Again, that there may be difficulties is not an excuse for illegal acts. If some sect or another chooses not to supply clergy, the troops may conduct their own services or the affected troops are free not to enlist in the first place without assurances from their denomination that their religious proclivities will be met. It should not be the role of the State to stand in for a church.
Which is fine, and something I have no problem with. It’s when the line is crossed between non-secular counseling activities to paying for the conducting of religious ceremonies. I feel the same way about prisons. There should be non-secular counselors but any religious services should be conducted either by volunteer clergy or the prisoners themselves.
Why shouldn’t the military let you out if you’re unable to perform your duties under the existing circumstances? If no religious services are paid for by the military, no volunteer clergy are willing to step in and the soldiers themselves are unable to lead the services, then the servicemember needs to either be put somewhere where circumstances allow for the religious services to be conducted or the servicemember should be separated.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I do believe that it’s a violation of the First Amendment. I simply don’t know it for a fact.
I think I screwed up. If manhattan were here my ass would be in a sling for tossing what turns out to be a hotly disputed political(?) issue into GQ. Sorry as hell about that.
To refrain from debate-type comments here I do think this GQ is completely answered. It’s definitely legal to open a government meeting with a prayer. Will it always be that way? Not necessarily. And is it without limitation? No. But in general the SCOTUS has not made the general practice illegal, and to be honest there’s easy proof of that via a simple search of FindLaw.com for the Marsh decision.
I am surprised this issue is even open for discussion. I was just at a graduation the other day, it opened and closed with a prayer. Nobody commented on it. Just the way things are done.
In America graduations, at least from High Schools are typically a no-no place when it comes to prayer. There have been several court cases concerning this issue and the district courts have always ruled against prayer at graduation. I don’t think it’s ever even reached the SCOTUS as an issue because it is considered to be part of the “settled” law concerning no school prayer.
Obviously this does not apply to private religious High Schools or universities.
The big difference between prayer in school and prayer in Congress (at least from the SCOTUS standpoint) is in school you’re a captive audience, to be forced into prayer there would force students to engage in weighing their right to an education versus their religious rights (and the right to not be religious) and the SCOTUS doesn’t think that’s appropriate. In accepting Congressional prayers SCOTUS tends to rely heavily on the historical argument, ie that the very people who wrote the first amendment opened the very session in which they wrote that amendment with prayer.
He’s right, the Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue prayer at public meetings other than legislative ones.
The two federal appeals courts that have considered the issue have concluded that the prayers in question, timed as they were were, in fact, illegal. *See *http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990330/973082.htm (6th Cir. 1999) (opening school board meeting with prayer violates Establishment Clause); http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032069.P.pdf (pdf) (4th Cir. 2004) (affirming lower court’s ruling that “practice of members of Town Council invoking name(s) specifically associated with the Christian faith at Town Council meetings violate[d] the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”); and cf.http://www.acluva.org/opeds/Apr102005prayer.html (ACLU’s response to an attempted legislative work-around); http://www.childs-halligan.com/pubs/LAM2004-0818.htm (suggesting that the Sixth Circuit’s ruling was broader than the Fourth Circuit’s;“The Fourth Circuit also ruled, however, that public officials may offer brief invocations before engaging in public business, as long as such invocations are “non-sectarian” and “non-proselytizing.” It also indicated, without expressly deciding, that public bodies likely would not violate the First Amendment if they allowed members of various religions to offer brief prayers on a rotating basis, primarily because no religion would be “advanced” or “disparaged” by the public body through such prayers.” "In contrast to the Fourth Circuit’s decision affirming the right of public bodies to offer non-sectarian prayers, the Sixth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ruled that public bodies may not open meetings with prayer. )
How do folks here stand on the notion of inmates in prisons being provided the services of a chaplain?
Keep in mind that the First Amendment splits in two on this score - it prohibits an establishment of religion but also prohibits interference in the free exercise of religion by individuals and groups.
Servicemembers and inmates alike are individuals with religious needs that must be met, and because of their relationship with the government said government must make provision for their First Amendment rights to be expressed. Doing so creates no establishment violation, in my opinion, since the purpose is to allow for these individuals to be free.
Can’t say as I am intimately familiar with the case law on religion in prison, but it strikes me as there is a difference between permitting inmates to pray, conduct services on their own, etc. and actually paying for clergy to conduct them. I would imagine that, say, a Santeria practitioner who is incarcerated would not be allowed to practice ritual animal sacrifice and that denying him the practice would not be unconstitutional. The courts have routinely found that prisons can put restrictions on reading material for prisoners that would never stand outside of prison. Similar to servicemembers vs civilians, the rights of prisoners are less expansive than those of the non-incarcerated.
Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972) (reversing dismissal of complaint by Buddhist that he was denied various accommodations for his religious beliefs and was punished for sharing them).
Perhaps the most useful part of the opinion in this context is footnote 2:
Justice Blackmun concurred in the result of this per curium opinion, and echoed the sentiment of footnote 2:
This statute is also tangentially relevant:
Last year, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the statute under the Establishment Clause. Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)
In doing so, the Court implicitly endorsed the provision of chaplains by the Ohio prison system:
