It doesn't serve a secular purpose, obviously. It serves a religious one - which, given that the US is one of the most religious countries in the world, is what most Americans want. The US Consitution does not require a secular state - only that an official religion not be established, AND that the free exercise of religion not be prohibited. This is part of the free exercise part, E Rocc. You may not like it, but so what? There are lots of things our government does that each person doesn't like.Thanks for being honest about what the purpose of this bill was.
However, such honesty presented before the US Supreme Court would not be rewarded. The right of free exercise is a right granted to individuals, not government. When governmental entities express religious preference as a matter of policy or practice, it is considered Establishment.
The Supreme Court established clear guidelines in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) as to when the Establishment clause is being violated. To meet the Clause, a law:
-must have a secular legislative purpose
-its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
-the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
As you pointed out, the 1954 law does not have a secular purpose. Equally obviously, its intent is to advance religion. Therefore, it fails a basic test that the Court has consistently applied over the last thirty years.
There's little if any chance that the Court will overturn Lemon, especially since the same Court voted 6-3 to forbid the elections for the "official" prayer before public school extracurricular activities in Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (1999). I believe Scalia knew this before he made the comments that caused him to disqualify himself.
-Eric