tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post3751215112808536418..comments2024-03-28T13:08:26.494-04:00Comments on Religion & American Law: Questioning the Constitutionality of Certain Legislative PrayerBrantley Gasawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02894338478934982958noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-42932896782010097012013-09-10T14:30:30.208-04:002013-09-10T14:30:30.208-04:00In this case, the legislative prayer technically d...In this case, the legislative prayer technically does not discriminate against any religion. Any type of religious prayer can be led in these meetings; it is just that because most people in this country identify themselves as Christians, this type of prayer has dominated. My argument is that although one can claim that there is equality of religions, this practice emphasizes religion, in general and is not neutral to those who do not participate in religion. Even though I do believe that this practice would therefore be unconstitutional, the fact that a similar case, Marsh vs. Chambers, decided legislative prayer to be constitutional leads me to agree with Gabby that declaring this instance of legislative prayer to be unconstitutional would seem contradictory based on the precedent.Maddie C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18049241668905770415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-25537756862237475082013-09-09T21:55:12.231-04:002013-09-09T21:55:12.231-04:00My initial reaction reading this post was that Gal...My initial reaction reading this post was that Galloway's argument was not really legitimate. She claims that she was being forced to listen to these legislative prayers before city council meetings. While it was acknowledged that most of the clergymen who spoke were Christian, that does not imply that they were required to be Christian: any religious leader could spoken (or so that was what I gathered). But Gabby made a good point about how this is a case on a very slippery slope. If the Supreme Court rules that these legislative prayers are constitutional, then the Establishment Clause is basically undermined in that government officials are choosing to endorse one religion over others. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Galloway and the unconstitutionality of these prayers, then religious leaders from any religion could speak at these city council meetings, and that could open up a bag of worms: how many religions will be recognized and how many speakers will be allowed per meeting? If one religion is excluded from a particular meeting over another, who's to say the council is not showing a preference for one religion over the other? This is going to be a difficult decision for the Court to make, but I think it would probably be most prudent to claim ANY religious proceedings unconstitutional before city council meetings and that there should be no religious precursor to these secular meetings at all. Why does there even need to be a prayer at the beginning of these city council meetings, anyways?Sayeh Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02819285451257157344noreply@blogger.com