Edward Holzhauer, a
resident of Indio City, California has appeared in front of the Indio City
Council raising objection to the invocation that currently precedes City
Council meetings. Holzhauer has a long history of appearances in front of
the Indio City Council in objection to Mayor Mike Wilson’s policies, especially
those regarding religion and the First Amendment. The council currently
begins their meetings with a prayer, which Holzhauer claims violates his First
Amendment rights as it is an establishment of religion. The holding of
invocations before council meetings has been a widely discussed issue in
surrounding councils as well, and many other cities are trying to change the
law to forbid invocations. The current law states that “legislative bodies
can begin their meetings with a prayer even if it favors a specific religion.”
This law was the result of a Supreme Court case Town of Greece v. Galloway in
2014. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 split decision that
the town’s holding of prayer before their board meetings was not an
establishment of religion. The main concurring opinion stated that
members were not coerced into reciting the prayers or acknowledging the prayer,
and therefore this was not an establishment of religion. The Town of
Greece v. Galloway ruling allows legislative bodies significant leeway on
invocations as long as they are not discriminatory to any religious minorities.
In surrounding cities
that no longer have invocations in their agenda, there has been significant
backlash; people are claiming that not holding an invocation is a violation of
their right to free exercise. One speaker, Phyllis Burgess said, “I want
the council to know, you’ve not only offended those of us who do believe in
God, but you have deeply hurt me by separating me from the city hall.”
Despite the fact that city policy allows for an invocation to be held
before council meetings, the city policy also prohibits council members from
forcing any member in attendance to stand or bow; the current Indio City
Council invocation, however, asks members to stand and bow their heads.
Is it a
violation of the First Amendment to hold an invocation before city council
meetings?
The
First Amendment of the Constitution states that, “congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.” Advocates for the invocation believe that not allowing the
invocation is a violation of their ability to freely exercise their
religion. People who object to the invocation state that it violates the
establishment clause by promoting religion.
In
response to the issue of violation of free exercise, I do not think that a city
council’s refusal to allow invocations is a violation of free exercise.
This does not place a significant burden on religion as the holding of
invocations is not part of their religious practices. Therefore, this is
not a large enough burden on religion to overcome the issue of establishment.
I would
agree that this is an establishment of religion on the basis that it does not
pass the Lemon test. The Lemon test states that a law must have a secular
purpose, it must not inhibit or advance religion, and it must not promote
excessive entanglement between church and state. Allowing prayer, especially
prayer that favors a specific religion, before city council meetings does not
have a secular purpose promotes excessive entanglement between church and
state. Holding invocation does not in any way benefit the city council or
the state, and it is used solely as a means to give religion a place in the
city council. Because any religious group is granted the right to hold an
invocation at the beginning of city council meetings, so long as this group’s
request is approved, I do not think it advances or inhibits any specific
religion but rather it advances religion as a whole, by giving it a place in
government. Because of this, the holding of invocations at the beginning
of city council meetings goes against the Lemon test and therefore I believe it
is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The
city council should stop holding invocation in the beginning of city council
meetings because invocation does not have a secular purpose, and I would argue
that the holding of invocation actually inhibits the state as it forces time
that should be used discussing issues of the state to be used for religious
activities.
Another Supreme Court case that is relevant to this case is March v. Chambers. The case decided that the establishment clause does not inhibit hiring a chaplain for opening prayer before state legislative purposes in Nebraska. The majority reasoned on this case that tradition is important and if something, such as the tradition of an invocation, is integral to the history of our nation it has secular historical purposes. The court also reasoned that the clauses regarding religion are ambiguous and were not meant to bar every religious tradition, considering that congress has opened with a prayer ever since its “early sessions”. As a result of the ruling on March v. Chambers, I would have to disagree with you and argue that invocations before city council meetings in Idaho does not establish religion. The cases are similar in almost all aspects. Eradicating invocations before City Cousin meetings would clearly would go against the precedent set by March v. Chambers.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/463/783 & pg. 252-254 in Munoz.
When it comes down to it, I think the main argument against these invocations is the fact that it does not pass the lemon test. While arguments could be made on either side testifying that these invocations do not require the participation of everyone, or that the lack of invocations do in fact inhibit free exercise, the fundamental reasoning for this to be ruled unconstitutional lies in the failing of the test that was established to eradicate these types of separation issues. I believe these invocations advance religion, although no specific religion, and does not seem to have a secular purpose. I do find it extremely interesting that all of those cases mentioned by Julia have ruled these types of invocations to be constitutional in the name of tradition, which I agree is important however I don't think this is enough justification to be a secular purpose.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this ritual of saying a prayer before the city council meetings is an establishment of religion, and that prohibiting these prayers is not infringing upon free exercise of city council members. As you stated, there is absolutely no secular purpose to reciting these prayers. There is no compelling reason for this to be occurring at the meetings, and it does not infringe upon their free exercise because they are still entitled to practice their religion and pray when not conducting secular matters and infringing upon the rights of other people who do not hold the same beliefs. Although they may not be coerced, it can be imagined that it is uncomfortable for those who do not wish to participate to excuse themselves, or to sit through this prayer process. Even if the argument was made that it's rooted in tradition, that doesn't make it any less unconstitutional. I think relying on tradition, if they were to invoke this, would be a slippery slope as there are a lot of aspects of our history we could point to and say it's tradition when it is not to the best interest of everyone.
ReplyDeleteI agree that invocation at the beginning of city council meetings is unconstitutional. I think that the argument that the absence of invocation before meetings violates free exercise is unsuited. If council members want to use their free exercise right and pray privately then they can. I think this case can be related to how religion and prayer is treated and handled in public schools. Teachers are not allowed to pray with their students and students cannot use class time to pray in front of the whole class. I also agree that invocation doesn’t pass the Lemon test because the secular purpose of tradition isn’t imperative, it both advances and inhibits religion, and definitely promotes entanglement between church and state.
ReplyDeleteI think that looking at past precedent the prayer before a meeting does not violate the establishment of religion due to one point of the majority, which is that religion has always played a role in the historic traditions of America. But with more recent precedent and the implementation of the Lemon test the Supreme Court needs to make a decision, which precedent trumps the other. I agree that if the lemon test was applied then the prayer would not pass, yet according to Greece v. Galloway they have already decided that prayer before meetings are okay. One way to solve this is to have a moment of silence before a meeting when anyone can pray or perform any other religious act before a political forum.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah's proposition of having a moment of silence, where anyone can pray towards their respective religion. Or, members of the council who would like to hold an invocation can do so on their on own time, rather than the time of the council meeting. Asking everyone to stand and bow for the invocation, prior to the council meeting, can promote a specific religion, it can create some sort of divide between the people praying and the people standing and bowing. In this circumstance, I do not think using tradition is a valid justification, if does not pass the Lemon test aspect of having a secular purpose.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis of the case. The reciting of a prayer at a body of governments meeting implies the preference of the majority religion. I also agree with the use of the Lemon test in this case, stating that the reciting of prayer, at an otherwise secular meeting of the state, does not serve a secular purpose and furthermore causes entanglement. Although, I think it is noteworthy that these types of prayers, or even mentions of particular religious figures, mostly God, occur in the highest bodies and forms of government, The Supreme Court and American currency being two. I find it would be hypocritical of the state or federal government to denounce the city council's use of the prayer.
ReplyDelete