Swordsmyth
10-14-2017, 11:12 PM
A federal judge has re-affirmed the constitutionality of prayer in the U.S. Congress, ruling that Supreme Court precedent undergirds the long tradition of prayer opening each congressional session, along with the House rules that govern the practice.
The decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Daniel Barker, president of the atheist group Freedom from Religion Foundation. Barker had charged that Congress denied him the opportunity to offer an opening invocation, while extending the honor to religious chaplains.
In her October 11 decision, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer pointed out that House rules barred Barker from offering the invocation because of his lack of faith. She also noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress' two-century-long tradition of prayer does not conflict with the First Amendment’s “establishment clause,” which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
But if Congress’ tradition of prayer does not conflict with the establsihment clause, then why would prayer in the public schools be considered a violation of the establishment clause? Yet the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the latter to be a violation. How can this be? Judge Collyer did not address this question, which fell outside the scope of the case she was deciding.
In her opinion, Collyer wrote that “to decide that Mr. Barker was discriminated against and should be permitted to address the House would be to disregard the Supreme Court precedent that permits legislative prayer.”
More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/27140-federal-judge-re-affirms-tradition-of-congressional-prayer
The decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Daniel Barker, president of the atheist group Freedom from Religion Foundation. Barker had charged that Congress denied him the opportunity to offer an opening invocation, while extending the honor to religious chaplains.
In her October 11 decision, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer pointed out that House rules barred Barker from offering the invocation because of his lack of faith. She also noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress' two-century-long tradition of prayer does not conflict with the First Amendment’s “establishment clause,” which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
But if Congress’ tradition of prayer does not conflict with the establsihment clause, then why would prayer in the public schools be considered a violation of the establishment clause? Yet the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the latter to be a violation. How can this be? Judge Collyer did not address this question, which fell outside the scope of the case she was deciding.
In her opinion, Collyer wrote that “to decide that Mr. Barker was discriminated against and should be permitted to address the House would be to disregard the Supreme Court precedent that permits legislative prayer.”
More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/27140-federal-judge-re-affirms-tradition-of-congressional-prayer