During a recent legislative session, County Councilman. James Winn, felt compelled to proselytize for political purposes, thus violating the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. He went so far as to say that his brand of religion is the “only way” and that those who believe differently are in need of his prayers. Although the courts have determined that invocations are acceptable during government meetings, provided that they do not endorse a single religion, Mr. Winn clearly crossed this line. By doing so, he has exposed the County to expensive lawsuits, which will undoubtedly be forthcoming. Former County Council attorney, Robert Taylor, provides legal analysis of Mr. Winn's egregious error and explains the likely consequences.
Open Agenda TV S2 E55 Performative Politics The Bible and the Supreme Court
Show Transcript
Disclaimer: The following transcript was auto-generated and may contain spelling or contextual errors.
You're watching Open Agenda. Here's our
host, Joe White.
>> Welcome to Open Agenda. I'm your host,
Joe White. In the studio with me today
is Mr. Bob Taylor from Salsbury. Thank
you.
>> Dr. Joe Vanosa from Salsbury. Hi, sir.
>> So, we were all at the county council
meeting on Tuesday night. Um we we were
there to really get more information
about the the MOA with ICE.
>> But one of the other subjects that came
up from the meeting 3 weeks ago, the the
second meeting in September was the the
Bible passages and there were five of
them that Councilman James Wyn read. I
brought I brought something important
here today that we've got some people in
this audience and in this council that
are trying to figure out what is going
on in the world. Why is this happening?
Why the craziness? Right? I hear it up
here. And I'm telling you, it's because
people were falling away from the word,
from Christ.
And it's actually everything's right
here. The answers. This is truth. You've
got the beginning, you've got the
present, and you've got the ending
written right here. It's all here. It's
already in Thessal uh 2 Thessalonians
where there will be a falling away. And
I have a few scriptures that I'd like to
read. And I just I just want everybody
to really think about this. I know not
everyone here is a Christian and that's
okay. I'll pray for you. And you know
there's only one way. There's only one
way
and that's that's through Jesus Christ
as your Lord and Savior.
>> That seemed to really have an impact.
About half of the audience that was left
at that point decided to leave. It was a
uncomfortable time. Mhm.
>> Uh some folks had actually reached out
to the council President John Cannon and
the council itself and asked him to at
least address it.
>> We didn't hear anybody address it other
than some public comments in support of
James Win. Right.
>> And a couple against too to be fair.
>> That's true. That's true. Well,
particularly Monica Brooks, uh she she
came up and and it was a it was very
heartfelt.
>> My name is Monica Brooks. I'm president
of Wakamako County. I'm also a resident
um of Okamako County and Salsbury.
Okay. Um the first thing I I I want to
say um as a believer, as a Christian,
people need to stop calling Christianity
a political party. There is no political
party of Jesus.
>> That's right.
>> No. There is Christ.
There is a there's politics. And you
can't say Republican is is the same as
Christianity. No, you cannot say that.
And that's part of part part of the
problem. People are making our faith
into something political and Christ was
not even about that.
>> Councilwoman Cheney Shields also
addressed it sort of
>> that's true
>> in a in a broader way with immigration.
But I do believe she also addressed the
issue of sort of acceptance and not
imposing one's political beliefs on
others through religion.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Bob, I I I'm going to bring
in Jim Atkins because he was there. I
know from a legal standpoint that you
have some some information for us and an
opinion, but we also when you come back,
I I want to talk about the one u Supreme
Court case with Greece, New York that
was referenced by some member from the
Young Republicans Club. Uh and I want to
ask you specifically about that as well.
I know that there's been some
controversy lately around a county
councilman for reading scripture a
couple weeks ago. I don't really think
there's any problem with this either.
I've heard that there are groups that
are going to be coming after him for
reading a little, you know, the Bible
during a meeting. I mean, we had a case
with the Supreme Court, Greece versus,
uh, town of Greece versus, uh, Galloway,
uh, many years ago, which essentially,
you know, decided that prayer and
religious activities being done by a
county councilman or or an elected
official is does not violate the First
Amendment. And I think it's important
that we remember that a lot of our laws
and and our society in a large way is
founded upon Christian values. There's
no problem with that. A lot of people in
this room are religious and our society
operates on an immoral foundation. So, I
don't think there's a problem with that
either.
