Posted on 07/30/2011 12:48:31 PM PDT by Kaslin
Federal appeals court: Saying “Jesus” during public prayer is unconstitutional
As in most counties in America, the Board of Commissioners of Forsyth County, North Carolina, begins its public meetings with an invocation. These prayers are given by local religious leaders on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Given that 95 percent of local religious houses identify as Christian, it’s not surprising that many of the invocations include specifically Christian language, often closing the prayer in the name of “Jesus Christ” or “Jesus.”
Two non-Christians from the community with a population of approximately 350,000 sued, arguing that an invocation mentioning Jesus Christ during a public prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Even though the pair acknowledged that the Supreme Court held public prayers—called “legislative prayers”—are constitutional in the 1983 case Marsh v. Chambers, the federal district court in North Carolina sided with the protestors.
In a stunning decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed that judgment in a 2-to-1 decision, holding in the case Joyner v. Forsyth County that prayers unconstitutionally advance Christianity if references to Jesus are more than isolated, or if the content is otherwise too Christian for the court’s taste.
Writing for the majority, Judge Harvie Wilkinson - a respected appellate judge who was appointed by President Reagan - wrote that public prayers are for the purpose of welcoming and including the community to be involved in government. (That’s odd. I always thought it was to ask for God’s blessing.)
The predominance of Christian prayers violated Judge Wilkinson’s novel understanding, and so, joined by Barbara Keenan, who was appointed by President Obama, the court struck down the county’s longstanding practice, calling it “sectarian.”
Judge Paul Victor Niemeyer, a judicial conservative regarded as one of the smartest judges on the federal bench, wrote in a strong dissent: “Thus … the majority has dared to step in and regulate the language of prayer—the sacred dialogue between humankind and God. Such a decision treats prayer agnostically; reduces it to a civil nicety; … Most frightfully, it will require secular [authorities] to evaluate and parse particular religious prayers…”
This is yet another instance of a “heckler’s veto,” where one hypersensitive person in a crowd is offended, and makes the whole group conform to the heckler’s demands.
As I explain in my law review article, “In Whose Name We Pray,” published by Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, not only does Marsh v. Chambers allow “sectarian” prayers (i.e. mentioning Jesus), it would violate the Establishment Clause for any government official—including any federal judge—to censor the content of anyone’s prayers.
Under our Constitution, every American can pray in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, and government never has a right to interfere with religious beliefs.
This is the latest in a string of disappointing lower court decisions on public prayer. It’s time for the Supreme Court to revisit this issue.
nonsense
Oh, wait, I forgot.
Allah = Okay
Jesus = Not Okay
Nobody is going to abide by this ruling. It’s blatantly wrong.
This is why Republican presidents and state governors MUST appoint the most pure constitutionally conservative judges as possible. You can almost always count on judges to shift to the left as they live out their lifetime terms on the bench. Judges far too often live in ivory towers and lose touch with reality, so it is vital that from the outset they are unquestionably conservative in their judicial approach.
REQUIRING the saying of "Jesus" in a public prayer is unconstitutional as such an action violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
PROHIBITING the saying of "Jesus" in a public prayer is unconstitutional as such an action violates both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
This ruling needs to be appealed all the way to SCOTUS.
North Carolina ping.
I don’t see how it could be unconstitutional, but it isn’t very polite to pray using specific names when multiple religions are present. Its pretty standard practice to use a generic prayer when multiple religions are present.
I need to find the image of George Washington just saying, “WTF?”
No one should
And what is the penalty for saying “Jesus”? Go to jail? Pay a fine?
People should do what they want and ignore these idiots just like the students did at their commmencement speaches.
Unless they are beating people with a cane, nobody is “forced” to say “Jesus” in these prayers. And BTW, what is it about the name “Jesus” that scares the crap out of non-believers? I don’t care if I hear “Allah” in public, because it means nothing to me.
When the Soviet Union imploded from bankruptcy, the Russians rejoiced in the streets.
Sic semper tyrannis, always and everywhere.
Allah is just fine . . . Jesus, sorry you cannot say that name. This government is disgusting . . . and more Judges will be put on the bench with this kind of thinking in 2013.
Hussein Obama can not wait to fill the courts with his anti-Christian judges.
JESUS, pronounced (HEY ZEUS) is a common and revered name in Spanish speaking nations. These Judges are just revealing their Marxist roots and beliefs.
Polite? We have religious freedom here. This isn't the USSR or a country with a state religion.
it isn’t very polite to pray using specific names when multiple religions are present
People should do what they want and ignore these idiots just like the students did at their commencement speeches.
***************************
Yes. Dictators who are ignored are former dictators. They can leave quietly, like Gorbachev or Honecker, or they can contest the issue and be ‘kinetically’ removed like Mussolini or Ceausescu. Either way, a dictator who cannot command obedience is no longer a power.
This tyrannical idiocy is out of hand.
Anytime a judge makes a ruling like this they should have to cite a clear, understandable, unequivocal constitutional basis for their decision.
Which would be a good trick.
The court wants to be the Christianity police?
Let's hope that Jesus Gonzalez does not get mentioned in a public prayer.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.