# is it legal to open a GOVERNMENT meeting with a prayer? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 9, 2006, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637 "2006-02-09T01:30:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/1 "2006-02-09T01:30:00Z")
[THIS](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=357702) thread got me wondering about this: Once a year the police department I work for has an annual inspection. ATTENDANCE IS MANDATORY. The meeting is opened by a prayer from the department Chaplin. Usually it just goes “Pastor Rotsap is going to say a prayer before we begin”. That doesn’t bother me at all. The prayer is usually less than a minute, and nobody is told they have to pray. Nobody even says “bow your head”. Nobody has ever been disiplined for not praying or for talking during the prayer. But in this goofy sue crazy world I’m just wondering if this is asking for trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/2 "2006-02-09T01:32:20Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > [THIS](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=357702) thread got me wondering about this: Once a year the police department I work for has an annual inspection. ATTENDANCE IS MANDATORY. The meeting is opened by a prayer from the department Chaplin. > > Usually it just goes “Pastor Rotsap is going to say a prayer before we begin”. That doesn’t bother me at all. The prayer is usually less than a minute, and nobody is told they have to pray. Nobody even says “bow your head”. Nobody has ever been disiplined for not praying or for talking during the prayer. > > But in this goofy sue crazy world I’m just wondering if this is asking for trouble. Considering that Congress and my state legislature both open with prayer, I suspect it is going to be found to be OK. Subject to the usual caveats - no one is forced to participate, no sanctions against those who don’t or extra rewards for those who do, etc. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/3 "2006-02-09T18:24:31Z")
It shouldn’t be, IMHO, but since almost every government body in the country has been doing it without fail since before 1776, 1789, and 1791, with no change in their practice since, it’s not going away any time soon. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/4 "2006-02-09T19:05:33Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > It shouldn’t be, IMHO, but since almost every government body in the country has been doing it without fail since before 1776, 1789, and 1791, with no change in their practice since, it’s not going away any time soon. > > –Cliffy I agree. I don’t think that my tax money should be spent to provide religious services for military personnel. If members want such services let them or their church pay for it. However, in view of the longstanding contrary precedent I don’t think my view of this is going to carry the day either. ---
**Author:** ![Avarie537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/48db29/32.png) [@Avarie537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avarie537)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/5 "2006-02-09T21:26:30Z")
We just had a big court ruling here in Indiana about this. The ICLU objected to denominational prayers being said before the opening of the General Assembly, and won their case. Here’s a link to an opinion piece on the ruling: [http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060129/OPINION01/601290402/1031](http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060129/OPINION01/601290402/1031) ---
**Author:** ![alterego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@alterego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alterego)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/6 "2006-02-10T00:39:47Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > If members want such services let them or their church pay for it. Explain, exactly, how a servicemember floating in the middle of the persian gulf for more than 90 days straight is going to “pay” for religious services. Better yet, let us allow their local mosque to “pay” for a religious authority to fly onto the ship or into the middle of the battlefield, on an individual servicemember basis. Yes, excellent idea. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/7 "2006-02-10T01:34:09Z")
If saying their prayers is that important to them, then they’ll find a way to pay for it. Or if it’s that important that prayers be said, then there should be no shortage of volunteer clergy to go pray with them. ---
**Author:** ![alterego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@alterego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alterego)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/8 "2006-02-10T02:10:08Z")
Our military is an all-volunteer force. ---
