Judge bars Vt. town from prayer at town meeting

[cali]

LISA RATHKE, Associated Press
Updated 07:28 p.m., Friday, June 1, 2012


MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — A Vermont judge has banned the small town of Franklin from holding a prayer at the opening of its annual Town Meeting in March, ruling that the tradition is unconstitutional.

The superior court judge this week sided with a Franklin woman who sued to have the prayer blocked after repeatedly objecting to it at the meetings over the years.

"This is wonderful because it shows that a court in the United States believes in the principles that this nation and this state were founded on," Mariyln Hackett said Friday.

"I hope and believe that it's a landmark case that will set a precedence on use of prayer at government meetings," she said.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Judge-bars-Vt-town-from-prayer-at-town-meeting-3602717.php#ixzz1wal95S8s

[malthaussen]

1. "Oh, shit, we forgot the silent prayer!"

Attributed to President Eisenhower at the opening of a cabinet meeting.

-- Mal

[DontTreadOnMe]

2. Good news

Go take your prayer.. to your private property, and stop wasting OUR taxes dollars on public time.

[kestrel91316]

3. All these public prayer freaks need to go back and review

Jesus' explicit command in the bible about how to pray: silently in one's own closet.

[Neue Regel]

4. The authors of the Constitution didn't think it was unconstitutional

And you would think they would have known the intent and application of their own Constitution.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marsh.html

MARSH v. CHAMBERS
U.S. Supreme Court
463 U.S. 783 (1983)
Decided July 5, 1983

The question presented is whether the Nebraska Legislature's practice of opening each legislative day with a prayer by a chaplain paid by the State violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country. From colonial times through the founding of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom. In the very courtrooms in which the United States District Judge and later three Circuit Judges heard and decided this case, the proceedings opened with an announcement that concluded, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." The same invocation occurs at all sessions of this Court.

The tradition in many of the Colonies was, of course, linked to an established church, but the Continental Congress, beginning in 1774, adopted the traditional procedure of opening its sessions with a prayer offered by a paid chaplain.. Although prayers were not offered during the Constitutional Convention, the First Congress, as one of [463 U.S. 783, 788] its early items of business, adopted the policy of selecting a chaplain to open each session with prayer. Thus, on April 7, 1789, the Senate appointed a committee "to take under consideration the manner of electing Chaplains." On April 9, 1789, a similar committee was appointed by the House of Representatives. On April 25, 1789, the Senate elected its first chaplain, id., at 16; the House followed suit on May 1, 1789. A statute providing for the payment of these chaplains was enacted into law on September 22, 1789.

On September 25, 1789, three days after Congress authorized the appointment of paid chaplains, final agreement was reached on the language of the Bill of Rights., Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.

Standing alone, historical patterns cannot justify contemporary violations of constitutional guarantees, but there is far more here than simply historical patterns. In this context, historical evidence sheds light not only on what the draftsmen intended the Establishment Clause to mean, but also on how they thought that Clause applied to the practice authorized by the First Congress - their actions reveal their intent. An Act "passed by the first Congress assembled under the Constitution, many of whose members had taken part in framing that instrument, . . . is contemporaneous and weighty evidence of its true meaning."

It can hardly be thought that in the same week Members of the First Congress voted to appoint and to pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment for submission to the states, they intended the Establishment Clause of the Amendment to forbid what they had just declared acceptable. In applying the First Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be incongruous to interpret that Clause as imposing more stringent First Amendment limits on the states than the draftsmen imposed on the Federal Government.

[cali]

5. the judge relied on the VT Constitution

from the article:

Hackett had argued that the Christian prayer violated the Vermont Constitution's protection against forced participation in religious worship. Superior Court Judge Martin Maley this week agreed.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Judge-bars-Vt-town-from-prayer-at-town-meeting-3602717.php#ixzz1was49a78

[former9thward]

7. The U.S. Constitution trumps any state constitution.

If the town appeals the decision will be struck down. Afterall everyday congress is in session they start with a prayer.

[cali]

8. The town has been engaging in in Christian prayer

on TM day. The Constitution of the United States bars state endorsement of any given religion.

Marilyn Hackett of Franklin said her belief that the Christian prayer read at the beginning of town meeting violated her constitutional right not to attend religious worship.

For years, the town moderator has invited a local pastor to read a prayer addressed to the Trinity that followed the Christian doctrine that God is three divine persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/94708/court-rules-against-prayer-at-franklin-town-meetin/

And this is Vermont. You don't get away with shoving religion down our throats in this state.

[dems_rightnow]

9. They will get away with it if the town appeals.

It's already been decided. If they appeal, they win.

[cali]

10. not if it's Christian prayer, they won't

that is NOT constitutional.

and as I said, this is Vermont. Will the town appeal? Nah, they won't want to spend the bucks.

[former9thward]

14. How come no one in the Vermont U.S. Senate or House delegation are complaining?

Have they ever protested the daily prayers in congress -- afterall "You don't get away with shoving religion down our throats in this state." Apparently Sanders is letting them get away with in congress. Does the U.S. congress employ Hindu or Buddhist priests?

[daaron]

11. SCOTUS has consistently ruled that prayer at public meetings -->

like prayer at public schools, is not protected speech. Witness the fact that public prayer advocates lose every well-formed lawsuit. Most don't even bother defending it anymore -- costs too much and they always lose.

S'Good.

[SidDithers]

6. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Atman]

12. Pray naked.

Vermont is one of the only states in the union with no laws banning public nudity. Although that might have changed a couple years ago after an eighty year old man walked into a Brattleboro store wearing nothing but a fanny pack.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. After all it is really a 'birthday suit'

I am not sure why people are so worried about naked bodies? I wonder how many thousands of years ago it became icky for people to be naked in public?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

15. Would a prayer at a non-profit org (501c3) board meeting be against the rules?

I'm wondering.