{"id":85,"date":"2008-10-31T15:31:30","date_gmt":"2008-10-31T15:31:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/10\/appeals-court-oks-legislative.html"},"modified":"2008-10-31T15:31:30","modified_gmt":"2008-10-31T15:31:30","slug":"appeals-court-oks-legislative","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/10\/appeals-court-oks-legislative.html","title":{"rendered":"Appeals Court OK’s Legislative Prayer"},"content":{"rendered":"

Barry, as you know, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an important ruling<\/a> earlier this week on the constitutionality of prayer before legislative bodies.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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.”<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

The plaintiffs claimed that allowing the clergy to end their prayers with reference to a specific deity, e.g.<\/i>, “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.”<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

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<\/i>, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)<\/a>, “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<\/i>, 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.'”<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

The Court of Appeals correctly noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Marsh<\/i> did not<\/i> 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.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision is consistent with Marsh v. Chambers<\/i> 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<\/i> 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.”<\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

In addition, the Marsh<\/i> 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.  <\/span>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.'”<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

Barry, I believe that the Supreme Court would agree with the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of Marsh<\/i> – do you?<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-85","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-religious-freedom"],"yoast_head":"\nAppeals Court OK's Legislative Prayer - Lynn v. Sekulow<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/10\/appeals-court-oks-legislative.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appeals Court OK's Legislative Prayer - Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"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…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/10\/appeals-court-oks-legislative.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-31T15:31:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jay Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Appeals Court OK's Legislative Prayer - Lynn v. Sekulow","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/10\/appeals-court-oks-legislative.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appeals Court OK's Legislative Prayer - Lynn v. Sekulow","og_description":"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…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/10\/appeals-court-oks-legislative.html","og_site_name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","article_published_time":"2008-10-31T15:31:30+00:00","author":"Jay Sekulow","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/10\/appeals-court-oks-legislative.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/10\/appeals-court-oks-legislative.html","name":"Appeals Court OK's Legislative Prayer - Lynn v. Sekulow","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-31T15:31:30+00:00","dateModified":"2008-10-31T15:31:30+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/10\/appeals-court-oks-legislative.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/10\/appeals-court-oks-legislative.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/10\/appeals-court-oks-legislative.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appeals Court OK’s Legislative Prayer"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/","name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","description":"A debate blog about church, state, faith and politics with Jay Sekulow and Barry W. Lynn","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf","name":"Jay Sekulow","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","caption":"Jay Sekulow"},"description":"Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional law.  He is also Chief Counsel of the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ). Jay Sekulow has also served as a faculty member for the Office of Legal Education at the United States Department of Justice.  As a member of the faculty he instructed Assistant United States Attorneys and investigators in the First Amendment issues associated with prosecution of obscenity. An accomplished and respected judicial advocate, Sekulow has presented oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in numerous cases in defense of constitutional freedoms. Several landmark cases argued by Sekulow before the U.S. Supreme Court have become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation.  In the Mergens case, Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses.  In the Lamb's Chapel case, Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities.  And, most recently, in McConnell v. FEC, Sekulow ensured that the constitutional rights of young people remain protected with a unanimous decision by the high court guaranteeing that minors can participate in political campaigns. A nationally recognized and respected defender of religious freedom, Sekulow has assembled one of the most prestigious law firms in the nation.  Founded in 1990, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses in constitutional law.  The ACLJ, under Sekulow's direction, is involved in public interest and public policy issues working to protect religious and constitutional liberties. In 2007, the Chicago Tribune concluded that the ACLJ has \"led the way\" in Christian legal advocacy.  In 2005, TIME Magazine named Sekulow one of the \"25 Most Influential Evangelicals\" in America and called the ACLJ \"a powerful counterweight\" to the ACLU.  Business Week said the ACLJ is \"the leading advocacy group for religious freedom.\"  Sekulow's work on the issue of judicial nominees - including possible vacancies at the Supreme Court - has received extensive news coverage including a front page story in The Wall Street Journal.  In addition, The National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the \"100 Most Influential Lawyers\" in the United States (1994, 1997).  He is also among a distinguished group of attorneys known as \"The Public Sector 45\" named by The American Lawyer (January\/February 1997).  The magazine said the designation represents \"45 young lawyers outside the private sector whose vision and commitment are changing lives.\" Sekulow brings insight and education to listeners daily with his national call-in radio program, Jay Sekulow Live!, which is broadcast throughout the country on nearly 850 radio stations.  Sekulow also hosts a weekly television program, ACLJ This Week, which tackles the tough issues of the day and is broadcast on a number of networks nationwide including the Trinity Broadcasting Network and FamilyNet.  Sekulow is also a popular guest on nationally televised news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS.  He frequently contributes articles and commentary to national publications and is often quoted in the nation's leading newspapers including USA Today, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times. A graduate of Mercer University, Sekulow graduated cum laude receiving both a bachelor's degree and doctor of jurisprudence from Mercer University where he served on the Mercer Law Review as an editorial staff member.  Following graduation, Sekulow served as a tax trial attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service.  In that capacity, Sekulow prepared and brought to trial tax cases on behalf of the United States Department of Treasury in United States Tax Court. He also received a Ph.D. from Regent University, with a dissertation on American Legal History, and is the author of numerous publications and law articles. Sekulow serves as a member of the Board of Trustees for The Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, DC.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/author\/jsekulow"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=85"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}