First, and I know I run the risk of pissing people off for whom these issues are important, I am gratified to see that no less an authority than Madison, and all those years ago to boot, recognized that some of these things are trivial. This, IMO, is one; “In God We Trust” on money is, again IMO, another. I have just always thought that there were far more egregious constitutional battles deserving the good fight. I will now don my asbestos undies if people wish to take forceful issue with this.
[qulote]Note added in preview: thanks for the cite, Jodi!
[/quote]
You betcha. Sorry to disappoint you, Eve; who said law is pretty? 
Uh, no, I don’t. Because I haven’t looked and I frankly don’t have time to today. I assume there are, but I haven’t even read Marsh all that closely, so the honest answer is “I don’t know.”
Actually, my personal opinion is that it is better to have sectarian prayers (“in the name of Allah . . .”) that reflect real denominations or beliefs than to have prayers that are so general they don’t really reflect anyone’s true belief (“dear Spirit of Goodness, however each of us may choose to perceive you and call you . . .”). But, like you, I’d like to see them take turns, so to speak, to reflect that while not everyone believes the same thing, everyone may wish for blessings upon the gathering.
Well, to take a flyer at it, I think it is easier to argue that a prayer does not constitute the advancement of a particular religion – a constitutional no-no – if you keep it non-sectarian. My opinion, as set forth above, is that a prayer ought to be able to be sectarian within reason and still not constitute an advancement of a particular religion, if you do not have the same religion doing the prayer every year. But the other way to handle it and stay on the right side of the constitutional line – and probably the safer way to handle it – is to mandate that the prayers be strictly non-sectarian.