**Author:** ![VernWinterbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c67d28/32.png) [@VernWinterbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VernWinterbottom)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/9 "2006-02-10T02:30:41Z")
So far as I’ve ever been able to determine, the US Constitution prohibits government from _establishing_ one, official, national religion. It prohibits a theocracy. It doesn’t prohibit folks from saying prayers, even government folks. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/10 "2006-02-10T02:42:38Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I agree. I don’t think that my tax money should be spent to provide religious services for military personnel. If members want such services let them or their church pay for it. However, in view of the longstanding contrary precedent I don’t think my view of this is going to carry the day either. I hope that you realize that your tax money also is spent to provide everything from cars to housing to wraparound sunglasses to baseball tickets for military personnel. Just less directly. Anyway, you’d be surprised how inclusive the military chapel service is. I grant you, the _vast_ majority of military personnel–and, thus, the vast majority of chaplains and chapel services–are of the various Christian denominations. But Wicca is a surprisingly big hit at Lackland AFB for boot camp trainees, who also have the choice of attending Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. services. I don’t know if you’ve ever been in the military, but in boot camp and (I’m sure) on the battlefield, the chapel service–whichever one they choose–is in many cases what keeps the troops going from one week to the next. I’m not religious, but I was very religious (Jewish, FWIW) in basic training (where I had an unduly long stay), because it helped _a lot_. The military abides by the same religion rules as Congress: nobody has to participate, nobody suffers consequences by not participating in a particular service, nobody gets benefits by participating in the “right” one, etc. But when push comes to shove, even the most agnostic/humanistic trainees–read: me–would gladly take a couple hours of tranquil respite a week even at services for a range of faiths I didn’t believe in. If you realized just how huge that weekly chapel service is for the morale of the troops, you’d have a different viewpoint, I’m sure of it. Unless, of course, you’re of the belief that your tax shouldn’t go towards defense at all, which is a whole 'nother thread. > [@Otto](#): > > If saying their prayers is that important to them, then they’ll find a way to pay for it. Or if it’s that important that prayers be said, then there should be no shortage of volunteer clergy to go pray with them. Let’s make a template out of this and try it on for size with other examples. Keep in mind that I’m an agnostic saying this. “If **[verb]** is that important to them, then they’ll find a way to pay for it. Or if it’s that important that **[condition is met]**, then there should be no shortage of volunteer **[profession]** to **[do job without payment]** with/for them.” Verb 1: having a home Condition: they have a place to live Profession: landlords Verb 2: provide housing Verb 1: shooting enemies Condition: they can defend themselves on the battlefield Profession: gun-makers Verb 2: provide guns Verb 1: flying planes Condition: they get somewhere in particular Profession: aircraft manufacturers Verb 2: fly Verb 1: sailing ships Condition: they defend a coastline Profession: boat builders Verb 2: scrap together boats To you, those things may not sound analogous to the ability to worship in a military context. But they are. Again, I’m not a religious person _at all_, but spiritual services are so vital to troop morale–again, this is something that I think must be seen to be truly understood–that I would no sooner deploy soldiers without it than I would send them out without ammo. If soldiers had to pay for housing, guns, ammo, planes, or ships, they’d either have to do without or be broke before they finished pulling on their cammies. Either that or the landlords/gunmakers/aircraft manufacturers/boatbuilders you know are a lot more generous than the ones I know. Military personnel don’t just “find a way” to pay for the things they need. Defense can’t work that way. However, you wouldn’t find an argument here if you suggested that we shouldn’t have spent all that money flying them to the desert. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/11 "2006-02-10T02:44:15Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > [THIS](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=357702) thread got me wondering about this: Once a year the police department I work for has an annual inspection. ATTENDANCE IS MANDATORY. The meeting is opened by a prayer from the department Chaplin. > > Usually it just goes “Pastor Rotsap is going to say a prayer before we begin”. That doesn’t bother me at all. The prayer is usually less than a minute, and nobody is told they have to pray. Nobody even says “bow your head”. Nobody has ever been disiplined for not praying or for talking during the prayer. > > But in this goofy sue crazy world I’m just wondering if this is asking for trouble. I can easily imagine that this would be considered unconstitutional. It meets two basic standards that I understand (IANAL) to be important. Attendance is mandatory and it is run by a government body (the police force). For instance, as I suspect most people are ware, schools cannot have prayers. Around here, even school boards are prohibited from opening with prayer-though many people are appealing that ruling. While no one is required to attend a school board meeting, it is the only official way for a citizen to petition or speak with the board, so the courts are saying that is close enough to mandatory. It is a crazy idea in my opinion, but officially sanctioned prayer is also offensive to some people. So yes I think your case could be a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/12 "2006-02-10T02:47:54Z")
