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. Mr. Josephina from Salsbury. Thanks
for being here.
>> Yep. So, gentlemen, uh, you were hoping
at the last county council meeting, the
first one of October, that there would
be some sort of acknowledgment of the
issues that came about from Councilman
James W's reading of five Bible
passages. 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. And I have a few
scriptures that I'd like to read if
that's okay. Just be quick.
And I've got them highlighted here,
Jean.
Genesis
50:20.
But as for you, ye thought evil against
me, but God meant it unto good to bring
to pass at is is in this day to save
much people alive.
Now, a lot of evil things happen, but
we have to recognize that there's been
good from this. I have seen I've had
friends become get saved over this.
Now, we've got Jesus.
Literally,
>> Jesus,
I'm telling you, it's it's been a rough
week for me. It's been a rough week for
a lot of people that I know.
John, I'm nervous, but take your time.
>> Thank you, buddy. Romans
8:28. And we know that all things work
together for good to them, to God,
to them who are the called according to
his purpose. Matthew 5:9,
blessed are the peacemakers, for they
shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted
for righteousness sake, for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye
when men shall revel you and persecute
you and shall say all manner of evil
against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice
and be exceedingly glad for great is
your reward in s uh in heaven. For so
persecuted they the prophets which were
before you. God called us to be salt and
light. What does salt do to grass? When
you throw salt on the grass, it changes.
When you throw light in the dark, it
brightens. And we have to remember that
that yes, it was a tragic. It was tragic
what's happened and this world is
tragic. I agree. But we have to we have
to come back to this. And let me read
you another one. And I believe this was
Charlie. The five talents.
25. Matthew 25:20. And so he that
received five talents came and brought
other five talents, saying, Lord, thou
deliverest unto me five talents. Behold,
I have gained beside them five talents
more. His lord said unto him, Well done,
thou good and faithful servant. Thou
hast been faithful over a few things. I
will make thee ruler over many things.
Enter thou into the joy of the Lord. And
with closing, I have one verse that I'd
like to read us. It's from Revelation.
And yes, it is tragic that I believe he
was a martyr for his faith.
not not just because of his political
beliefs, but because of his faith. And
we can have debate and disagree on that.
That's okay. But that was that's my
belief.
Revelation 6:9.
And when he had opened the fifth seal,
I saw under the altar the souls of them
that were slain for the word of God and
for the testimony which they held. And
they cried with a loud voice, saying,
"Oh, how, oh Lord, holy and true, Doust
thou not judge, and avenge our blood on
them that dwell on the earth?" And white
robes were given unto every one of them.
And it was said unto them that they
should rest yet for a little season,
until their fellow servants also, and
their brethren that should be killed as
they were, should be fulfilled. And I
just I just want everybody to really
think about this. I know not everyone
here's 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.
>> You you've sent in a letter and you
haven't seen a response and that's kind
of prompted you to do some more research
and to reach out to some other
institutions. Right.
>> Correct. Bob, you're you're staying on
top of the the case law and that and and
and any related topics that have come up
in the last what 60 years or so. Uh so,
>> wow.
>> Are you when you put it that way, right?
>> Uh I'd like to take a break. When we
come back, I want to go over the
communication that you've had, the
communication that's going out, but also
the case law. All right. Can we do that?
>> Sounds great.
>> So, stay with us. So when we come back,
we're going to give you more information
about the county council and the use of
the first amendment. So stay with us.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. In the
studio with me still is Mr. Bob Taylor
from Salsbury, Mr. Joe Scafina from
Salsbury. Thanks for sticking around.
>> So Joe, I want to ask you, what is the
Freedom from Religion Foundation and why
has a letter been sent from them to the
county council?
>> All right. uh Freedom from from Religion
Foundation. They're an organization that
uh they're a first amendment
organization
that just wants to adhere to the
separation of church and state.
>> Okay.
