Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Comment Religion topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident objects to Hindu invocation; mayor defends inclusive prayer at council meetings

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Goose Creek resident told council she was alarmed by a previous meeting's Hindu invocation; the mayor responded that the city allows various faith leaders to lead prayer and cited constitutional limits on choosing which religion may pray.

A resident told the Goose Creek City Council on May 13 she was “alarmed” that a previous meeting had opened with a Hindu invocation and urged the city to avoid rotating among different faiths for invocations.

“Saw a notice…that the city council meeting for April 8 was opened up with a Hindu invocation. Is that correct?” Susan Vullo asked, and later cited scripture in explaining her concern: “Exodus 23 says ‘you shall have no other gods before me,’” she told council. Vullo said the matter was “rather alarming” and that her remarks came from a place of caring for the city and its residents.

The mayor responded directly to Vullo, noting the constitutional limits on government action regarding religion and saying the city’s practice was to allow different faith leaders to lead invocations if the council chooses to have prayer. “If we’re going to pray, and it has been my determination that we are going to pray, then you gotta let those pray,” the mayor said. He added that prayer presenters at past events had included representatives of multiple faiths and urged residents to “find what they need” while emphasizing adherence to the law. The mayor also thanked Vullo for speaking and acknowledged her concern.

No formal policy change or vote on invocation practices occurred at the meeting; the exchange took place during the public‑comment portion and was contained to statements by the resident and the mayor. The transcript records no additional public testimony or council motion on changing invocation procedures.