6th Circuit on Friday affirmed decision to deny an injunction on legislative prayer pending trial.

[rug]

21 page decision:

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0667n-06.pdf

[PoliticAverse]

1. First Prayer of the Continental Congress...

http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/continental.html

Congress opening prayer archive...
http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/

[rug]

2. Wow, thats an artifact.

I didn't know they kept those records. Thanks for posting it.

[PoliticAverse]

3. MARSH v. CHAMBERS - 463 U.S. 783 (1983)

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_82_23

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court upheld the chaplaincy practice. In his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger abandoned the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, which had been the touchstone for cases involving the Establishment Clause. In its place, Burger rested the Court's opinion on historical custom. Prayers by tax-supported legislative chaplains could be traced to the First Continental Congress and to the First Congress that framed the Bill of Rights. As a consequence, the chaplaincy practice had become "part of the fabric of our society." In such circumstances, an invocation for Divine guidance is not an establishment of religion. "It is," wrote Burger, "simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."

Note that the court cases on this issue hinge on whether the invocations promote religion in general (ok) or
instead promote a specific religion (a violation of the 'establishment clause').

[rug]

4. That's one of the cases the Distrct Court relied on in denying the motion for a p.i.

[struggle4progress]

5. Thanks for that informative link

[cbayer]

6. Would you consider summarizing this?

I might spend all day trying to download it.

[rug]

7. The pdf wouldn't let me cut and paste but here's a summary.

Hamilton County opens its meetings with prayer led by a private citizens..

The complaint is that this prayer violates the establishment cause and, further, that the prayers were Christian.

The County then issued a written policy to "rotate" the prayers among various faiths.

After the suit was filed in federal court the plaintiff sought an injunction barring prayer until trial on the ground that, of the two sessions held after the suit was filed, the prayers were still Christian. The district court denied it and this appeal followed.

Both courts held the Lemon test did not apply to legislative prayer cases, but that Marsh, mentioned above, did. It holds that legislative invocations are constitutional provided they did not involve proselytizing.

The district court viewed the complaint as challenging the practice as unconstitutional on its face. Viewing the written policy as belief neutral, it found that, once implemented, this legislative prayer does not proselytize.

Finally, it held the two prongs, likelihood of success and irreparable harm, necessary to issue a preliminary injunction, were absent.

If you get a chance, read it. There's a good dozen pages discussing the governing case law.

[cbayer]

8. Thanks for that.

The distinction about proselytizing seems too narrow to me.

The question is about endorsement, imo. If the prayers (which I would prefer to call invocations) always reflect one religion, that's endorsement. If they do, in fact, rotate and include members of the non-religious community and members of small religious communities, that doesn't seem like endorsement.

I will try and download, but the length of time it takes really makes me a bit choosy about what I open.

[rug]

9. This site should have it soon.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/

And it's free!