Place of Public Prayer in Virginia Subject of 2006 Mattox Debate at University of Richmond School of Law Jan. 26
January 24, 2006
Virginia Del. Charles Carrico (R-Grayson) and state Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke) will debate whether the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom—America’s oldest law guaranteeing freedom of religion—should be amended to include school prayer and public displays of religion in a Jan. 26 program at University of Richmond’s School of Law.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the statute, which became part of the Virginia Constitution in 1786. It forbids establishment of religion by the state, and it later served as the model for James Madison in writing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The program, the 7th- Annual Mattox Debate, is jointly sponsored by the law school, the university chaplaincy’s diversity project A More Perfect Union, and The Council for America’s First Freedom. The debate begins at 6 p.m. in the school of law Moot Courtroom, and admission is free and open to the public. A reception will follow. For more information, call (804) 289-8740.
In 2005, Carrico cited Patrick Henry when introducing House Resolution 537, a bill to amend the statute. He patterned the proposal on a change to the First Amendment submitted to Congress several years earlier, stating that “people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage and traditions on public property, including public schools, shall not be infringed.”
After Carrico introduced the bill, months of heated public discussion ensued. Supporters argued the action was necessary to protect the rights of Christians, who were routinely silenced under existing law. Critics argued that the venerable statute needed no update, fearing that changes would raise other First Amendment issues. The General Assembly’s discussions explored the place of religious expression in public, including the rights to pray, wear religious clothing, display religious emblems and share religious faith in schools.
Though it ultimately failed in the Senate, H.R. 537 remains a controversial topic among state and national leaders.