>> Yeah. I I actually don't have a strong
opinion, but I do have a real concern
about what they're doing with
particularly with the Lord's Prayer and
also with this prayer reading, Bible
reading.
>> Okay.
>> Because uh governments around the
country have been forced to pay money.
>> Yeah.
>> In lawsuits, legal fees. Yeah. So,
Well, well, I'm going to ask you to come
back. You stick around.
>> So, stay with us. When we come back,
we're going to bring in Jim Atkins, and
we're actually going to talk about what
was said at the county council meeting
last Tuesday night. So, stay with us.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. In the
studio with us now is Mr. Jim Atkins.
Morning.
>> Thanks for sticking around, Dr. Vosa.
>> Thanks, sir. So Tuesday's meeting, we we
heard some folks in the public comments
talk about the the Bible reading from
Councilman Win three weeks ago at the
last meeting. Uh several folks came out
in support of him.
>> Hello, I'm Caleb Evans. I'm a local here
of the tri county area. I just wanted to
come out and voice my opinion for the
councilman that used uh scriptures the
other day in one of the council meetings
that I'm a being a supporter of that.
This is a large uh Christian population
with the tri county area and across the
eastern shore of Maryland in general.
And I think it's behooves the rest of
the other public officials to realize
that
we are a major population and a voice in
these areas and we demand
representation.
And so for our
religious beliefs to be suppressed or be
attempted to be suppressed is well
that's just going to be a nonsequity.
It's not that's not going to work
because we here as of recently as of the
past say 10 15 years uh Christians in
general have been uh mobilizing we have
been getting u very organized and that
organization ends up showing itself in
voting and elections
>> I actually came up here for is because
there's a young man that I've known
since a kid okay started out in the same
church I did we call the same guy bishop
and he's Now, Councilman, Councilman
James Win, of all the things to model
himself after, standing up and saying a
couple scriptures, I'd rather that
happen. Now, I know some people say,
"Well, yeah, but he used this platform."
You know what? Before God, he don't say,
"Well done, my good and faithful
servant." Even if they don't call you
your good and faithful servant, I'd pray
that you would at least pray before you
make your next step. Good evening,
members of the council. Thank you for
having me here today. My name is Pax
Garcia. I understand that on September
16th, 2025, there was a WCOMo County
Council legislative and open works
session meeting where Councilman James
Wyn read some scripture. At the meeting,
he read a passage from the Bible. And I
wanted to as a young man who was 25
years old, I want to thank Councilman
James Wyn for reading the Bible passage
that he did it. He serves as a great
role model for so many of us. I would
like to say that we as Christians do
support Councilman James Win and we want
as many people to be Christian and to
take their faith seriously and to
represent that not just privately but
publicly as well. And of course that
includes especially in local government
as well as all government. And I hope
that every other councilman follows in
his footsteps and remembers that the
Republican voters are Christian.
>> From a from a a legal aspect, we have to
we have to look at just exactly what
transpired and what was allowed to
transpire, right? Uh Joe, I want to ask
you, you were you were at the at the
meetings uh both last night and and
three weeks ago.
>> Yeah. What um what do you think would
have been the appropriate response at
this next meeting from from some of the
concerns that were brought up?
>> Well, I think this is my personal view.
I think it would have been both uh
frankly morally correct and legally
advisable if the county council
president had um to some extent
addressed it. Um in in particular, I
would say that he should have addressed
not only the fact that Mr. Win was not
speaking on behalf of the government
because that's the issue that is at
heart here. Um and the fact that it was
not the intention of the council to
convey one specific religious orthodoxy
on the public.
>> Yeah.
>> Um
>> and and he used that terminology. There
is just one way.
>> Correct. And that that was a really good
point that Mr. Goldberg, our friend had
mentioned was that
>> with respect to Mr. W's uh comments uh
at the last council meeting. America was
founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
For that, I am glad. But not everybody
is a Christian. I am not a Christian. I
am of the Jewish faith. And I don't come
to council meetings to be indoctrinated
in Christian theology. I come to
participate in the functioning of
government. But Mr. W's message was
completely exclusionary. He said, "I I
didn't have an issue so much with the
with the scriptures being read, but I do
have an issue with the comments that he
made thereafter." Um, and he did say, "I
know not everyone here is a Christian.
