Toto

City councils ban Jesus from prayer

A recent court case in California overturned public invocations that invoked 'Jesus'. (The case was brought by the late Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defense League against the City of Burbank.)

The rule in California now is that an invocation to "God" is okay, because God is non-denominational. (?? Did they consult any goddess worshippers?)

Christians are now complaining about their free speech rights. They are of course confused. They has every right to pray to Jesus whenever they want, as long as they are not making government policy.

Or this:

The City of Burbank may appeal.

GaryP

My city was advised that Christian prayers could be problematical, so now they pray just BEFORE the meeting is officially convened.

Feather

Oh how convenient. Isn't there a way to stop that sort of thing? It's like skirting around the law but just barely. So infuriating.

gsx1138

I wonder how far their free speech complaints stretch? Would they accept me praying to the Goddess before a council meeting? Christians are such hypocrites when it comes to this kind of stuff.

GaryP

Feather--

I addressed that question to Americans United.

This is part of a lawyer's reply to me;

Here is some information on prayer before city council meetings. It is our
view that legislative prayer is improper but because of our limited
resources and because the case law isn't very favorable we do not challenge
these prayers. I've included a summary of the law in this area. I hope this
helps you out.

In Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the Supreme Court upheld the
Nebraska Legislature’s practice of opening each session with a prayer. The
Court held that prayers before legislative sessions are constitutional as
long as the prayers are non-sectarian and non-proselytizing. The prayers in
the Nebraska legislature were considered non-sectarian because they were in
the “Judeo-Christian tradition” and references to Christ were not included,
id. at 793 & n.14, and the prayers were found to be non-proselytizing
because they were not “exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to
disparage any other, faith or belief.” Id. at 794-95.

Since the decision in Marsh, few courts have tackled the question of what
constitutes sectarian or proselytizing prayer. In Stein v. Plainwell
Community Schools, 822 F.2d 1406, 1410 (6th Cir. 1987), the Sixth Circuit
explained that Marsh prohibits legislative prayers that contain “the
language of Christian theology and prayer.” Invocations that “expressly
invoke the name of Jesus as the Savior,” are unconstitutional. Id.

In Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 159 F.3d 1227, 1234 (10th Cir. 1998), the
Tenth Circuit determined that “the kind of legislative prayer that will run
afoul of the Constitution is one that proselytizes a particular religious
tenet or belief, or that aggressively advocates a specific religious creed,
or that derogates another religious faith or doctrine.” Id. at 1234. But,
the mere fact that “a prayer evokes a particular concept of God is not
enough” to run afoul of the Establishment Clause.” Id. at 1234 n.10. The
Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Snyder is more permissive to legislative bodies
than the opinions in Marsh and Stein, and there is thus a split in the
Circuits on this issue.

You asked whether the city council's intent mattered and I'm not sure if a
court would consider it in this instance. The courts do not use the
traditional Establishment Clause test (which sometimes considers intent)
when they analyze legislative prayer. The analysis is based more on the
history of the practice.

Of course, regardless of whether legal action is undertaken, you can still
object to the prayer. Legislative prayer embroils public bodies in
extremely sensitive, and often divisive, decisions. Including prayer at
legislative sessions necessarily requires preferring certain faiths, as
different prayers come from different faith traditions, and whatever
decisions the board makes about which prayers to include, some members of
the community will feel excluded by that choice and will resent being forced
to listen to a prayer that departs from their religious traditions. Perhaps
if enough people object to the prayers, the City Council might be persuaded
to reconsider its practice.

Feather

That's just absurd, GaryP. Unfathomable, even. The intent is quite clear, yet they are beyond the scope of the law.

I wouldn't care if there were a buffer--like 10 to 15 minutes say--before or after the official session. But right before hand in my mind is no different from right after as far as intent goes. At least the buffer would allow non-believers to attend the meeting without having to hear their silly worship rituals.

It is clear they wish to invoke the favors of some mythical Sky Daddy for the purpose of governing, even if the invocation is not done during the "official" meeting.



Ahhh well. Time to go beat up on bits of wood and leather.

Toto

Michael Newdow has filed a lawsuit designed to get the Supreme Court to overturn Marsh v. Chambers. (He has become a Universal Life Church minister and applied for the job of Congressional chaplain to get around the standing issues.)

You can read about the ACLJ's valiant defense of those paid chaplains here

You can read about the history of Congressional chaplains here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=43137

The issue is basically a hot potato. Ruling against public prayer is going to arouse a lot of heated opposition (like the pledge case.) That's why you see courts ducking and weaving and finding problems with standing or procedure, or inventing the de minimis "ceremonial Deism" exception to the First Amendment.