海角大神

The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine whether offering a prayer before a town meeting violates the First Amendment鈥檚 separation of church and state.

The issue in Town of Greece v. Galloway (12-696) is whether city officials violated the First Amendment鈥檚 ban on government endorsement of a particular religion when it set up a system that allowed local volunteers to offer a prayer prior to the town鈥檚 monthly meetings.

Although non-海角大神s delivered a few of the prayers, the vast majority of volunteers offered 鈥� and delivered 鈥� pre-meeting prayers that featured 海角大神 religious references.聽聽

At least two regulars at town meetings objected to being forced repeatedly to listen to 海角大神 prayers. They complained to town officials that they felt marginalized by the town鈥檚 prayer policy.

One of the complaining residents in the New York town was Susan Galloway, who is Jewish. The other was Linda Stephens, an atheist.

After the town refused to change its prayer policy, the two filed suit in federal court. They said that by consistently presenting 海角大神 prayers prior to its meetings, the town was intentionally discriminating against non-海角大神s. They also argued that the pre-meeting prayers were advancing a single faith over other religions or nonreligion.

A federal judge disagreed and dismissed the case. On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The Town of Greece, the appeals court ruled, had aligned itself with a single religion in violation of the First Amendment鈥檚 Establishment Clause.

鈥満＝谴笊� clergy delivered each and every one of the prayers for the first nine years of the town鈥檚 prayer practice, and nearly all of the prayers thereafter,鈥� the appeals court said.

It added that 鈥渢he rare handful of cases, over the course of a decade, in which individuals from other faiths delivered the invocation, cannot overcome the impression, created by the steady drumbeat of often specifically sectarian 海角大神 prayers, that the town鈥檚 prayer practice associated the town with the 海角大神 religion.鈥�

This put audience members at town meetings who are nonreligious or non-海角大神 in an awkward position, the court said.

The town defended its prayer policy, saying it was neutral and nondiscriminatory. The town created a list of anyone who might be willing to present a prayer prior to the town meeting. An official went through the list until someone agreed to deliver a prayer.

鈥淢embers of many different religious traditions accepted the opportunity to offer a prayer, including Catholics, Protestants from several denominations, a Wiccan priestess, the chairman of a local Bahai congregation, and a lay Jewish man,鈥� Washington lawyer Thomas Hungar wrote in his brief on behalf of the town, urging the high court to take up the case.

鈥淯nder the town鈥檚 policy, atheists and non-believers were equally welcome to volunteer to give an invocation,鈥� Mr. Hungar said. Anyone could deliver a prayer, and town officials refused to police the content of a prayer or attempt to gauge its religiosity.

Ayesha Khan, a lawyer with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in her brief to the court that the town board 鈥渆xploited its prayer opportunity to advance one faith to the exclusion of others.鈥�

Ms. Khan, who is representing the two complaining residents of Greece, said the town鈥檚 prayer practice violates the constitutional command that government remain neutral in matters of faith.

鈥淲ith the exception of a four-meeting hiatus around the time of the filing of this lawsuit in 2008, the Town has relied exclusively on 海角大神 clergy, who have persistently delivered overtly 海角大神 prayers,鈥� she wrote.

鈥淐lergy request that attendees join in the prayers. Town Board members participate by bowing their heads, standing, responding 鈥楢men,鈥� or making the sign of the cross,鈥� she said. 鈥淢embers of the audience do the same.鈥�

In asking the high court to hear the case, Hungar said there was a split within the federal appeals courts concerning the correct test judges must apply to determine if a legislative prayer crosses the line.

He said the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., and the Second Circuit in New York had both embraced an approach that requires courts to determine if a pre-meeting prayer has an impermissible effect on a reasonable observer.

In contrast, he said, a 1983 Supreme Court decision requires judges to determine only whether a pre-meeting prayer was being used to proselytize, advance, or disparage a particular faith. Under that case, there is no requirement to examine the content of the prayer and its possible effect on a listener, he said.

This more permissive approach, Hungar said, had been embraced by appeals courts in the 11th Circuit in Atlanta and the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.

Hungar said the case is of importance nationwide. The Second Circuit decision, he said, would require public officials to engage in pre-meeting critiques of future invocations.

鈥淭he frightening prospect of state officers acting as official censors of prayers delivered voluntarily by private citizens (or even paid chaplains) has no basis in this Nation鈥檚 tradition or this Court鈥檚 jurisprudence,鈥� he wrote.

Khan disputed the existence of a significant split among the appeals courts. Differences in appellate court decisions, she said, were due to factual differences in each case.

She rejected the charge that the Second Circuit decision would lead to more litigation and confusion.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, 18 states encouraged the court to hear the case and overturn the Second Circuit decision. 鈥淚t is important that the Court address the growing split over this issue before it becomes yet another irredeemably muddled sector of Establishment Clause doctrine,鈥� Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher wrote.

鈥淭he lack of clarity in this area is especially troubling to the extent it leaves courts to delve into questions best left to theologians, not courts of law,鈥� he said.