That's okay. I'll pray for you. Mr. Win,
I'm sorry. I don't need your prayers.
There's more than one path to God, and
yours is not the only way, and I resent
the fact that you presented in such
matter." In fact, he went on to say that
there's only one way and that's through
our Lord uh Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ. I am perfectly okay with you
believing that. But you made those
statements during a legislative session
of the government. The courts have been
pretty darn clear on this and there are
going to be consequences for it.
Everyone should be able to practice
their faith as they see fit. It is not
for you or anybody else in this room to
tell me or somebody else how they are to
believe. And uh if you don't believe you
know as Mr. W does then you're a
secondass citizen. I will not be a
secondass citizen. I am not a secondass
citizen and neither is anybody else in
this room. Thank you.
>> It's actually fine. Again, I I have more
of a cultural disagreement with even
prayer at the opening of a meeting. And
frankly, I think it shows someone's lack
of faith and insecurity when you have
to, you know, sort of project it out in
public. It it shows an insecurity in my
view. But you can do that. But as you as
you were saying, the real issue here is
the fact that at at a certain point, Mr.
Win said, "As the government, there is
only one way, and if you're not a
Christian, I will pray for you." Well,
if we're going by that, then should we
just be in Iran or North Korea or
various other kinds of theocracies?
Because that is essentially what the
First Amendment was written to protect
against.
>> Yeah. So, Jim, there was a lot of
speakers in support of Councilman W and
they talked about him reading a Bible
passage, but in fact, he actually read
five. Yes. Back in September. Uh, so
this wasn't him referencing a Bible
passage that spoke to him about
decisions he was making on behalf of a
government representative. This was him
prophesizing in front of the the
audience.
>> Yes. Yes. And
you know, whenever you get into
religion, you're getting into a touchy
subject with a lot of people. Everybody
has their own way of worshiping or not
worshiping. But you know, it's a private
thing. When it becomes public, you
should be in a church or you should be
in a religious setting and make it
public. when you're in a government
function. Uh you know, I I don't have a
problem with the Lord's Prayer at the
beginning of the council meeting for the
fact in my view,
you're asking for
guidance and help in how you conduct
yourself and how the meeting happens.
>> I would agree. Now, once that's over,
public comments,
you're allowed three minutes to say
whatever you want to say. Public can
stand up there and say whatever they
want to say.
But council members should not be
reading scriptures.
They should not be alienating other
religions with the statement that uh you
know, I'll pray for you or or I'll save
you. And and one of the things that
really kind of upset me more
Tuesday night than the previous council
meeting was all of a sudden it seems
like
in order to be a Christian,
>> you have to be a Republican.
>> Well, so Monica Brooks spoke about that.
>> Yes, she did. Very well.
>> And and you know, one of the things and
I this is this illuminates exactly how I
feel. Uh Jesus wasn't part of a
political party.
>> Exactly. and she actually was taking
offense to the fact that that as as a
Christian herself that she was
supposedly being lumped into the
Republican party which she's not a part
of.
>> Right.
>> Uh no more than people who are
Republicans who aren't of Christian
faith should should be excluded.
>> Yes.
>> But have we we've seen this I mean we're
talking performative uh politics
>> and is this is this the root cause of
the Demar conservative movement's
involvement? Well, uh, and I'm sorry,
but one, one of the things that that I
was told yesterday, and I have no
knowledge of this other than being told
by a person, was that the majority of
the
speakers who spoke on Mr. wins behalf
the other night
>> are from the Republican
>> Young Republican
>> Young Republican committee.
>> Yeah.
>> That meet and hold their meetings in Mr.
W's church.
>> Yeah.
>> And that he asked if they felt
comfortable, they would come speak and
stand up for him.
