Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow

Appeals Court OK’s Legislative Prayer

Barry, as you know, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an important ruling earlier this week on the constitutionality of prayer before legislative bodies.


In Cobb County, Georgia, a few local taxpayers challenged the County Commission’s practice of inviting community clergy members to offer prayers before Commission meetings on a rotating basis. “The clergy have represented a variety of faiths, including Christianity, Islam, Unitarian Universalism, and Judaism, and their diverse prayers have, at times, included expressions of their religious faiths.”



The plaintiffs claimed that allowing the clergy to end their prayers with reference to a specific deity, e.g., “Jesus,” “Allah,” or “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. They also objected to the fact that the majority of speakers are Christian because the volunteer clergy group “reflects the composition of the religious institutions in Cobb County.”


The Court of Appeals disagreed. In an opinion by Judge William H. Pryor, the court explained that the Supreme Court’s decision in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), “makes clear that ‘[t]he content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where . . . there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.'” Echoing Marsh, the court stated that it is not the role of judges “‘to embark on a sensitive evaluation or to parse the content of a particular prayer.'” In other words, “[w]hether invocations of ‘Lord of Lords’ or ‘the God of Abraham, Issac, and Mohammed’ are ‘sectarian’ is best left to theologians, not courts of law.'”



The Court of Appeals correctly noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Marsh did not impose a requirement that all prayers offered to open legislative meetings must be “nonsectarian” or otherwise avoid any words that may offend some listeners. In this regard, the recent Eleventh Circuit decision parted ways with some other lower court decisions that had imposed a ban on any “sectarian” references during legislative prayers.


The Eleventh Circuit’s decision is consistent with Marsh v. Chambers in which the Supreme Court upheld the Nebraska legislature’s practice of opening each legislative day with a prayer offered by a chaplain paid by the State. The Marsh Court noted that “[t]he opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country. From colonial times through the founding of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.” The Court acknowledged the fact that “the Continental Congress, beginning in 1774, adopted the traditional procedure of opening its sessions with a prayer offered by a paid chaplain.”



In addition, the Marsh Court explained that “the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.” The Court concluded that, “[i]n light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society.  To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making laws is not, in these circumstances, an ‘establishment’ of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the people of this country. As Justice Douglas observed, ‘we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.'”



Barry, I believe that the Supreme Court would agree with the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of Marsh – do you?



Comments read comments(3)
post a comment

posted November 2, 2008 at 10:45 am

That the religious sentiment forced on the people is “simply a tolerable acknowledgement [sic] of beliefs widely held among the people of this country” and that “we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being” is no justification. I now expect public bodies in GA begin again to proclaim the inferiority of the Negro people, with the justification that it would merely acknowledge the widely held beliefs of the people of GA, noting that Georgians are an intolerant people whose institutions presuppose racism.

report abuse


posted November 3, 2008 at 9:48 am

If this has been a tradition for way over 200 years, how does this infringe on the wall of separation if the founding fathers approved of it? I just wanted to hear your opinion. Thanks.

report abuse

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted September 28, 2009 at 9:14 pm

I would agree with the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of Marsh. As long as the prayers do not advance or inhibit any one particular religion, the content of the prayer should not be censored because of the First Amendment right to free speech. The key point you brought up, Dr. Jay, is that the framers of the Constitution did not think it was a violation to open meetings with prayer because this activity has been taking place since the very first session of Congress. Certainly, we need to look at the original interpretation of the First Amendment to determine what the meaning is today.

report abuse

Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading! ...

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!! ...

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm ...

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and ...

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of ...

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.