Fayetteville, N.C. — City officials were never told they couldn't invoke the name of Jesus in prayers at public meetings, the city attorney said in a recent memo released Monday to WRAL News.
Fayetteville City Attorney Karen M. McDonald sent the Oct. 9 memo to Mayor Tony Chavonne and members of the City Council several days after WRAL reported on a May 14 memo in which she asked government employees to refrain from "frequent invocation of the name of Jesus" at public events.
The May 14 memo noted that the American Civil Liberties Union had challenged several local governments across the state over opening prayers at public meetings and that Fayetteville could be held liable if a local resident sued the city over prayers at City Council meetings.
"Frequent invoking of the name of Jesus (or any other Deity) in opening prayer could lead to a lawsuit under the federal civil rights statute," McDonald wrote in the May memo, acknowledging that she understood the sensitive nature of the subject. "We must adhere to the constitutional standard that opening prayers are non-sectarian and neutral."
After an outcry by local residents and some officials – Chavonne and Councilman D.J. Haire insisted that invocations at public meetings wouldn't change – McDonald issued her second memo, blaming the news report for creating confusion.
"The purpose of the memo was to reiterate the law and to point out that a North Carolina jurisdiction had been sued," she wrote in the second memo. "As with all legal advice, having advised you of the law and the risk associated with violating the law, it is your decision as to whether to adhere to the law."
WRAL stands by its reporting of the initial memo.
McDonald also said in the follow-up memo that she works with city officials to ensure people from various faiths are allowed to provide the invocation at City Council meetings.



![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/local/politics/2007/02/06/1195254/1296152831-_NCCapitol_800x600-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/movies/2007/12/29/2229920/2229920-1208172047-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/2008/06/05/3000786/swimming_pool-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/lifestyles/goaskmom/2011/04/28/9516059/9516069-1304016629-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/lifestyles/house_and_home/2008/07/27/3287725/Blueberries-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/traffic/2009/07/23/5645694/beltline-100x75.jpg)



WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.
This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.
October 31, 2007 5:01 p.m.
October 31, 2007 1:35 p.m.
The first amendment contains what is referred to as the "establishment clause" which forbids Congress from establishing an official religion.
Separation of Church and State protects the church from the state and viceversa. I, being a Christian am glad that we have that clause. History is filled of terrible events where the church and state are intertwined. The Salem Witch trials, the Spainish Inquisition, the Taliban and Sharia law that is practiced in much of the Muslim world are all examples of what can happen!
Remember this, Jesus specifically admonished His followers to pray in private, not on the street corners like the hypocrates!!!
October 31, 2007 8:36 a.m.
Secondly, while the Constitution doesn’t specifically say “separation of church and state”, that’s what the establishment clause meant, as it was clarified later by Jefferson in a letter. And that is how the Supreme Court interprets it. It basically means congress will not make a law recognizing one religion over another.
Thirdly, invoking Jesus at government meetings does NOT specifically violate the Constitution, but it does violate the spirit of it as the Supreme Court interprets it. I think the Constitution needs to be amended to clarify the religion issue, and add that no government entity should be involved in religion.
October 30, 2007 10:31 a.m.
By praying to one deity, the state is advocating that deity by the exclusion of others. You want to pray? Go to your church or wherever you feel comfortable. But for state/government functions, it is completely inappropriate.
Personally, I'm happy that people find comfort in religion, but it's not for everyone.
October 30, 2007 10:02 a.m.