>> Well, we saw Colin Mcvers come and and
he cited uh a Supreme Court ruling and
I'm going to bring Bob Taylor back in
later because I want to I want to talk
about that because I I believe it was
misqued. Uh but oh Joe, I want to ask
you the same question. I mean
performative politics is this is this
the root of having the Delm Marva
conservative movement as the head
because they basically lead the
Republican central committee, the
Republican party in Wakcomo County right
now.
>> It is. And again, um
it's been clear for a long time that
they have used a certain kind of
evangelical Christianity. I'm putting in
quotes because I have to say this
publicly. I don't believe any of these
people are actually Christian. I and I
say that as somebody with a little bit
of a degree of seminary background and
who has a PhD in history that has a
pretty big focus on the history of
Christianity at least in Africa and the
Middle East. So I don't consider these
people true Christians in the sense of
the theology. What they are though is
they are panderers of an identity
politics. Okay,
>> that uses a couple of Christian
terminologies and a very very remedial
understanding of the King James version
of the Bible to score certain political
points. But what they like to do is use
that supposed Christian identity as a
front for their
>> particular Republican centered political
views, which as you've said, you know,
there's plenty of Muslim Republicans in
Michigan. How would they feel? Or let's
flip the script. If we brought an imam
from Dearbornne, Michigan, even a really
conservative one, um, to the council
meeting and they decided to give an
opening prayer or somebody from the
local Hindu temple, would would Mr. W
support that?
>> I I tell you one of the the the the
aspects of this that really irritate me,
some of the speakers spoke about the
founding of this country as if it was
founded strictly on Christian
principles, and it's just not true. It
was actually founded on tolerance
>> and they clearly never have read Thomas
Payne, one of the most prominent
atheists in the history of North
America. Thomas Jefferson, a deist who
essentially was a closet atheist by the
end of his life. Um,
>> he wrote his own Bible.
>> Abs. Absolutely. And and and also made a
copy of the Quran, right? So he was
interested in theology without being a
theocrat.
>> So the history is more complicated. And
whenever you get into,
>> you know, this is what our country, our
society is based on, that's a really
broad statement. Yeah. And it and it
completely erodess the actual facts.
>> Jim, do you think you think we've heard
the last of of this show?
>> No. No, I don't I don't think I think
it's going to uh to keep going and uh
it's going to be pressed. But, you know,
you also have to
reflect back and I'm going to take you
back probably two years. uh may only be
a year and a half, but I'm going to call
it two years where the councilman who
wanted to read the scriptures
to us all at the council meeting
uh couple years ago when the board of
education was in at a council meeting
doing a work session.
>> Mhm. and they were talking about the
number of foreign language students that
we had in this county
>> and how many foreign language teachers
that we needed.
>> Mhm.
>> And that councilman made a statement
that uh do we have to pay for that?
>> Mhm.
>> You know, where's your humanity and
Christianity there? Yes, these people
are here. Do you want them to learn
English? You have to teach them English.
You have to treat them fairly.
>> And just so we're clear, Jesus didn't
speak English. Um I don't know if Mr.
Win is aware of that or some of the
other folks on the demograph
if if you're going to be a Christian,
>> where's the humanity in all this?
>> The one thing that's disappointing is
we're this is very likely to to cause us
to lose the having the Lord's prayer at
the beginning. And and and I like that
it's there. I know it's a little
traditionalist and it it's self- serving
for me, but at the same time, uh this
type of scrutiny is how you end up
losing everything. That's the irony.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you both. Thank you.
>> So stay with us. When we come back,
we're going to bring in Bob Taylor,
former county council attorney, and
we're going to ask him for some legal
opinions about just what has transpired.
So stay with us. We'll be right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. Thanks for
coming back into studio, Mr. Taylor.
Appreciate you being here.
>> Dr. Venosa, thanks for sticking around.
>> Always. So, we had a chance to talk with
Jim Atkins about exactly what happened.
And I I know you were at the meeting,
but I wanted to get another another
citizen's viewpoint, but now that we're
in this part of the show, I want to talk
about the legal precedents that that
come about. What What does the
Constitution say? And then this misqued
Supreme Court ruling.
>> Yeah, let let me give you it'll be a
little bit of a legal lecture. Um, but
what I'll start with is let's let's
first amendment. It's called the
establishment clause, part of the first
amendment. And literally what it says is
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof. Now, how do
we get from this? Congress can't make
laws to the Supreme Court banning in the
1960s
prayer and Bible reading in the public
schools.
>> Okay.
>> Congress doesn't have anything to do
with the public schools. Yeah,
>> they never made any law about the public
schools, but yet we got there. Well, we
did that because the Supreme Court
essentially stretched that language to
mean more than what it means just
literally.
>> Okay.
>> Uh they first thing they did was they
stretch it stretched it to mean not just
the legislative branch of the federal
government, that is Congress, but the
entire federal government. There really
weren't many establishment clause cases
before World War II. Now, they never got
to prayer in what what I call
legislative prayer, that is before
legislative bodies like we have in our
county council. They didn't get to that
until 1983.
And that was a case, the Marsh case. It
involved the Nebraska legislature. They
paid a clergyman, he happened to be a
Presbyterian, for a number of years to
give an invocation before their
sessions. Uh, apparently it was pretty
much non uh sectarian.
Um, and he he did this for 15 years and
then somebody raised a question about
it. It finally went up to the Supreme
Court. So, in any event, in that
particular case, they found that that
was okay. Those particular invocations
were okay. Uh but they gave a warning.
The judge that wrote the majority
opinion gave a warning. But you cannot
proletize
or advance one religion or disparage any
faith or belief. So they warned this
one's okay, but watch out. Now about 35
years later, we had the town of Greece
case.
>> This is the one that was referenced by
Colin McV. I'll get to that in a second.
Greece is a small town in New York and
it was their legislative body. I think
they were called commissioners and they
brought in different clergy people,
invited them to come in and give an
invitation or prayer. Uh they were
almost entirely all Christian and at
times it got pretty much over into
prolatizing.
Uh and that and that may be a real
factor here. Now, when they were sued,
when they were initially sued, they
decided, well, we'll bring in some other
faiths, including a Jewish rabbi, uh,
and some others. So, they tried to begin
to mix it up. Um, that one also passed
muster. Um, but again, they gave
warnings about you cannot proitize.
You have to make what they called a
factsensitive analysis including the
setting in which the prayer has been
given and who to whom it's directed the
in other words the audience. Uh they uh
adopted what I they call the reasonable
observer standard. Now to me this is a
little bit like uh when one of the
Supreme Court justices was asked about
what's pornography and he said I can't
possibly define it but I know it when I
see it. Uh and and what's happened is
those two cases didn't really give the
lower courts a good background as to
what is really permitted and what's
prohibited.
>> Okay?
>> And that's led to where we are today.
And let me I'll I'll skip over that
next. Um in the fourth circuit, we're in
the fourth circuit of the federal
judicial system. That includes Maryland,
uh Virginia, West Virginia, the two
Carolinas. Uh, somebody brought a case
in 2017 or it was resolved in 2017,
pardon me. And this was a prayer opening
by the commissioners of a county in
North Carolina, Rowan County. Uh, they
were mostly Christian. Sometimes they
got into overt prosizing. According to
the opinion,
um, they asked the o audience to rise
and pray somewhat similar to our county
council procedure. Maybe not exactly the
same, but not a whole lot different.
That was held by the lower court, trial
court there to be unconstitutional. It
was appealed to the fourth circuit. The
fourth circuit had a real wrangle with
it. At first, they reversed that lower
court and said, "No, this is okay. I
don't care about the little bit of
pratitizing. It still pass muster." Um
and that long trai tra tradition has in
these earlier cases I mentioned marsh uh
town of Greece that was a a main body of
the jurist prudence that this has gone
on for a long time. It seems to be okay.
>> Well Bob I mean if if I may just step in
quickly. So, we've established that
there's a long history of of, as you've
said, prayer used in the context of an
invocation by a minister or some kind of
religious authority. But that's very
different, right, than Mr. Wyn who is,
correct me if I'm wrong, he's not an
ordained minister and he is a sitting
member of the government.
>> Oh, I'll get I'll get to that. I'll get
to that. Just making sure. I want to
make sure that Mr. Win's not an actual
>> Now, there's another case that came up
at the same time in a different circuit.
