Scott Cumbie

Background:
Until recently, the Forsyth County Commissioners opened their public meetings with prayer. The prayers were all performed by local clergy who volunteered on a first come first served basis. Since Forsyth County is predominantly a christian community, the vast majority of the prayers mentioned Jesus Christ. Two Forsyth County residents (and the ACLU) filed suit in federal court claiming this practice was unconstitutional. Ironically, the Supreme Court has previously ruled (Marsh v Chambers 463 US 783 – 1983) that this practice does not violate the US Constitution.

A federal district court judge ruled against Forsyth County. The 4th District Court of Appeals also ruled against Forsyth County. The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal so the Appeals Court decision stands. The local newspaper, the Winston-Salem Journal, has stated its full support of the federal judicial decision.

The following article is in response to the Winston-Salem Journal:

—————————————————————————————

Over the last several years many of us have watched with interest the court battle concerning prayer before the Forsyth County Commissioners (FCC) meetings. What has been most intriguing during this time is the position that this paper has taken on the issue. In an effort to support its position, this paper has printed the text of the 1st amendment and pointed to it as justification. What is truly ironic is that the business of this paper is the printed word, but the very simple language of the 1st amendment seems to be beyond its comprehension. The first 5 words of the 1st amendment are, “Congress shall make no law.” It would seem to have been more appropriate for this paper to challenge the judicial decision by asking, “What law did Congress pass that designated that there be prayer before the FCC meetings,” or “When did the FCC become Congress?”

For over sixty years, we have allowed the federal judiciary to meddle in the affairs of the states and local communities to the point we just expect them to be involved. Prior to the 1940s, the 1st amendment was understood to limit the actions of the federal government, not the states and local communities. Beginning in the 1940s, the federal judiciary began to exercise power over the states that it had never exercised before. We would expect that a constitutional amendment had been ratified giving the federal government this new power, but no such amendment exists. Instead, the federal judiciary discovered new meaning in the Constitution that our founders and the generations following secretly hid in its text like treasures for a future court to discover. The US Constitution created a wall around the federal government that for 150 years kept the federal government from exercising power that we the people had not delegated to it. That wall still exists, but we have allowed the federal government to breach the wall and exercise power over us in ways our founders regarded with dread.

Since this issue concerns religion and government, it generates passions on both sides. For the moment, set aside the fact that this is an issue dealing with government and religion and look instead at two important results from this judicial decision:

First, this decision has taken from the people of Forsyth County (FC) the most important right and the most important freedom that “we the people” possess; the right and freedom to self-government. Prior to this decision, if at anytime we the people of FC wanted to eliminate prayer before the FCC meetings, we could have petitioned our Commissioners to do so or we could have voted for new Commissioners that would eliminate prayer. We the people had the power to determine whether or not there would be prayer before the FCC meetings. As a result of this decision, we no longer have the freedom or the power to make this decision for ourselves. To underscore this, assume for the moment that every person in FC, without exception, wanted to have prayer before the FCC meetings. Even if this was the stated will of the people, we no longer have the freedom to do this.

Secondly, because of this judicial decision, the judiciary did exactly what it said it was attempting to prevent. In an effort to prevent an establishment of religion, the judiciary ironically established one. The religion it established, which is now the official government sanctioned religion of FC, goes by several names: secularism, humanism, atheism, agnosticism, liberalism, etc. The only religion that can now be freely exercised before, during, or after the FCC meetings is this newly established religion. As with any state established religion, all other religions will be stamped out. This paper reported that the ACLU stated that “We are about to get very busy. We have heard from 25 to 30 religious-minority individuals in cities and counties all over North Carolina, and we are about to start contacting those (local government) attorneys.” Threats of new legal action have already been sent to communities across this state to impose the new state religion on all NC communities without the consent of the people. How is this threat of legal action on the people of NC any different than the legal action that occurred in Europe against religious dissenters several centuries ago?

When the judiciary can take from us the right and freedom to govern ourselves, we are no longer a free society. We are a society ruled by the few, by the judiciary. To be more specific, we are a society ruled by lawyers.