Prayer at the beginning of gatherings have long been a hot topic issue in the United States. From instances of community meetings, legislative sessions, school graduations, and more, the Supreme Court has ruled most often that invocations are permitted among adults. They specify that in most scenarios if content neutrality and coercion are properly dealt with, then invocation of deities in these settings are permissible and in the spirit of our history. Each case is slightly different however for the Supreme Court, with cases such as Marsh v. Chambers (1983), Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), Wallace v. Jaffree, and Lee v. Weisman (1992), all resulting in slightly different rulings, as the context of where these invocations took place and whom the audience was mattered so deeply. However, for the case I will discuss in this blog post, Marsh v. Chambers (1983) and Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) are the most important.
In the case between The Satanic Temple v. The City of Chicago, the Satanic Temple (TST) is suing over the fact that the Chicago City Council has been denying their ability to give an invocation at their meeting. More than 50 religious groups have given invocations in front of this City Council when TST first inquired about giving this invocation. The Council allegedly ignored the request, and after a period of around three years, Minister of Satan Adam Vavrick decided to file a suit against the Council, which is ongoing, and recently was permitted to move ahead with its motion.
Vavrick found it important to describe what TST is, and he claims it to be a “... religion [that] is an affirmation that you cannot touch me, because I am happy with who I am” (Block Club Chicago). The Temple does not specifically worship Satan, but they reclaim its symbolism to reject authority. TST does not incite violence nor would Vavrick’s invocation;
“Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat off the tree of knowledge, and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old. Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions and not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusionary categorizations. Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of one or all. That which will not bend must break. And that which can be destroyed by truth, should never be spared its demise. It is done.
“Hail Satan.”
To revisit the rulings in Marsh v. Chambers (1983) and Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), they both find that for adults, prayers can be allowed in Government settings. Marsh is most relevant, and specifically found that even specific Christian prayers before the Nebraska legislature is permitted, since they do not coerce members to participate, they allow for any religion to invocate, and they do not specifically call for a renunciation of any specific God or deity. The majority also called directly to historical precedence, and recounted that the constitutional congress used Christian prayer to open their legislative sessions. Another main point was that if someone, like the Senator Marsh were to be offended by any invocation, he could simply remove himself from the session at the beginning or simply not pay attention. While less directly comparable, Galloway was a much more recent case, and affirmed that these prayers may be allowed to open local town board meetings, which are in front of and for the public, which the minority described as particularly disturbing. However, the majority again referenced the historical tradition in our Nation of prayer in public settings, and found it not to be an establishment of religion in that setting as well.
Using these two precedents, I believe The Satanic Temple v. The City of Chicago case presents an interesting mix of the two. Both previous cases use historical tradition as an argument in the decision, and specifically reference Christian prayer in the historical tradition, and Satan is obviously a direct opposite of Christianity. However, in Galloway, the majority established that they must allow for all religious groups to invoke, regardless of how minority they may be. And, contextually this is in a legislative setting, much less open to the public, which means that there is less chance for coercion according to the Court. Reasonable adults in this situation are deemed to be less able to be coerced, and I agree. And, using the Court's logic in Marsh, anyone who takes offense to this particular invocation can simply leave the room. The crux of this case is a good test for the Court, will they respect the most outlandish religion in our popular culture? (Some might even attempt to claim TST as the antithesis of religion). But, based on the Court's understanding of the Constitution, and Madisons’ Memorial and Remonstrance, the First Amendment’s key purpose is to protect minority religions against the tyranny of the majority. Therefore, I find that the Court must protect TST’s constitutional right to free exercise, and that based on Court precedent, there is not an establishment threat.
In addition, in this setting, it is even more unconstitutional to ban TST since other religious groups were permitted to give invocations and this contextual setting has been deemed to not be coercive, the main threat of establishment clause cases. They are specifically denying a minority religious groups the same right to exercise as majority groups, and this is unconstitutional. Overall, I believe that if this case were to go to the Supreme Court, they should rule in favor of The Satanic Temple, as the City of Chicago is squashing their First Amendment right to hail Satan before the City Council, as outlandish as it may sound.
Sources:
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2024/04/satanic-temple-can-move-ahead-with.html
http://blockclubchicago.org/2023/05/18/satanists-sue-chicago-for-not-allowing-them-to-say-hail-satan-at-city-council-meetings/
https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2023cv02780/433114/25/0.pdf?ts=1711986779
12 comments:
Great post Thomas! This case was really interesting, especially considering the religion that's involved. I think it is very clear that the Satanic temple is not allowed to invoke prayer at the beginning of the city council meeting because of their own religious beliefs and offerings, which is unconditional. Since this religion is not mainstream, and contradicts Christianity in principle, as they worship Satan, the city council does not want to allow them to pray for everyone, which is unconstitutional as well. In my opinion, in agreeing with your points, I believe that the Satanic temple should be allowed to say its prayer. The point of the free exercise clause is to protect minority religions, and if other faiths are allowed to pray in the same setting, so should the Satanic temple.
I think this is a really interesting topic. My first reaction is to think of ways in which to prevent "hail satan" from being said, but when you really look at the issue that would be unconstitutional. This case presents a scenario where the government must work to prevent minority religion's rights, even when it goes against social norms and what justices themselves may believe in. I agree that telling the group they can not speak would be a violation of their free exercise rights.