>> Um and I that letter was sent uh because
of a complaint I filed um about a year
ago. I started to attend uh council
meetings. I wanted to get involved. And
the very beginning of the meeting, the
council president stood up, invited
everybody to say the Lord's Prayer. And
I'm saying to myself, that's not right.
So I went back after the meeting, went
and looked up. I found a whole bunch of
cases in the Fourth Circuit that said
absolutely, you know, um, elected
officials that's considered government
speech and it's prohibited by the First
Amendment. So, being a new guy on the
block, I didn't want to be the skunk at
the party, so I didn't say anything. Uh,
then last September, uh, at the end of a
meeting, council councilman Wyn
started whipped out his Bible and
started reading passages. And he
actually asked the council president,
"Do you mind?" And he said, "Okay."
>> And and he and just to be clear, he
asked he read five passages.
>> He read five passages. And then he said,
you know, the Bible is the only way and
that he knows when not not everybody's
Christian, but he's going to pray for
us. And that crossed a a big red line
for me and a lot of people in the
audience.
>> Yeah. Several folks did decide to leave
at that point.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um so at that point I realized,
you know what, there's no guard rails on
this council on this establishment
clause. Um, so I wrote a letter to the
to the very next day I wrote a very
diplomatic letter to uh all seven
council members, you know, explaining
the the issue. I provided them the cases
and I heard back from one councilman.
>> Okay.
>> Who said I basically agree with you, you
know, they ought to just do an
invocation or a moment of silence. Uh,
and then
>> and I assume that wasn't Councilman
James W.
>> No. Okay. So going to the next meeting
um
I was interested in seeing what was
going to happen. And when the following
meeting opened with the Lord's prayer
again, I realized, okay, they're they're
not going to uh change their ways on
until they until something is done. So
that's when I uh I contacted the Freedom
from Religion Foundation again. I said,
"Look, my letter didn't work. So, uh, we
need to move forward with this
>> and they and they have sent a letter to
the council.
>> Yes, they sent it to all all it was
addressed to, um, President Canon, but a
copy went to all, uh, all seven members.
>> And Bob, I want to ask you, Joe
referenced the case law and and I know
you've looked into the same things he
has. And and look, just so everyone
knows out there, I mean, Joe, you're a
parillegal, right? Yes. And Bob, you're
a retired attorney, but you're I mean,
you still you're still very much
involved in in legal aspects.
>> Yeah. Let me let me talk about Let me
say that the reason I got involved in
this, I the Lord's prayer and reading of
it does not bother me personally. I went
to high school back when they had prayer
in the schools. We said it every day. Um
and I started looking at it only because
I did find a case, and I think you've
mentioned it in the fourth judicial
circuit. That's the federal circuit that
Maryland is in. There are a bunch of
them around the country. I think 13
altogether. Um, but we're in the fourth
circuit. And our law right now is that
reading the Lord's Prayer at a council
meeting when it's read by the council or
the council president is
unconstitutional under the first
amendment. Uh, I've also looked at other
cases primarily from the fourth circuit.
Uh there have been decisions within the
last few years in other counties, one in
Maryland, one in West Virginia, one in
Virginia, and they've all involved uh
prayer readings by council, not by a
chaplain who comes in or a member of the
clergy. There's a distinction there.
>> Yes.
>> Uh there have been two Supreme Court
cases dealing with what we call
legislative prayer, but they've both
been by chaplain. they have not been by
it being read by the council and asking
people to stand up or suggesting that
they could stand up. So there's a
distinction there. The Supreme Court has
never considered that. However, they
have in the fourth circuit in the LON
case and in several cases after Lon uh
that have based their rulings on that
and they've all held that you can't do
that.
>> Okay.
>> Um so that's kind of where where I come
from on it.
>> Sure. I've also taken a little bit
broader look at the First Amendment
generally which we can get into if we
have time.
>> Yes. Well,
>> because it is interesting.
