Non-Sectarian Prayer

[Rick Duncan]

Well, the Court in Marsh did emphasize that "the
content of the prayer is not of concern to judges
where, as here, there is no indication that the prayer
opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or
advance any one, or to disapprove any other, faith or
belief." This was in the context of an attack on
legislative prayer based in part on the fact that "a
clergyman of only one denomination-Presbyterian--has
been selected for 16 years" to deliver the opening
prayer.

The Florida procedure--allowing each member of the
legislature in turn to invite a clergyman to deliver a
prayer--is an even better means of insuring that no
one religion will monopolize the prayer forum. Also
remember that in Lee v. Weisman the Court held that
one of the *forbidden* activities was for the school
to "direct and control the content of the prayer" by
demanding that the clergyman's prayers be
"nonsectarian" and consistent with the school's
"Guidelines for Civic Occasions."

I would suggest that when the state demands that
prayers meet certain guidelines to ensure that they be
"nonsectarian" there is indeed *more* not less tension
with the EC than there is when the state merely adopts
a neutral procedure, such as Florida's, allowing each
member to take turns choosing the person invited to
give an opening prayer.

There is no such thing as nonsectarian prayer, but a
state legislature may adopt a neutral procedure (such
as Florida's) for uncensored opening prayers. The
offended pro-abortion legislator will have her turn to
invite a person to open with prayer. If the person she
invites prays "to the God who celebrates reproductive
choice," I will not have any sympathy for pro-life
legislators who whine about the content of this
prayer. Religious liberty does not mean religious
cleansing of the public square. Nothing in Marsh
forbids a procedure like that of Florida.  --Rick
Duncan

--- Peliasberg at AOL.COM wrote:
> Rick may think we "have" to have sectarian prayers,
> but the Supreme Court
> explicitly disagrees with that conclusion.  The
> Court has clearly stated that
> sectarian prayers, such as those that invoke Jesus
> are unconstitutional in
> the context of a legislative session.  In the
> opinion of the Court, requiring
> that legislative prayers be non-sectarian does not
> increase the Establishment
> Clause problem, it ensures that the Estagblishment
> Clause is not violated.
> Peter
>

=====
Rick Duncan (conlawprof at yahoo.com)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com