Many good Christians - both conservatives and liberals -- believe prayer is
equally effective when in Jesus name is omitted, and actually pray
accordingly.
If nothing else, the Establishment Clause does restrict people when they are
acting as part of government.
Of course Chaplain
I agree with Doug, and would note the ways in which this case is similar
to the Summum litigation currently pending in the Supreme Court. This
case is to Marsh as the Summum litigation is to Van Orden, and I have
sympathy for Rev. Turner the same way I have sympathy for the Summum
plaintiffs (who
I agree with Professor Gibson that faithful Christians can pray without
invoking the name of Jesus and with Professor Lund that this seems like the
correct result under existing law (even Justice Scalia might agee) and I
appreciate Professor Laycock's invocation of the great Alexander Bickel.
I agree with some of the points Professor Esenberg makes, but just to be
clear, the result in this case wouldn't change if governmental prayers
in Jesus' name were considered constitutionally permissible.
Fredricksburg would still be allowed (under the government-speech
doctrine) to keep their
Agreed, I'm interested in the larger question.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 3:19 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
I
If I am reading Professor Esenberg's post correctly (and I am not sure that I
am) he seems to be saying that government can never avoid speaking religiously.
If that is his point, a lot depends on how one definesspeaking religiously.
If speaking religiously includes saying anything that will
Professor Brownstein writes:
Indeed, it is hard to imagine how t!
he religion clauses can operate meaningfully -- if we are not willing to draw
some lines that limit their scope, such as a line between ethics and moral
principles that resonate with, or are derived, from religion and worship,
Chaplain K, below: But can governments pray?
What is government, if it is not people? More specifically, when meeting,
isn't the city council government? If it has an agenda, isn't that a
government agenda? So people speaking pursuant to the meeting agenda, isn't
that government acting?
I understand that Professor Esenberg rejects Justice O'Connor's endorsement
analysis, but it still isn't clear to me what he is offering as an alternative.
If the argument is that it is improper to draw any boundaries between the
religious and the secular in interpreting the religion clauses, I
On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24, 2:51 PM, Gordon James
Klingenschmitt wrote:
Professors Lund and Essenberg seek the larger question, which I
believe seems to involve whether a government can pray, at all. We
all agree individuals can pray, and the First Amendment protects
Ms. Jean Dudley exactly makes my point! (Albeit in more colorful language :).
Governments should not pray as governments, nor establish non-sectarian
religion as the government's favored religion or the government's favored
non-sectarian god.
ON THE CONTRARY, our form of
On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24, 7:37 PM, Gordon James
Klingenschmitt wrote:
Ms. Jean Dudley exactly makes my point! (Albeit in more colorful
language :).
Governments should not pray as governments, nor establish non-
sectarian religion as the government's favored religion or the
12 matches
Mail list logo