>> You talked about it in the show last
week and and and you made the rhetorical
question is how did we get from the
First Amendment and the not the no
establishment calls to uh to to to the
Supreme Court banning prayer in the
schools. And I know we've covered that,
but it is there is a connection to to
this letter from the Freedom from
Religion Foundation. There has to be, as
Joe said, some guard rails. Correct.
>> Yeah, that's right. I mean, and and I
would say, uh, Justice Thomas, Clarence
Thomas is of the view that, um, the, uh,
first amendment, which says Congress
shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion. That's the
establishment clause. He believes that
that does not apply to the states.
>> Okay?
>> Because it says Congress shall make no
law. uh and that's been his view. Now,
ever since uh the mid40s,
uh the Supreme Court has held that does
apply to the states.
>> You you had talked about that before.
It's expanded since World War II
>> and and basically there were really no
significant first amendment cases before
that happened under the establishment
clause uh because it only applied to the
federal government and Congress didn't
make many laws, if any, that applied to
religion. So there was never any basis
for at least I can find uh that
challenged it. But Justice Thomas is of
this belief that how do you get from
Congress shall make no law to banning
prayer in the schools for example.
>> Okay.
>> Um and that is an interesting question.
Uh but nevertheless for the last oh 85
years almost the holdings have been that
the first amendment applies to the
states. So, can we can we make uh any
more correlations between the the town
of Greece, New York, and uh that case
because that one has been referenced at
the last county council meeting.
>> Misqued, I guess.
>> Yeah. Well, it it was really misqued in
that particular meeting by somebody who
stood up and doing public comment.
>> Hello everybody. My name is uh Colin
Mcvers. I'm a student at Salsbury
University. 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 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.
>> He characterized it as saying any kind
of prayer by the council was okay. And
that's not the case at all. It doesn't
even involve prayer being led by the
council.
>> Okay.
>> That particular case involved chaplain
coming in or clergymen coming in being
invited by a town uh board uh to make
invocations.
Um so it didn't it didn't really involve
it being read by the council. And
there's a distinction there. And this
fourth circuit case I've mentioned, the
Lun case, goes into that,
>> okay,
>> uh, in great detail and says, "No, this
is a different matter when it's done at
a council meeting, read by the council,
uh, asking people or suggesting that
they stand up uh, and in what they call
the intimate setting of a council
meeting, and they are pretty intimate. I
mean, for example, where we have our
council meetings, even though it's a
rather large room, is small compared to
Congress.
>> Oh, definitely. where you have chaplain
reading uh making an invitation. It's a
completely different matter
>> and the current process is you know the
president of the of the county council
ask everybody to join them if they want
to. It's an invitation but everybody uh
is is still subject to that to that
prayer uh whether you're participating
or not just like the pledge of
allegiance as well. uh one one of the
cases that has come uh in the fourth
circuit since loound the uh it's co g
coanchi case from west Virginia that
involved reading the lord's prayer and
there their council had started doing it
right before they called the meeting to
order
>> okay
>> trying essentially to say well we're
really not doing it during the meeting
>> well that that really didn't cut any
mustard in the court
>> so did that that that was shot down as
well
>> yeah that that particular case says you
can't do that
>> okay
>> um and um and for the reasons that are
expounded in in the LON case. In other
words, it was following the president in
the fourth circuit of which West
Virginia is a part just
>> and they considered it government speech
>> is what they call it.
>> So, um so anyway, that's really where we
are. We have another case that came up
about 5 years ago in Carol County.
That's in Maryland.
>> Okay. What was it? What was that case?
>> That was uh a legislative body reading.
They were reading different prayers. not
always the Lord's prayer. Sometimes the
Lord's prayer, sometimes others. Um that
case did not really go to a formal
decision. It was settled before any
trial was held uh on it or the court
made any decision.
>> Consent agree, right? Yeah. But a
consent agreement uh because the lung
case was decided while that case was
still pending.
