Sheryl | 
05 14th, 2008| 
A bill sponsored by Senator Chip Campsen (Isle of Palms) is making its way to the House, and would have significant implications for the governing bodies of SC political subdivisions who offer (or want to offer) prayers before public meetings, as most do.
The bill is S. 638; I’ve uploaded a PDF of the text to this post (see “Further Reading” below).
The bill’s preamble goes over the constitutional judicial history of what is known as ceremonial deism — invocations and mentions of religion by government entities in a ceremonial (and hence First Amendment-friendly) way. Some of these cases are also set forth below as PDFs in “Further Reading.”
The bill would add section 6-1-160 to the codification of laws as the “South Carolina Public Invocation Act.” Subsection (A) covers certain definitions necessary to an understanding of the Act — public invocation and deliberative public body.
The definition of the latter term — deliberative public body — is rather broad, and includes governing bodies of counties and cities, and any branches thereof (probably to include boards, commissions, and agencies, as it also includes special purpose and public service district bodies as well.
Public entities can comply with the section’s “guidance” by adopting one of three proffered policies. First, the duties of offering invocations can be rotated among all members of the entity. Second, an official chaplain may be elected by entity members.
The third option is the most interesting, as it permits rotating the invocational duties among members of the public who are “religious leaders” (undefined in the Act). The invitation for these leaders to offer their services must be sent annually, must be culled from public resources (telephone books, etc.), and must include the following statement:
A religious leader is free to offer an invocation according to the dictates of his own conscience, but, in order to comply with applicable constitutional law, the [name of deliberative public body issuing the invitation] requests that the public invocation opportunity not be exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief’.
Further Reading
Myrtle Beach Sun News — “Bill suggests to local governments how to hold legal prayers”
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 786 (1983)
Simpson v. Chesterfield County 404 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied
Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 376 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied
