Prayers can still be said at meetings of the Rowan County Board of Commissioners.

But a federal judge ruled Monday that the practice of only commissioners offering up those prayers — while calling on the audience to “please pray with me” or “let us pray” — is unconstitutionally coercive.

Judge James A. Beaty’s 41-page ruling is complicated, but two points are immediately clear. The ruling is a defeat for the county commissioners who voted to fight an ACLU lawsuit challenging their consistently Christian prayers. At the same time, the ruling upholds the constitutionality of legislative prayer.

A paradox? No more than this: People often said during public debate on this issue that they wanted government to respect their freedom to pray when and where they wanted. Those same people seemed to forget that commissioners are the government in Rowan County, and their “please pray with me” at the beginning of each meeting sounds more like a directive than a request — akin to “please be quiet.”

Yes, people could remain seated or leave the room during the prayer. But, the judge noted, no one bothered to explain that until the lawsuit was filed.

Had commissioners just prayed for and among themselves, the ruling might have turned out differently. Instead, they clearly had a broader audience and bigger purpose in mind.

When Beaty issued a preliminary injunction in June 2013 to stop commissioners from opening each meeting with a  sectarian prayer, he nevertheless said they could still pray. So it appeared his final ruling might give commissioners specifics on what they could or could not say in their meeting prayers. “Father” but not “Jesus”? The Serenity Prayer but not the Lord’s Prayer?

Beaty steered clear of that intrusive course. Instead the judge focused on who was praying, what their intent was and how others in the room were affected or involved. He drew a distinction between Rowan and the Greece, N.Y., case in which the Supreme Court ruled that meeting prayers were OK. The Greece board invited outsiders to give the prayers; even though those prayers were predominantly Christian, people of other faiths occasionally stepped up. Rowan’s prayers came from the lips of government officials and virtually all contained Christian references. That has been common practice for the board of commissioners and other local boards as long as anyone can remember.

Commissioners now must decide. They could continue the prayer tradition within these new parameters — with someone other than board members praying, non-Christians included — or give nonsectarian prayers themselves, or observe a moment of silence. Or they could appeal the ruling and continue the fight to open meetings with their own Christian prayers.

Including more people and faiths in the public prayer process is worthy of consideration. It sets a tone of openness. Officials who have a problem with recognizing other faiths run dangerously close to simply wanting to promote their own. That’s fine for people in their private lives, but it’s not the role of government.