>> Okay. And so that set precedent
>> and that set the precedent in that
particular matter. Uh not only did they
agree that they couldn't do uh Lord's
Prayer type prayers being read by the
council, they also agreed to pay
$125,000
in attorney's fees.
>> And that and that's what's got my
interest because I think we have not
only a very volatile situation, there
are people such as Mr. Joe over here who
are very much opposed to this. There are
others that come to the meeting that
say, "Oh, we ought to do it. we ought to
do it. Um, no matter which way we go on
this, there are going to be people who
are very unhappy.
>> Hey, I also wonder is there people who
would like to come there and read a
Jewish prayer or Islamic prayer or a
Hindu prayer and would we want them to
be able to to force that on
>> there are a lot of legislators that do
that and that's one of the things that
the courts have said if it's one
sectarian prayer over and over by an a
chaplain or a pastor that doesn't cut
the mustard either. it needs to be
spread uh among different faith.
>> We didn't have the first amendment
applying to the states until 1947.
>> Okay.
>> Uh that was in a very interesting case.
It also involved first amendment and
state law and it was held that the first
amendment did apply to the states. It
was a case against a taxf funded school
district that provided reimbursement to
parents of both public and private
school students who took public
transportation to school.
>> Okay? In other words, if you paid for
your transportation, you could get some
reimbursement from the government.
>> Uh and that was held actually in that
case that was held to not violate the
constitution.
>> Okay?
>> Because the payment for the
transportation was deemed to have a
public purpose, a public benefit.
>> Okay?
>> But that's where they came in very hard
and said that it's an interesting case.
They should say there should be a wall
of separation between church and state,
but then they exempted this.
>> Okay? Uh, and that case has been very
significant in
>> What is the name of that case?
>> That's Everson.
>> Everson versus Board of Education.
>> Gotcha.
>> Um, then we got into, and I'm skipping
now up about 15 years. When we got into
more detailed cases, there was a case
involving Maryland had Sunday closing
laws.
>> Okay. Yeah. Blue laws. Blue laws.
>> Blue laws. That was I remember those as
>> that was challenged in 1961
that was held that it did not violate
the establishment clause. It was just a
day of rest and recreation.
>> Okay.
>> Um then we got into the school prayer
cases and they're very interesting
because there there were two cases in
fact the early 60s was where this really
got hot.
>> Yep.
>> We had this case in ' 61 I just
mentioned. We had another case in ' 62.
This was the very first school prayer
case. It was the Engle case and that was
held to be reading prayers in school was
unconstitutional.
>> Okay.
>> Then we had the Abentine School District
versus Shimp odd name from Pennsylvania.
That was actually two cases combined.
One from Pennsylvania, one from
Maryland.
>> Okay.
>> Maryland in the city of Baltimore had
passed a um ordinance or a law that
required reading of prayers including
the Lord's Prayer in schools.
>> Wow. that was challenged and that was
held to be unlawful.
>> Okay?
>> You know, constitutional. That was the
Maline Murray case. If you remember
Maline Murray,
>> okay,
>> now there are other cases that have been
decided by the Supreme Court in more
recent years within the last five years
that also are at least interesting.
>> Okay. Uh the first one of these cases
was in 2019,
American Legion versus American Humanist
Association that involved what they call
a peace cross that was in Maryland. It
was a 40ft peace cross, just a cross. It
had been erected in 1925 by the American
Legion to essentially memorialize people
from a particular county. I think it was
Montgomery County that had died in the
First World War.
>> Okay. And they chose the cross uh uh uh
feature because that was the form of the
crosses in the graveyards in Europe.
>> Yeah.
>> In World War I
>> and that was originally on private
property.
>> It was originally also on private
property.
>> Uh over the years that property became
donated to a federal government. It was
the Maryland Capital Parks and Planning
Commission.
>> Okay.
>> And they had maintain it maintained it
for a few years. and it was the
maintaining of it and the money that was
spent that was challenged.
>> Okay.
>> Well, that was held to be a valid case
uh use of the money. In other words, it
didn't violate.
