Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'

[Friedman, Howard M.]

I think we need to ask why so much passion is expended on the question of invocations to begin meetings of government bodies. I find it hard to believe that proponents feel legislators will make significantly different decisions if the form of prayer at the beginning of their meeting is slightly different. Isn't this really about garnering government recognition of the validity, or at least respectability, of a particular religious belief?  Isn't that why it is newsworthy when for the first time a Hindu or Sikh or Buddhist offers an invocation at city council or in a state legislature? I suspect that if a quiz were given to those in attendance, almost no one could repeat any of the content of an invocation a half hour after it was offered. But they could tell you who delivered it, or what religious denomination the person represented. That kind of jockeying for government recognition of particular denominations-- or for an implicit government statement rejecting supposed antireligious views-- seems to be just the kind of political divisions along religious lines that the Establishment Clause was supposed to prevent.
 
Howard Friedman

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Jean Dudley
Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 8:16 PM
To: chaplaingate at yahoo.com; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'




On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24,  2:51 PM, Gordon James 
Klingenschmitt wrote:

> Professors Lund and Essenberg seek the larger question, which I 
> believe seems to involve whether a government can pray, at all.  We 
> all agree individuals can pray, and the First Amendment protects 
> individual speech by private citizens.  But can governments pray?

Ostensibly, one particular form of government can pray;  a 
theocracy.  I suppose a monarchy such as the United Kingdom can pray 
as well, if the monarch is also the head of the state church.  
However, we are a representative democracy, and if *our* government 
prays, the prayer will of necessity be sectarian, and therefore 
exclusionary of other sects, and by default will be endorsing one 
religion over another and thus we have ipso facto a state religion.  
All well and fine it it's *your* religion, but not so fine if its not 
*your* religion.

Perhaps, Mr. Klingenschmitt, your question should be "should 
governments pray?".  To which I would answer a resounding, emphatic, 
"Not just no, but HELL NO!"

Jean Dudley
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20080725/6f2ea15c/attachment.htm