Source: https://verdict.justia.com/2014/05/19/prayers-meetings-town-board-greece-new-york
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:49:38+00:00

Document:
The initial reaction in the media has been that this decision is a major defeat for those who fear the establishment of religion or a major religious victory for those who support such prayers. In actuality, this decision fits solidly within the precedent and does not expand it. The majority correctly recognized that the four-person dissent, while accepting the precedent, would have empowered government officials to edit prayers, the last thing courts should do.
In a democracy, the state may not compel the salute. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Compelling the salute and pledge “invades the sphere of intellect and spirit,” and free speech protects that. Hence, a school could offer a pledge but could not require any student to participate.
In contrast, a public school may not even offer a prayer to start the school day. Praying is a religious activity, and the state may not sponsor it. Thus, the state cannot start off the school day by reading, “without comment,” several versus from the Bible, even though the law provided that any child “shall be excused” if the parents request. The prayer, unlike a pledge, is a religious exercise, as the Court recognized in School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963). It does not matter if the prayer is nonsectarian. In Engel v. Vitale (1962), a state official composed a nondenominational prayer, but “it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers.” The Establishment Clause violation is government providing a religious exercise. It does not cure the violation if the government allows the students to opt-out.
Later, the Court invalidated a state law that provided a moment of silence “for meditation or voluntary prayer,” because the law was “entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion.” That same case, Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) had no problem with another state law that required a simple “period of silence, not to exceed one minute.” During that time, students could pray in silence (or daydream) but the silence was not part of an official religious exercise. The Court later held in Lee v. Weisman (1992) that the public school could not offer a “nonsectarian” benediction or prayer at official graduation ceremonies. Students did not have to attend the ceremonies, but the state simply cannot provide this religious exercise.
Subsequently, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) the Court held that the state could not set up a procedure where students picked a student to deliver a “nonsectarian, non-proselytizing prayer” at the beginning of each football game. Because the school policy “explicitly and implicitly” encouraged public prayer, the “resulting religious message under this policy would be attributable to the school, not just the student.” This was not a private prayer. This line of decisions does not prevent students from praying on their own. As long as schools require exams, students will pray, but it cannot be part of an official exercise.
For example, the Continental Congress, beginning in 1774, opened its sessions with a prayer offered by a paid chaplain. As one of its first items of business, each House of the First Congress selected a chaplain to open each session with prayer. On September 25, 1789, three days after Congress authorized the appointment of paid chaplains, Congress reached final agreement on the language of the Bill of Rights. “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.” This “unbroken practice for two centuries in the National Congress and for more than a century in Nebraska and in many other states,” led the Court to allow legislatures to have prayers.
Marsh really decides Town of Greece v. Galloway. Justice Kennedy, who wrote the opinion of the Court in Lee v. Weisman, and joined the majority in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, also wrote the Court’s opinion in Galloway.
While the town could always recommend that the guest chaplain deliver a generic prayer, to say the town must censor the person who gives the benediction would raise a host of other problems. “Must a town screen and, if necessary, edit prayers before they are given?” The government should not compose prayers—the lesson of Engel v. Vitale (1962)—nor should it censor them.
Given the fact that all nine Justices embraced the precedent of Marsh v. Chambers, one wonders what the fuss is all about. It is late in our history to exclude all references to God. When the President takes the oath of office (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 specifies the exact language), the President typically puts his left hand on the Bible. Barack Obama, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Richard Nixon, and other presidents all swore on the Bible. The Constitution says nothing about that. Many Presidents (perhaps going back to President Washington and including Barrack Obama) have added “so help me God” to the end of the oath. That also is not in the Constitutional oath.
The day after Congress proposed the First Amendment, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim “a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.” Where the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Galloway, we see Moses with Ten Commandments, portrayed in the south frieze. A statue of the Apostle Paul overlooks the rotunda of the Library of Congress. On the apex of the Washington Monument we find inscribed, “Laus Deo” (“Praise be to God”). The list can go on.
Granted that there are those who think the government should not put its prestige behind religion. However, people of faith do not believe that God needs the government’s prestige. As for people without faith, it is hard to conclude that any atheist will feel pressured to change his or her views because of what the Town Board of Greece thinks.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.