>> They didn't have to take a day off.
>> This was the case where Clarence Thomas
said specifically in a concurring
opinion, he agreed with the result, but
one of the reasons he agreed with it was
because he doesn't think the
establishment clause has been
incorporated against the states. Okay?
He specifically said that and he has
reiterated that at least once in another
case. Um that would be the Kennedy
versus Breton school district case that
was in 2022
that involved a college football coach
in the state of Washington who after the
games would get down on his knees and
pray at the 50ard line.
>> Okay.
>> And this became somewhat controversial.
Other people began praying with him
including some of the team members. uh
somebody complained against it. That's a
violation of the First Amendment. It's
the establishment of a religion. That
was held not to be an establishment of a
religion. This year, there was a case
involving Oklahoma, a charter school
matter, and this in would involve using
public funds to pay for uh charter
schools that were religious. That was
held by the state courts there to be uh
unconstitutional.
that that was appealed to the Supreme
Court. Amy Cooney Barrett, one of the
justices, recused herself. Uh she
recused herself because she had gone to
Notre Dame to the law school and she had
also taught at the Notre Dame Law School
and we think that's the reason. She
didn't give a reason, but nobody knows
of any other reason that it would be. So
that left eight judges, eight justices
rather. They split four.
>> Okay. And it's thought that it was the
three Democrat appointees. Soayor I
should get the right names right here
and
>> they think that John Roberts joined with
them that he was the fourth.
>> Okay.
>> He had previously been with the
Republican majority in some of these
earlier cases I mentioned. Well, I' I'd
like to take a break and when we come
back, I want to talk about the
perspective of someone who doesn't have
the legal background and is watching
from the, you know, trying to
participate in government, which is
something you both do at times when
you're take your legal hat off. Okay.
So, when we come back, we're going to
talk a little bit about what you can
expect to see the next time you go to a
county council meeting. So, stay with
us. We'll be right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. still in
the studio and now we want to talk a
little bit about what you can expect
next time you're at the county council
meeting. So Joe, I want to go back to
something you mentioned earlier. You you
have been attending and you've been
participating in in local government for
a year. I've seen you there and you have
a lot of articulate comments about all
sorts of things. I've seen you pack 14
at city of Salsbury. Never talked
religion with you. Had no idea what your
stance was. You said at one time on the
show that you were kind of going along
for the ride, but then you you came to a
point that you felt like we had crossed
the line.
>> Yeah.
>> Is this really just come down to like
the way James Wyn handled the situation
back in September?
>> Absolutely. Um that's that was the
trigger. Um
>> um I know for a fact there were Jewish
people in the audience. I know for a
fact there were some agnostic people in
the audience. And you know, you come to
a public meeting to deal with public
business. It's a secular setting. It's
not a religious setting. Wcomo county is
around 60% Christian, which means 40% of
us aren't.
>> Okay.
>> All right. So when
the 40% are not taken into
consideration, it it creates a
uncomfortable atmosphere. Well, let me
give you a different perspective as as a
Christian myself, someone who I do like
the fact that the Lord's prayers read at
the beginning. It's comforting to me,
>> but at the same time, I'm there to watch
county business get done, and I don't
want to get distracted. At the very
least, this was a huge public
distraction. And I really think this
really was about performative politics,
really performing for a a a group. Any
group that's just getting performed to,
to me, is a distraction to the greater
good. And Bob, I want to ask you, what
options do you think that the county
council has to avoid a costly lawsuit or
even maybe really firm guard rails that
maybe really change the the look and
feel of the county council meetings?
>> Well, I I think that um the s the
simplest way would be to stop reading
any kind of a prayer by the council.
>> Okay. Um because the Supreme Court
cases, the two I mentioned, they have
sanctioned clergy coming in and giving
invocations and they can be somewhat
secular.
>> Yes.
>> Um that's the town of Greece case. So
that would be one simple way to do it.
Uh that would still have an invocation
with clergy.
