INVOCATIONAL PRAYERS AT MEETINGS OF PUBLIC BODIES

The common practice of municipalities and other public bodies to begin their meetings with a prayer has again been upheld. In Pelphrey v. Cobb County 410 F. Supp 2d 1324 (N.D.Ga.2006) several residents sued Cobb County, challenging the county’s practice of permitting “sectarian” prayers, and in particular, those that refer to Jesus Christ, at the opening of county government meetings. The practice was that the county extended an invitation to give the invocation to various community residents who served as leaders at local religious institutions. The county made no inquiry into the content of the prayer to be offered, nor did it attempt to regulate the content. A commission member introduced the individual selected and stated, “for all who wish to do so, please rise for the invocation.” The speaker then recited the prayer, usually less than a minute long.

After a fairly comprehensive review of invocation prayer cases, the federal district court held that the Establishment Clause did not require the removal of sectarian phrases from invocations.

What the Establishment Clause prohibited was an impermissible motive in the selection of clergy to provide legislative invocations; an exploitation of the allowance of an invocational opportunity by the legislature to promote the beliefs of one religious sect, or to disparage those of any other; or the maintenance of a practice that conveyed the impression that the government had purposely elected to prefer one religious view to the exclusion of those of other faiths. The focus of each proscription, in all events, was not on a “particular prayer,” but on the invocational practice as a whole. Here, rotation of the speaking opportunity among various denominations “greatly undercut” the perception that the legislature had purposefully aligned itself with one religious viewpoint.

Prayer cases are regularly litigated. The outcomes in court turn on the specific facts of each case. It is important to have established procedures to ensure the inclusiveness of invitations extended to religious groups in the community, and to ensure residents are aware of city efforts to be inclusive of all views in allowing such prayers.

THE FOREGOING IS MERELY A PARTIAL SUMMARY OF THE CASE
AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE RELIED UPON AS A LEGAL OPINION.