Hi Thomas! Great post for the week. I agree fully with your analysis of this case and I think it demonstrates well how minority religions feel with the mainstream religion being Christianity. In most branches of government, there is a reference to the "All Mighty God". In the Supreme Court itself the opening proceedings ask for God to protect "this Honorable Court". These status quo practices stemming from Christianity are evident everywhere in our government even though this religious doctrine does not accurately represent the faith of every American. However, we hear that minority religions need to learn to deal with the unfairness at the price of being in a democracy. I can somewhat imagine the repulsion Christians would feel if opening proceedings were commenced with "hail Satan". It goes against everything they stand for, which can then further be applied to how minority religions feel. Acknowledgment of a particular God goes against all they stand for. But for the practice to still be constitutional, there needs to be equal access and opportunity for all religions. That means satanic worshippers need to be equally represented. The Supreme Court has pressed the importance of neutrality. The Establishment Clause prohibits the advancement of one particular religion and to satisfy this clause the satan worshippers should be allowed to "hail Satan". Their inability to do so is a violation of their Free Exercise rights and should be a wakeup call for Christian policy-makers to understand how unfair and insensitive their own practices are.
Hi Thomas!
This is a great post. I completely agree with your analysis and I think that the precedent cases that you use to support your argument, provide great precedent. I think it is important to highlight the neutrality in this case. Specifically if Christian prayers are allowed to start these sessions. It is important to have the government protect minority religion's rights. Based on the facts of the case, it is evident that the Free Exercise of the Satanic Temple has been violated.
This was a very interesting case and is very relevant as there have been many debates regarding where, when and what circumstances prayer can be allowed in public spaces. I agree with your ruling and analysis of The Satanic Temple v. The City of Chicago. According to the precedents set from Marsh v. Chambers and Town of Greece v. Galloway I believe that this prayer should be allowed. The one aspect of this case that differs from some of the other cases is that there is not a historical history regarding the prayer. As in the other cases it involves Christian prayer which has a historical nature. However, this prayer does not coerce individuals, nobody is forced to remain while the prayer is recited, and it is neutral. If the court was to rule that this was unconstitutional it would demonstrate discrimination to minority religions which would not be constitutional.
Hi Thomas,
I love that you confronted this case particularly because smaller religious groups are often exiled and set to live under less-accepting circumstances. I agree with your analysis that history and tradition play a key role in the court's assembly of opinions, particularly in the current conservative-dominated court. Nonetheless, the concerns of minority bodies need to be considered, and therefore, perhaps the state should incorporate no elements of religion, if it sees issue with incorporating Satanic beliefs.
Thomas, this was a really interesting case. While it does sound a little absurd and potentially unreasonable, given the context your provided in the precedent set in Marsh v. Chambers, I fully agree with your analysis on this case. I feel that many adults in the room would object to this by leaving the room or not participating in the prayer. They have the opportunity to do that and coercion is not a big question in this instance. This case displays that the protection of minority religions and the free exercise rights within the Constitution must be protected regardless of what one may believe in. Given those circumstances I believe that TST had been discriminated against and not given their First Amendment rights. Although I think if this case were to go to the Supreme Court, the Justices would debate and disagree on issues such as legitimacy and sincerity of this religion, and I can't say for certain what the majority opinion would likely be. I believe Justices who air on the conservative side would actually not find this unconstitutional.
Hi Thomas,
Very interesting post! I agree with you that the Satanic Temple should be allowed to give a prayer at the beginning of city council meetings. The precedents you outlined make it clear that the Supreme Court does not think that prayer before government sessions violates the Establishment Clause. I actually think that allowing for this type of prayer would emphasize the government's neutrality toward religion. Because the prayers said before meetings usually invoke Judeo-Christian traditions, the inclusion of a prayer from a minority religious group would show that this practice is not meant to advance a specific religious faith. Banning this prayer from the Satanic Temple would send the message that the government favors specific religions over others, which, in my opinion, would be a direct violation of the Establishment Clause.
Thomas,
Like those before me, I find that by denying the Minister of The Satanic Temple (TST), Adam Vavrick, the ability to deliver an invocation in front of the City Council, the City of Chicago is directly violating TST’s free exercise rights. The precedent has profoundly been set by 50+ other religious groups who were granted the ability to deliver their own invocations. This direct exclusion violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Constitution was framed in a way that specifically protects minority rights, which TST, a Satanic-worshiping religious group, clearly is. However, TST still holds the same free exercise rights as all other religious groups. Therefore, TST should be granted the ability to deliver an invocation in front of the Chicago City Council.
Awesome Post Thomas! I thought the facts you laid out and your analysis of those facts were superb. This case underscores the imperative of safeguarding the rights of minority religions and upholding the principles of free exercise enshrined in the Constitution, irrespective of individual beliefs. I argue that the inclusion of a prayer from a minority religious group should be permitted. Traditionally, prayers preceding meetings often align with Judeo-Christian traditions. Introducing a prayer from a minority religious perspective would serve to demonstrate that this practice does not aim to promote any specific religious faith.
Good post. I agree that since there were other religious groups allowed to make invocations and this particular context has been determined not to be coercive, that of course the primary danger associated with banning the TST would be even more wrong. It is unconstitutional that they are intentionally denying minority religious groups the same freedoms as majority groups. I think your right to say the Supreme Court should find in favor of The Satanic Temple if this case makes it that far.
This is a very cool post! One that at face value to me did not seem extremely complex but as I looked into it more and read threw me for a loop. Their is the big issue of trying to protect minority religions and practices in this piece of writing. I do think that in alliance with you that denying the Satanic Temple the chance to give his invocation at the City Council is violating their free excerise rights. I initially thought it would be crazy to allow such a speech but when looking at it with you're writing I see there is also no true coercion and threat. If the government were to forbid this in anyway then there would be a massive violation of the First Amendment.
Post a Comment