Prayer In Public Meetings

Religion is one of the most controversial issues in society today. The concern of allowing prayer in schools is an on-going debate and has resulted in numerous lawsuits. Religious school clubs, after school activities, curriculums, and moments of silence during school are just a few of the court cases that judges have administered. People in favor of prayer in schools believe that their children can only learn certain values through religious practice. On the other hand, an individual against religious practice in schools views this issue as an infringement on his or her children’s rights as Americans.

The case of Wallace v. Jaffree calls into question the constitutionality of an Alabama statute that authorized teachers to lead a one-minute period of silence for “meditation or voluntary” prayer in all public schools. Ishmael Jaffree, the parent of three students in the Mobile County Public School system filed a complaint that two of his three children had been “subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination,” as a result of Alabama statute 16-1-20.1 and asked for an injunction prohibiting Mobile County schools from “maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services.” The purpose of Jaffree’s complaint was to prohibit the devotional services occurring in his children’s school and the consequent mockery of his children that occurred when they refused to recite the prayers to “Almighty God” (Stevens, 40). This type of law in Alabama public schools was not the first of its kind. Prior to statute 6-11-20.1, Alabama passed law 16-1-20 authorizing one minute of silence in public schools for meditation. After the authorization of statute 16-1-20.1 came 16-1-20.2, which allowed teachers to lead “willing students” in a prayer (Stevens, 40).

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe (SFISD V. Doe) case, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented, “It [the ruling] bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life” (“United”). Separating religion and state has always been a matter of concern for the United States, as shown by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of our constitution. Although there have been many cases revolving around the relationship between the church and the state, SFISD V. Doe is among the most notable. By examining the background, reflecting on the decision, and analyzing the impact of the SFISD V. Doe case,

Case: In the late 1950's the New York State Board of Regents wrote and adopted a prayer, which was supposed to be nondenominational. The board recommended that students in public schools say the prayer on a voluntary basis every morning. In New Hyde Park Long Island a parent sued the school claiming that the prayer violated the first amendment of the constitution. The school argued that the prayer was nondenominational and did not attempt to "establish or endorse" a religion and thus that it did not violate the establishment clause.

The prayer was, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country” (Oyez 1). The state of New York approved the prayer, and the prayer was nondenominational. Children whose parents did not want them to recite the prayer did not have to participate, and were excused; reciting the prayer was voluntary. Therefore, the prayer was not mandatory and was supposed to serve as a purpose of moral education only for those who wanted to acknowledge God as the source of all blessings. However, New York Lawyers argued that the prayer offended the Establishment Clause, suggesting that the state of New York was officially approving a religion by approving the prayer. This action eventually led to the Supreme Court ruling the prayer as unconstitutional. With the success of ruling Engel v. Vitale unconstitutional, the case set a precedent for many more court cases in which the Supreme Court used the Establishment Clause as a jurisdiction for removing religious practices in public schools.

Supreme Court, my office cannot shrink from a case or stand mute because the case is controversial. It’s important for Indiana to weigh in on the upcoming Supreme Court case of Galloway v. the Town of Greece, New York, because the Indiana House of Representatives was subjected to a similar lawsuit in recent years. Municipal and state officials face uncertainty when deciding whether to start legislative meetings with prayer, and the Supreme Court could bring an end to that confusion.

Town of Greece, New York v. Susan Galloway was a Supreme Court case that posed the question of whether or not the town of Greece should be allowed to open their board meetings with voluntary prayer that was almost always Christian prayer. The defendant in this case was the town of Greece, which is located in the state of New York and has a population of 94,000 people (opinion p.1). In 1999, under new leadership, the town of Greece made the transition from opening each town board meeting with a moment of silence to opening with a prayer (opinion p.1). The opinion states that the prayer was supposed to, “place town members in a solemn and deliberative state of mind, invoke divine guidance in town affairs, and follow a tradition practiced by Congress and dozens of other state legislatures (opinion p.2).” The prayer was given each month by an unpaid volunteer clergyman. After this person gave the prayer they were then named the “chaplain for the month” (opinion p.2). Anyone could volunteer to be a chaplain no matter what religion they practiced or even if they practiced no religion at all (opinion p.2). However, almost every single chaplain was Christian (opinion p.2). One very important fact about the case is that the town of Greece did not provide any guidelines or suggestions about what the prayers should include. In fact, they didn’t even read the prayers beforehand because they believed that would be impeding the chaplains’ first amendment right (opinion p.2). This meant

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared that phrase did indeed endorse religion which was contrary to the law and the Constitution. The suit was, however, dismissed because Mr. Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and could not, by law, file a suit on her behalf.

May it please the court, I come here today to address an issue that is central to the constitutional foundations of our nation: that is, the ongoing debate regarding the First Amendment, religious liberty and the separation of church and state. Specifically I wish to discuss the current controversy that involves the matter of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley.

On June 27, 2002, the ninth circuit court ruled that the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. For years, people have been debating the issue of church and state. Some believe that the Pledge of Allegiance establishes a religion and some say that it doesn’t matter. We believe that the majority opinion of the judges is correct.

The question in the case of Wallace vs Jeffrey is did Alabama’s state law authorizing a period of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer” violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment? My answer is Alabama state did not violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. Which puts me on the side of George Wallace. Alabama state has the constitutional right to allow a voluntary or meditating minute throughout the day. There are three solid arguments to prove evidence towards this case on why George Wallace is the better side. The first being not involving state and religion, second being Freedom of religion from the first amendment, third being the respondents precedent cases are irrelevant towards the case being displayed.

While the first amendment endows several paramount freedoms, it can, at times, be onerous to understand. Both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause is imperative to our freedom, the Supreme Court has historically argued various ways regarding these two clauses. Our founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, saw the importance of creating a separation between church and state. As such, no national religion was to be declared, and still has not been. As such, there are varying approaches to establishment. By examining the historical decisions regarding these clauses, I have found that while it is crucial to separate the church and state, these two entities can still, in some capacities, intermingle. In this specific context of the Missouri Scrap Tire Grant Program, it is acceptable for Trinity Lutheran Church, and more specifically, their Learning Center, to receive financial support in order to renovate their playground for safety reasons.

Summary of pertinent facts in case: In 2010, a small town of about 96,000 in Rochester, New York was put in the spotlight by the case of Town of Greece V. Galloway (Rose, 191). This case was significant in that it followed the precedence that was set before it by Marsh V. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) when the court upheld the practice of starting legislative sessions with an invocation (Klukowski, 72). The small town of Greece started a practice of praying at its monthly board meetings upon the election of a new Board chair named John Auberger. Before his election the town had moments' of silence before their meetings. In 1999, Mr. Auberger began a new tradition by inviting clergy from various religious institutions in the town. He would call

he issue that has come before the Court is whether or not the Christian tenets and prayer to a nondenominational God is in violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause. The Court has ruled, based on tests developed from Lemon v. Kurtzman and Agostini v. Felton that both the Christian tenets and prayer in the Court is a violation of the First Amendments Establishment Clause.

At the beginning of each school day in the state of New York the board of regents enabled short, volunteer recitations of prayers. It was ruled that it went against the “ establishment of religion” in the First Amendment because although they were not forced to do it still in a way was involved with the government and favoring a religion.