I agree with Professor Gibson that faithful Christians can pray without invoking the name of Jesus and with Professor Lund that this seems like the correct result under existing law (even Justice Scalia might agee) and I appreciate Professor Laycock's invocation of the great Alexander Bickel.
Wrong answers is what the wrong questions beget, One of my favorite phrases. But I wonder if the right question is whether government, as we know it in the 21st century, ever can avoid speaking religiously. While the monument questions don't put the question in the starkest form, the more things on which government chooses to speak, the more likely it is to either contradict some group's strongly held religious belief or minimize them by treating them as irrelevant. Government can, of course, avoid speaking in expressly sectarian terms, but the idea that this avoids (or even softens) the religious insult seems empirically wrong and rooted in a view of what religion is and where it ought to be allowed that is itself not religiously neutral. Maybe that resolution - itself a very liberal protestant denouement - is the best we can do, although the idea that this has resulted in less division and more liberty is not self evidently true. But, then again, perhaps we ought to ask again if allowing a prayer in Jesus' name really ought to constitute an establishment of religion. Rick Esenberg Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Marquette University Law School Sensenbrenner Hall 1103 W. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 (o) 414-288-6908 (m)414-213-3957 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:15 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name' Well actually, the court of appeals did not ban prayer in Jesus' name. Nor did the City of Fredericksburg ban prayer in Jesus' name. Prayer in Jesus' name is continuing all over the city. The City said it would not sponsor prayer in Jesus' name; if anything was "banned," it was only at official city functions where the City controlled the agenda and thus controlled whether there would be a prayer at all. I agree that this is a very awkward decision. But it is the inevitable result once we start down the path of allowing government-sponsored prayers. Wrong answers is what the wrong questions beget, and when the answer is that the best solution is to restrict the religious content of prayers, the system has asked the wrong question. The only way to fix this is to reconsider Marsh v. Chambers. Quoting Gordon James Klingenschmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Press release below. Please forward widely. Please call for interviews! > In Jesus, > Chaplain K. > ------------------------ > > Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'In Jesus' Name' > > Contact: Chaplain Klingenschmitt, www.PrayInJesusName.org, > 719-360-5132 cell, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > WASHINGTON, July 23 /Christian Newswire/ -- The Fourth Circuit Court > of Appeals today ruled that the city council of Fredericksburg, > Virginia had proper authority to require "non-sectarian" prayer > content and exclude council-member Rev. Hashmel Turner from the > prayer rotation because he prayed "in Jesus' name." > > Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the decision, said: > "The restriction that prayers be nonsectarian in nature is designed > to make the prayers accessible to people who come from a variety of > backgrounds, not to exclude or disparage a particular faith." > > Ironically, she admitted Turner was excluded from participating > solely because of the Christian content of his prayer. > > A full text copy of the decision, with added commentary by Chaplain > Klingenschmitt is here: > www.PrayInJesusName.org/Frenzy13/AgainstOconnor.pdf > > Gordon James Klingenschmitt, the former Navy chaplain who faced > court-martial for praying "in Jesus name" in uniform (but won the > victory in Congress for other chaplains), defended Rev. Hashmel > Turner: > > "The Fredericksburg government violated everybody's rights by > establishing a non-sectarian religion, and requiring all prayers > conform, or face punishment of exclusion. Justice O'Connor showed her > liberal colors today, by declaring the word 'Jesus' as illegal > religious speech, which can be banned by any council who wishes to > ignore the First Amendment as she did. Councilman Rev. Hashmel Turner > should run for mayor, fire the other council-members, and re-write > the prayer policy. And if he appeals to the Supreme Court, I pray he > will win, in Jesus' name." > > For media interviews, call: > Chaplain Klingenschmitt 719-360-5132 cell > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Web address: www.PrayInJesusName.org > > > > Source: > http://christiannewswire.com/news/558917273.html > > Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
