Legal challenges to prayer at public meetings aren’t just happening in the Upstate. Add Lexington, N.C., Murfreesboro, Tenn., and Indianapolis, Ind., to the list of communities where the one whose name is invoked might be disappointed in some of the attitudes of his flock.

Recent suggestions range from banning some members of the public from speaking at a public meeting to waging an expensive (to the taxpayers) court battle to saying those who disagreed with the sitting council should go back where they came from or leave the room. Or the country.

Prayer can be a calming influence or put one in the right frame of mind to make a decision, take a test or test the waters of a new relationship. It is also an intensely personal thing that should not be used as a political tool to divide a community.

Yet it is being used in that manner, and by those on both sides of the controversy.

In searching the news of some other communities, we were struck by the comments of a Tennessee citizen (also a longtime member of the city school board) who weighed in on the subject in his town: “Personally, as a member of a minority religious community, I would prefer a moment of silence.” The college art professor and member of the Jewish faith recalled his discomfort during a Christian prayer at a public meeting: “It didn’t really acknowledge my existence as a member of the community.”

And that’s what we believe should be at the root of the issue: inclusion, not exclusion. It shouldn’t be about the people who are bringing the challenge, that they may have ruffled some feathers, intentionally or not.

It’s true, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken on some high-profile cases about which some of us might scratch our heads. But the organization also takes up legal action on numerous free speech issues, privacy, freedom of expression regarding technology, racial justice, voting rights and yes, freedom of religious expression.

A few examples:

n In New Jersey, the ACLU filed a motion on behalf of a second-grader who was not allowed to sing “Awesome God” at an after-school talent show.

n In Louisiana, the ACLU filed suit on behalf of a Morman prison inmate who was denied access to religious texts.

n In Nevada, Kim Jacobs was expelled for wearing T-shirts with religious messages. The ACLU represented her in court.

n In Rhode Island, the ACLU spoke up in defense of interdenominational carolers who were denied their request to sing Christmas carols to inmates at a prison in Cranston.

n In Michigan, the ACLU was successful in having several students reinstated who had been expelled for handing out candy canes and a religious message in school.

In truth, no one is asking that prayers be omitted, only that prayers are nonsectarian.

Simply ask yourself this:

Do public officials have a responsibility to represent all of the citizens when they are acting in a public capacity or just those who agree with them? Is it fair that some members of the community might believe their interests are not considered as seriously as those with whom the members of a government body have a religious bond?

It may seem simply tradition rather than discrimination, closing a prayer with “in Jesus’ name” or “in Christ’s name,” but there are certainly those in attendance who don’t believe as those offering the prayers believe. Of course, they are not being forced to join in the prayer. They can pray silently on their own — or not at all — as they choose.

But should someone who practices the Jewish faith feel he would not be treated fairly if he came before this board that so openly voices its convictions to a specific faith? If there is any chance he would be given that impression, homage to a particular religion has no place at a such a meeting.

Unlike what some of our public officials have concluded, it’s not taking religion out of society if Jesus is not specifically mentioned. It is only respecting that not everyone who is — or should be — equally represented by a public body has the same beliefs.