> [@VernWinterbottom](#): > > It doesn’t prohibit folks from saying prayers, even government folks. Of course not, but this threat doesn’t seem to be about “government folks” exercising their individual religious freedoms to say their own prayers or attend their own houses of worship or whatever. It’s about whether a government entity is allowed to officially **sponsor** prayer as part of its activities, given that government is supposed to be neutral on matters of religion. And my best shot at a GQ answer to that would be the same as that of most others here: namely, even though it does rather have the appearance of government entanglement with religion, it’s probably constitutional because it’s always been done. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/13 "2006-02-10T03:04:46Z")
> [@fetus](#): > > I hope that you realize that your tax money also is spent to provide everything from cars to housing to wraparound sunglasses to baseball tickets for military personnel. Just less directly. Hmmm. I’m pretty sure that baseball tickets are paid for out of (in the Navy the Morale, Welfare and Recreation fund) non-appropriated funds. The military gets cars for transportation and housing to live in. Why should I complain about that? And wraparound sunglasses are a personal expense item except for cetain MOS. > [@](#): > > Anyway, you’d be surprised how inclusive the military chapel service is. I grant you, the _vast_ majority of military personnel–and, thus, the vast majority of chaplains and chapel services–are of the various Christian denominations. But Wicca is a surprisingly big hit at Lackland AFB for boot camp trainees, who also have the choice of attending Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. services. I don’t know if you’ve ever been in the military, but in boot camp and (I’m sure) on the battlefield, the chapel service–whichever one they choose–is in many cases what keeps the troops going from one week to the next. I’m not religious, but I was very religious (Jewish, FWIW) in basic training (where I had an unduly long stay), because it helped _a lot_. The military abides by the same religion rules as Congress: nobody has to participate, nobody suffers consequences by not participating in a particular service, nobody gets benefits by participating in the “right” one, etc. But when push comes to shove, even the most agnostic/humanistic trainees–read: me–would gladly take a couple hours of tranquil respite a week even at services for a range of faiths I didn’t believe in. > > If you realized just how huge that weekly chapel service is for the morale of the troops, you’d have a different viewpoint, I’m sure of it. Unless, of course, you’re of the belief that your tax shouldn’t go towards defense at all, which is a whole 'nother thread. Irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Let’s make a template out of this and try it on for size with other examples. Keep in mind that I’m an agnostic saying this. > > “If **[verb]** is that important to them, then they’ll find a way to pay for it. Or if it’s that important that **[condition is met]**, then there should be no shortage of volunteer **[profession]** to **[do job without payment]** with/for them.” > > Verb 1: having a home > Condition: they have a place to live > Profession: landlords > Verb 2: provide housing > > Verb 1: shooting enemies > Condition: they can defend themselves on the battlefield > Profession: gun-makers > Verb 2: provide guns > > Verb 1: flying planes > Condition: they get somewhere in particular > Profession: aircraft manufacturers > Verb 2: fly > > Verb 1: sailing ships > Condition: they defend a coastline > Profession: boat builders > Verb 2: scrap together boats > > To you, those things may not sound analogous to the ability to worship in a military context. But they are. Again, I’m not a religious person _at all_, but spiritual services are so vital to troop morale–again, this is something that I think must be seen to be truly understood–that I would no sooner deploy soldiers without it than I would send them out without ammo. If soldiers had to pay for housing, guns, ammo, planes, or ships, they’d either have to do without or be broke before they finished pulling on their cammies. Either that or the landlords/gunmakers/aircraft manufacturers/boatbuilders you know are a lot more generous than the ones I know. Military personnel don’t just “find a way” to pay for the things they need. Defense can’t work that way. > > However, you wouldn’t find an argument here if you suggested that we shouldn’t have spent all that money flying them to the desert. All irrelevant. The various national churches would be able to raise the money to pay for such services in the military if they chose. And the question of non-military in the combat zone isn’t an insurmountable problem. And I’ve agreed in advance that my protest resembles dropping a stone down a bottomless well. You never hear of it again. But I just had to make the protest. ---