>> Sure.
>> Uh obviously the another other ways to
do it are just to do nothing. And I I
did make a study uh used artificial
intelligence for this. not going into
every county and looking, but uh many
Maryland counties, and I think this is
true across the country, they do do not
do anything. They don't do an
invocation. They don't do a moment of
silence, which are other options.
>> Well, that's what the city of Salsbury
does, right?
>> An invocation by an invited pastor.
>> The last meeting, I guess, they didn't
have anybody, so yes, they had a moment
of silence. Yes.
>> So, so that would be, you know, another
way to do it. So, there are several ways
that are that are possible. Um and it
wouldn't make any difference which way
the Supreme Court might ultimately go
whether they would come in and say no uh
reading prayers is fine by the council
because it the other cases say that
having clergy come in and do it that's
fine too. So it would remove any doubt
about the future.
>> Um and it's going to be probably
unlikely that the Supreme Court is going
to take a case anytime soon. Uh, and the
reason I say that is because there only
been two cases involving legislative
prayer. 1983,
>> Yeah.
>> 2014.
>> Okay.
>> That's 30-year plus split just in two
cases.
>> Yeah.
>> So, if we go another 30 years, it's
going to be another 20 years before they
may not be that long, but there's
nothing on the horizon. Joe, someone
who's relatively new but also very
active in the government scene both in
city of Salsbury and the county. Are you
are you familiar with the mission of the
Demar conservative movement and do you
feel like some of the issues you're
having now? Are they do you feel like
they're rooted into their their dogma,
their goals?
>> I'm not familiar with the Delmare
conservative movement, so I can't can't
really comment on that. There are some
folks that are that are part of that
that have have established it as a wing
of the Republican party here in Wakcom
County. I want I want to go back to
something Monica Brooks.
>> I was just going to say that Mitch Y and
Monica and I on a political basis may
not agree on everything. It's
interesting. We are on two different
political spectrums, but there's a lot
especially local stuff that we would
agree on. But one of the things that
really I think got to her was this um
politization of religion because she
would not identify herself as a
Republican. I don't believe.
>> No.
>> And uh but she would identify herself as
a Christian. So I think that it's just
interesting because it almost alienates
folks who also are Christian. Right.
>> People need to stop calling Christianity
a political party. There is no political
party of Jesus.
>> That's right. And you can't say
Republican is is the same as
Christianity. No, you cannot say that.
People are making our faith into
something political and Christ was not
even about that.
>> Joining of Republican Christian
excludes
people like me.
>> Yeah. Okay. that that was our
>> that was the just concern you know and I
I I just want to clarify something too
because you know this whole issue isn't
about banning prayer or invocations
public I have no problem with that my
issue is that it was done by an elected
official
>> um I've again Salbury Council has an
invocation by a pastor absolutely no
problem with that
>> even though it's not for you you're okay
with that
>> I'm okay with that it's you know it's
but when when an elected official starts
proc izing uh that's government speech.
That's not what I what what he was
elected to do.
>> Well, thank you both. I appreciate your
insight and uh as more comes up, I hope
you come back in and talk about it.
>> Thanks for watching this episode of Open
Agenda. We'll be back later this week
with another new episode.
>> Yeah, we well not not as much as I think
maybe we we want to. Um, first of all,
it was as much as I would.
On the Friday, Oct. 17 edition of OPEN AGENDA, we delve more deeply into the issue of County Council members proselytizing and leading sectarian prayers during official legislative sessions. Following Councilman James Winn's evangelizing during a recent Council meeting and declaring that his brand of faith was the “only way,” the FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION has become involved, and a lawsuit against the Council may be forthcoming. Former County Council attorney, Robert Taylor, walks us through the specific case law interpreting the 1st Amendment's admonition that, “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion...” and explains how it applies to local governments. Based on judicial precedent, it appears that the wall of separation between church and state has been violated and county taxpayers may wind up paying the price.
Tune in and be informed.
