©
RICHMOND
A state legislator is renewing his effort to undo an administrative order requiring Virginia State Police chaplains to deliver nondenominational prayers at official events.
Del. Charles W. Carrico, a retired state trooper, claims the 2008 directive from State Police Superintendent W. Steven Flaherty violates the chaplains’ constitutional right to free exercise of religion.
“It’s not what our forefathers intended,” said Carrico, R-Grayson. He said the order continues a trend of catering to “minority religions” while trampling on the rights of the Christian majority.
Carrico introduced legislation in the 2009 General Assembly after five of 17 troopers and state police supervisors serving as chaplains resigned from the voluntary position in protest of the directive. The bill lifting the restriction sailed through the House of Delegates but failed by one vote in a Senate committee.
Carrico already has refiled the measure for the 2010 session, which begins Jan. 13. He said he is hoping for a better result now that senators have had more time to think about the issue.
He also could get a boost from the change in the governor’s office. Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, who had threatened to veto Carrico’s bill, will be succeeded by Bob McDonnell, a conservative Republican.
“The governor-elect is a strong supporter of religious liberty and the right of religious officials to freely practice their faiths, unimpeded by government,” McDonnell spokesman J. Tucker Martin said. “He is reviewing the directive from that perspective.”
He said McDonnell would withhold further comment until after he takes office.
Flaherty issued the order after a federal appeals court upheld a Fredericksburg City Council policy that banned opening council meetings with sectarian prayers. The order applies only to department-sponsored public events not to private events such as funerals or counseling sessions with troopers or victims.
State police spokeswoman Corinne Geller said the directive applied to only one event in 2009 – the department’s annual law enforcement memorial service. She said the department stands by Flaherty’s 2008 statement that the state police must “be inclusive and respectful of the varied ethnicities, cultures, and beliefs of our employees, their families, and citizens at large.”
The American Civil Liberties Union supports the state police position. Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU in Virginia, said it would be tough for the legislature to reverse the policy because of the appeals court ruling.
“Whatever legislators’ personal feelings were, they were wise enough to reject the bill last year because it was unconstitutional,” Willis said.
John Whitehead, president of the Charlottesville-based Rutherford Institute, isn’t so sure about that. He said a provision in Carrico’s bill requiring a disclaimer on printed programs stating that the invocations or benedictions are not government-sponsored “seems to be a good middle road.”
The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group that focuses on First Amendment and religious freedom issues, represented the Fredericksburg city councilman whose legal setback led to the state police order.
Whitehead said the directive fails to recognize that some faiths require prayers to acknowledge a specific deity to be valid. Many Christians, for example, believe they have to invoke Jesus’ name. “If someone’s saying a prayer he feels is null and void, you wouldn’t want him praying anyway,” Whitehead said.

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo

Religious Freedom
For crying out loud, can't we keep praying where in belongs, in one's mind and heart and in the confines of a church, synagogue, mosque or any other place of worship? What's so hard about that? And to the owner of a car I saw today with a bumper sticker stating, "Jesus shed his blood for you", the image is violent and disturbing.
This is crapola of the highest degree!
Our nation was founded as "One Nation Under God". We have NEVER stopped anyone from their religious beliefs. If our prayers bother you your beliefs must be pretty weak. Go someplace else, don't listen or whatever. I'm tired of my religious freedoms being trampled so someone else doesn't get offended!
Christian Jihadists
Amazing how the attitudes of those who would force prayer onto the public mimic the attitudes of Islamic militants.
You enlightened folks are lost
Amazing how many responses here discuss personal rights and then turn around and trash the rights of the Christians in the crowd. It is time for the majority to be heard. I am tired of everyone’s rights being respected EXCEPT the Christians. Walgreens drugs had holiday cards for everyone - except one that said "Merry Christmas" the one the MAJORITY celebrates. A local based banks commercial had every other greeting card and celebration included EXCEPT Christmas. And then some moron on here states; "I'm very afraid of people like Carrico, who want to impose their own ideology on others, especially since he is likely to be backed up by McDonnell." Look in the mirror pal.
History
Here is an excerpt on our country's history. Hope it doensn't alarm anyone. And to those who say our country was not founded on religious principles, read the history please.
"The Separatists, or Independents, were English Protestants who occupied the extreme wing of Puritanism. The Separatists were severely critical of the Church of England and wanted to either destroy it or separate from it. Their chief complaint was that too many elements of the Roman Catholic Church had been retained, such as the ecclesiastical courts, clerical vestments, altars and the practice of kneeling. The Separatists were also critical of the lax standards of public behavior, citing widespread drunkenness and the failure of many to keep the Sabbath properly.
Referring to themselves as the Saints, the Separatists believed that they had been elected by God for salvation (see Calvinism) and feared spiritual contamination if they worshiped with those outside of their congregations, etc. etc."
Why they came here
and what the Constitution says are two seperate issues. Nice try, though, but when the puritans came we were still a part of England.
In todays words,
the First Amendment would go something like this: There will be no National Church, and the Goverment will not restrict anyone from participating in their religion.
Again, the Constitution does not call for a Seperation of Church and State, only that the goverment will not create a national religion or prohibit any religion.
Majority rules?
“It’s not what our forefathers intended,” said Carrico, R-Grayson. He said the order continues a trend of catering to “minority religions” while trampling on the rights of the Christian majority."
Actually, our forefathers came here, according to the history I read in school 60 years ago, to get AWAY from a majority dominated religion, the Anglican faith.
Shouldn't "Catering" be changed to "tolerating", while the idea of trampling is more attributable to Mr. Carrico's way of thinking, instead of the American ideal of tolerance.
I'm very afraid of people like Carrico, who want to impose their own ideology on others, especially since he is likely to be backed up by McDonnell.
Addendum
Perhaps my memory of history is faulty. I was referring to the religious portion of migration to the new world, and ignoring the commercial incentives of most of the immigrees. As I said it's been 60 years and I've slept since then, but my conclusion pertaining to the probable intention of Mr. Carrico still stands. The Christian Taliban still is alive and well in this part of the country.
Majority Rules
Please don't let me scare you, but read about the Pilgrims First Thanksgiving. Apparently, your history lessons were either biased or askew.
And by the way, when our citizens celebrate Thanksgiving, who are they giving thanks to?