**Author:** ![VernWinterbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c67d28/32.png) [@VernWinterbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VernWinterbottom)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/14 "2006-02-10T03:14:04Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > government is supposed to be neutral on matters of religion. I don’t think neutrality is Constitutionally required. Again, what is strictly prohibited is the _establishment_ of an official “Religion of the United States of America.” Having a clergyman say a benediction at the opening of an annual Town Meeting is not against the rules. Having a mandatory event, such as mentioned in the OP, and simply opening that event with a blessing is not the establishment of a religion. It’s not a madatory religious service. It’s a mandatory gathering that happens to include a brief religious component at the beginning. It seems as though some folks wish to have the government actually _prohibit_ all expressions of religion, which to me seems more oppressive. I am a person who practices no religion, whose young child is not christened, and whose spouse is a pantheist who attends Unitarian Universalist services. In no way am I offended by having a Roman Catholic priest bless me once a year before I vote on whether or not to give the town’s firefighters another raise. . . In no way does that compromise anyone’s rights. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/15 "2006-02-10T03:30:24Z")
> [@fetus](#): > > To you, those things may not sound analogous to the ability to worship in a military context. But they are. No. No, they really aren’t. Not even close. ---
**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/16 "2006-02-10T06:08:01Z")
> [@VernWinterbottom](#): > > It seems as though some folks wish to have the government actually _prohibit_ all expressions of religion, which to me seems more oppressive. Where, exactly, is that said? > [@fetus](#): > > To you, those things may not sound analogous to the ability to worship in a military context. But they are. Actually, in no way shape or form are they remotely similar. (Or, when I bother to keep reading, “what Otto said.”) It might also interest you to know that **David Simmons** is a veteran, and is thus probably pretty aware of what the military spends money on. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/17 "2006-02-10T06:46:21Z")
> [@rbroome](#): > > I can easily imagine that this would be considered unconstitutional. It meets two basic standards that I understand (IANAL) to be important. Attendance is mandatory and it is run by a government body (the police force) The thing is, while the inspection is mandatory, nobody is required to pray. If someone walked out into the hallway during the prayer I can guarantee they wouldn’t get in trouble. It’s happened before. No problems. Also, the Chief never says “okay, now we’re going to say a prayer” . He simply says the Chaplin is going to say one. What if during his prayer the Chaplin turned to those who had bowed their head and said “HEY! I’m the one praying here! Do your own praying on your own time!” What if the Chief said " now officer Beitz is going to say a prayer", and I started praying for a raise? I’m not a religous leader. How would that violate others rights? ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/18 "2006-02-10T11:49:23Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > What if the Chief said " now officer Beitz is going to say a prayer", and I started praying for a raise? I’m not a religous leader. How would that violate others rights? Because as we get fatter and comfortabler and _bored_er, we’ve suddenly realized that we all have the right to never be offended by anything, anywhere. So your smoking offends me, you bastard. Your prayer offends me, you bastard. You have malinformed opinions about Jewish people which has no effect on me except offending me, you bastard. You have the nerve to get 2mpg less than I do in my green car, you offensive bastard. Your saying “monkeys eat bananas” offends me because it’s some shaded reference to your racism, you bastard. Yup; all we need is the amendment to our Constitution to make it official. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/19 "2006-02-10T20:01:29Z")