That's the Sixth Circuit.
that was almost the same factually and
went just the other way.
>> Okay?
>> So, you had what they call a split in
the circuits. Now, normally that is a
ground to go to the Supreme Court.
That's one of their uh they don't take
every case. They decide them they it's
called uh issuing cirari a rid of sir
shirari. Uh they denied sir sherari on
those two cases even though they were
split. They both asked for review. Um
and in one of the cases, it was the um
the Rowan County case, there was a
disscent by judges Thomas and Gorsuch.
They thought the case should have been
taken by the Supreme Court and they made
remarks about the fourth circuit ruling
in Rowan County. They said that they
thought that was unfaithful to the
president of the Supreme Court. We
talked about the uh town of Greece case.
That was the case that a fellow from
Salsbury University at the meeting this
week, the council meeting, brought up
and and quoted from or gave a synopsis.
His synopsis was that that case, the
Supreme Court had approved prayer by
council members.
>> Well, that's not the case at all. It
didn't even involve prayer by council
members. It involved prayer by an
invited clergy.
>> Clergy. Yeah. So he was long on his
facts.
>> He he also said, "Oh, it's an older
case. It's a real old case." Well, it's
from 2014. That's about 10 years ago.
11.
>> I guess if you're 20 years old,
>> 20 years old, that is a long time ago.
>> 10 years might be a long time. But in in
in any event, he he totally
misrepresented the case. Uh if a first
year law student did that, they'd
probably be invited to the dean's office
to be told maybe you should take up a
different trade.
>> Yeah. My concern is in the Rowan County
case, the county had to pay $285,000
to the plaintiff's attorney. In the end,
it was settled.
>> So, that's that's my real concern with
this.
>> Yeah. There's going to be an expense.
>> What are we going to get stuck with in
money?
>> The prayer itself doesn't bother me. I'm
old enough. I went to grade school when
we had prayer in the schools.
>> So, I'm familiar with the Lord's prayer
every morning. So, we even in public
comments, we even had someone come up
and actually give a prayer. And and I
mean, is does that does that bother you
that somebody would come up and that's
what they want to speak about?
>> Doesn't bother me. I mean, if that's a
private citizen in public comments, they
can do it. I don't necessarily like it
or personally even really respect it,
but they have the right to do that. I I
respect the right. But again, all this
comes back to one very simple issue. Mr.
James Win is the government. He as the
government is telling people there is
one religion, there's one way and if you
don't believe it, I'm going to pray for
you and I'm going to proilitize you from
the pulpit of government and that is a
tailor made lawsuit as you have said and
others have stated and it's going to put
the county in serious legal jeopardy and
>> I think it's done two things. First of
all, it's lit the fire
>> because we've been giving the Lord's
prayer for for years at our meetings and
nobody has seriously complained about
it. Possibly the
>> the way they do it has been changed
slightly.
>> But in any event, it's it's led let off
the explosion.
>> And this is the great irony and this is
I think ironically Mr. wins probably his
biggest contribution to the county
council now is for someone who is such a
self-described evangelical Christian,
he's probably going to end up causing
the county to lose its opening prayer.
>> Yeah, I would agree.
>> Yeah. And and I can't tell you
>> fine with me, but you know,
>> I could not find any cases where a uh
somebody like James Wyn just sitting in
his chair has just done Bible readings.
I can't find that. But unfortunately,
he's doing it as a member of the
government in a government setting where
an audience comes to listen to the
government who do government stuff.
>> And I talked to no less than three
people at that last county council
meeting who said they were going to be
issu they were going to pursue legal
action. So there's there's probably
unfortunate it's unfortunate, but it's a
self-imposed uh tragedy. And
>> and he actually never addressed it at
all. You know, he never defended it. He
never took a step back and said, "Hey,
maybe this this offended some people."
He had nothing to say.
>> Not much Christian courage in my
opinion.
>> Well, thank you both. Appreciate it.
>> Thanks for watching this episode of Open
Agenda. We'll be back later this week
with another new episode.
>> Tommy, I mean, I just can't get it all
in.
