Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'

[Richard Dougherty]

I think the interesting  question in regard to Marsh -- for
the sake of the argument presuming it has failed -- is why it has
failed: because sectarians are willing to use it as a means of coercing
others into accepting their religious prayers and pronouncements, or
because secularists are unwilling to accept any religious display as
unobjectionable?  Or maybe a bit of both?
Richard Dougherty
-----Original Message-----
From: "Christopher Lund" <lund at mc.edu>
Sent 7/25/2008 9:16:51 AM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu, HFriedm at utnet.utoledo.edu
Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'"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."
Yes indeed to Professor Friedman's statement, and (I would add) it's
also the sort of divisions that Marsh itself was trying to prevent.  I
tend to see Marsh as an earlier Van Orden -- government gets to act
religiously, but not too much.  Breyer says in Van Orden that upholding
the momument (not striking it down) is the best way to avoid
"religiously based divisiveness."  I bet Marsh court had a thought or
two along those lines -- that the best way to keep the peace was by
approving legislative prayer with some (what it thought to be modest)
strings attached.
Can we all agree that Marsh has utterly failed in this regard?
Best,
Chris
Christopher C. Lund
Assistant Professor of Law
Mississippi College School of Law
151 E. Griffith St.
Jackson, MS  39201
(601) 925-7141 (office)
(601) 925-7113 (fax)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20080725/c20d9b3f/attachment.htm