It depends. On the one hand [Marsh v. Chambers](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=463&invol=783) upheld prayer at the beginning of a state legislative session. On the other hand, [Lee v. Weisman](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=505&page=577) found prayer at a school graduation ceremony violated the Establishment clause. It distinguished _Marsh_ here: > [@](#): > > The atmosphere at the opening of a session of a state legislature, where adults are free to enter and leave with little comment and for any number of reasons, cannot compare with the constraining potential of the one school event most important for the student to attend. The influence and force of a formal exercise in a school graduation are far greater than the prayer exercise we condoned in Marsh. The Marsh majority in fact gave specific recognition to this distinction, and placed particular reliance on it in upholding the prayers at issue there. 463 U.S., at 792 . Today’s case is different. At a high school graduation, teachers and principals must and do retain a high degree of control over the precise contents of the program, the speeches, the timing, the movements, the dress, and the decorum of the students. Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). In this atmosphere, the state-imposed character of an invocation and benediction by clergy selected by the school combine to make the prayer a state-sanctioned religious exercise in which the student was left with no alternative but to submit. This is different from Marsh, and suffices to make the religious exercise a First Amendment violation. It applied similar logic to religious benedictions offered by students at high school football games in [Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-62) So the question is whether the mandatory inspection is more like the legislative session in \*Marsh \*or the school events in \*Lee \*and _Santa Fe_. The \*Lee \*Court found it significant that people were free to leave in _Marsh_. But by the time it got to _Santa Fe_ it was willing to look past the voluntariness of the decision to attend, and focused on the realities of the situation: > [@](#): > > ``` > The District further argues that attendance at the commencement ceremonies at issue in Lee "differs dramatically" from attendance at high school football games, which it contends "are of no more than passing interest to many students" and are "decidedly extracurricular," thus dissipating any coercion. Brief for Petitioner 41. Attendance at a high school football game, unlike showing up for class, is certainly not required in order to receive a diploma. Moreover, we may assume that the District is correct in arguing that the informal pressure to attend an athletic event is not as strong as a senior's desire to attend her own graduation ceremony. > > There are some students, however, such as cheerleaders, members of the band, and, of course, the team members themselves, for whom seasonal commitments mandate their attendance, sometimes for class credit. The District also minimizes the importance to many students of attending and participating in extracurricular activities as part of a complete educational experience. As we noted in Lee, "[l]aw reaches past formalism." 505 U. S., at 595. To assert that high school students do not feel immense social pressure, or have a truly genuine desire, to be involved in the extracurricular event that is American high school football is "formalistic in the extreme." Ibid. We stressed in Lee the obvious observation that "adolescents are often susceptible to pressure from their peers towards conformity, and that the influence is strongest in matters of social convention." Id., at 593. High school home football games are traditional gatherings of a school community; they bring together students and faculty as well as friends and family from years present and past to root for a common cause. Undoubtedly, the games are not important to some students, and they voluntarily choose not to attend. For many others, however, the choice between whether to attend these games or to risk facing a personally offensive religious ritual is in no practical sense an easy one. The Constitution, moreover, demands that the school may not force this difficult choice upon these students for "it is a tenet of the First Amendment that the State cannot require one of its citizens to forfeit his or her rights and benefits as the price of resisting conformance to state-sponsored religious practice." Id., at 596. > > Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship. For "the government may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use more direct means." Id., at 594. As in Lee, "[w]hat to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy." Id., at 592. The constitutional command will not permit the District "to exact religious conformity from a student as the price" of joining her classmates at a varsity football game. > > ``` On the other hand: 1. _Lee_ and \*Santa Fe \* both involved schools and students, which the Court consider different to some extent. 2. We’ve lost some Justices; and gained some. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637/20 "2006-02-10T20:56:33Z")
I think you all mean a _chaplain_, and not the Little Tramp guy Chaplin. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-legal-to-open-a-government-meeting-with-a-prayer/343637.md?page=2)