By Elliott Oppenheim, Lolo
I note with interest that the Planning Board did not approve prayer prior to its meetings. Phyllis Bookbinder’s view is upheld and sound and well reasoned. For a concise discussion of this issue, see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States.
I remember religion in my public school. When I was in elementary school, I vividly recall saying the Lord’s Prayer and reading The Bible every day before class. The prayer was not my prayer and the bible was not my bible.
Clearly, those who wish to pray may do so, but not as part of a regularly government convened meeting and not within the government building. Further, under current Supreme Court interpretations endorsing prayer by providing a location in connection with a government meeting would also violate.
The City Attorney would probably cite the following decisions:
While there are many cases on separation of church and state, Engel v. Vitale <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_468>, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962) stands for the proposition that any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion. The First Amendment prohibits State government involvement in religious matters. Prayer is an example of such involvement.
Lemon v. Kurtzman <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_89>, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971) established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment’s separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
In Stone v. Graham <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_321>, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) the Court found that posting the Ten Commandments in schools was unconstitutional. Then, in Wallace v. Jaffree <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_812>, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985) the State’s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for the statute was the encouragement of prayer. The majority was silent on whether a “pure” moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.
I grew up on the East Coast and was a member of a minority religion which did not acknowledge Christian beliefs. We were Jewish. I found it uncomfortable to spend most of December preparing for observances which my religion did not acknowledge and which it forbade. I was forced to sing Christmas Carols and ridiculed and humiliated when the teacher embarrassed me before the class for not participating. Until these decision, the overt anti-Semitism was excruciating.
No person should feel awkward when attending a properly convened government meeting because part of the meeting is a religious observance and they are not part of that religion.