Non-Sectarian Prayer

[Michael McConnell]

It is a small point, but I think Peter Eliasberg greatly overstates
his claim that the Court has ruled that sectarian legislative
prayers are unconstitutional. The holding in Marsh was not limited to
nonsectarian prayer (whatever that might be), and the
historical evidence on which the decision was based does not
support any such distinction. The description of Marsh in
the Allegheny plurality opinion was dictum. The most one can
really say is that it is *possible* that the Court might distinguish
Marsh in some future case on the ground that the prayers in Marsh
were nonsectarian. My guess is that if there were argument on the
issue, the Court would realize that the sectarian/nonsectarian line
is impossible to draw in this context, and would conclude either that
all legislative prayers are constitutional or that all are
unconstitutional.

-- Michael McConnell (U of Utah)