble.

Nah…traffic already sucks in ATL – no one would even notice.