INVOCATIONS - 2-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom." Id., at 786. The Supreme Court further held, "To invoke divine guidance on a public body ... is not, in these circumstances, an "establishment of religion or a step toward establishment, it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country." ld., at 792. The Supreme Court affirmed in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), "Our history is replete with official references to the value and invocation of Divine guidance in deliberations and pronouncements of the Founding Fathers and contemporary leaders." Id., at 675. The Supreme Court further stated, "Those government acknowledgments of religion serve, in the only ways reasonably possible in our culture, the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society. For that reason, and because of their history and ubiquity, those practices are not understood as conveying government approval of particular religious beliefs." Id., at 693 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The Supreme Court also famously observed in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being," Id., at 313-14. The Supreme Court acknowledged in Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), that the American people have long followed a "custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer ...... Id., at 471. The Supreme Court has determined, "The content of [such] prayer is not of concern, to judges where ... there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief." Marsh, 463 U.S. at 794-795. The Supreme Court also proclaimed that it should not be the job of the courts or deliberative public bodies "to embark on a sensitive evaluation or to parse the content of a particular prayer" offered before a deliberative public body. Id. The Supreme Court has counseled against the efforts of government officials to affirmatively screen, censor, prescribe and/or proscribe the specific content of public prayers offered by private speakers, as such government efforts would violate the First Amendment rights of those speakers. See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 588- 589 (1992). The City intends, and has intended in past practice, to adopt a policy that upholds an individual's "free exercise" rights under the First Amendment. M