Legislative prayer and The Establishment Clause

Post Reply New Topic

Poll time. Since the religion and politics debate is raging strong in the US, I thought I'd take a look at a case currently working its way through the US Supreme Court: Legislative prayer.

Ever-vigilant Pew Research provided a summary here: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/11/04/in-b ... -galloway/

Anyway, the question is if SCOTUS will uphold a 1983 case (Marsh v. Chambers), which (by 6-3 vote) considered legislative prayer constitutional (although it was unconstitutional for the government to fund the chaplain responsible for the prayer).

Case law usually implies that SCOTUS would rule as in previous cases, in this case, Marsh v. Chambers.

Elements of the Marsh ruling, though, might suggest otherwise:

In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an "establishment" of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.

So it becomes obvious that the constitutionality of legislative prayer was upheld on historical/cultural grounds. These can change over time, so it is not given that the court will reach a similar ruling 30 years after Marsh v. Chambers.

Another aspect is the Lemon Test, established by Lemon. v. Kurtzman.

Lemon established the following as a test to see if the Establishment Clause is violated (as summarized by Wikipedia):

• The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose
• The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion
• The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

It remains to be seen, however, if the Lemon test will be applied, as several conservative justices has expressed reservations about its validity.

Even though SCOTUS will likely rule on the case in a few months, I thought I'd ask people here about their opinion on the subject. So, whaddya think?

... oh, and here are the sources:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... /case.html
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... /case.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._K ... Lemon_test

It shouldn't be mandatory in public institutions, but we shouldn't deny someone their right to wear a hijab or have a Jesus statuette on their desk either.

Agree

You've asked the wrong question.

Opening a legislative sitting with a prayer isn't "mandatory," it is, "customary." A legistlature can choose tomorrow to dispense with prayer as part of its order paper at any time. Individual chambers within legislatures are always in control of their own procedures.

And, of course, once we move from the realm of the mandatory into the realm of the customary, the constitutional scrutiny of the practice changes. That which is voluntary is subject to a vastly lower level of scrutiny.

I voted shahada.
But I believe there should be unity before we can start making prayer legislated.
There needs to be no resistance and no injustice to any party. Everyone will join Islam according the plan willingly unless the final day comes before that.

God is the not passive and not active. And not light and not heavy. The non existent in a place or time (does not exist).

It is like relaxation, this relationship with God.

There arabic word for prayer means connection. Particularly the bowing motion is found in all cultures and is the way to connect to the highe power. If they were kings for example. But in Islam it is not allowed to bow except to Allah. Nodding is allright I guess. But then again, Buddhists have Mu which means "nothingness" and they bow to the buddhanature in eachother, they see through eachother. And there there is this story in Islam about that God commanded the Angels to bow to the human, so maybe we should bow to eacother?

Perhaps (eventually, we'll find out) you may be right. But I disagree. The US Supreme Court is not very forgiving when it comes to the distinction between mandatory and customary wrt. the 1st Amendment.

As illustraton, SCOTUS ruled against the use of school prayers at graduation ceremonies in Lee v. Weisman, even though the prayer was doubly voluntary.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v._Weisman
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... /case.html

In general, attending town hall meetings is oftenin order to address grievances towards government, so I doubt that a simple line can be drawn between mandatory and customary in this case.

Or to put it another way: The word "mandatory" in SCOTUS is not likely to be solely defined as what the legislature imposes upon itself, but also as what the legislature imposes on everyone else.

No doubt this will be especially relevant with Chief Justice Anthony Kennedy in court (the deciding vote and author of Lee v. Weisman).

All I can say is this....

When I finished by 2-year degree, the community college had some wacko offer an "invocation" that paid homage to pretty much every religion short of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I would have preferred that they didn't even bother.

In an effort to ensure nobody was offended, you would either be offended by the cowardice to pick one and/or that the invocation was essentially meaningless.

I personally believe that religion should in no way shape or form be a part of education (other than institutions existing solely for religious education), part of the workplace, or part of the government (on any level). Religion belongs in your homes and your churches among those who share your beliefs, or on the internet in places that are appropriate forums for religious views and discussions (or arguments).

If religion preaches unity.
Law cannot function without unity.
It will only be laws upon laws and in the end there are too many law inhibiting your freedom.

Unity should be preached in schools? To define a standing point at least, like you have done now.

^ This.

You omit an important distinction. Every individual in a legislative chamber has a voice in the determination of a question of procedure.

However, the same privilege does not extend to every participant at an event established by a school. Graduands don't get to move an amendment to the proceedings of their own graduation ceremony. Legislators are fee to move to delete prayers from the order paper.



Town halls aren't sovereign; they are creatures of the state. They are, therefore, subject to statute and judicial supervision. The legislature is a beast of a different constitutional colour.



I don't doubt your logic. I think the court is more likely to err on the side of caution and avoid an attempt to usurp the exclusive power of the legislature to control its own proceedings.

Don't politicians have better things to do than praying? It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.