About 10 years ago, my pastor in a Christian church (Disciples of
Christ) congregation and a member of the Burbank Ministerial Assn.,
asked me (a layman, not a city employee) to fill in for him in
offering the invocation at a City Council meeting.
Neither he, the association nor the city made any attempt to
provide me regulations, guidelines or counsel as to content. I noted
no policemen at the meeting monitoring either me or whether or not
any attendee chose not to listen to my prayer. I did not invoke the
name of Jesus Christ in my prayer, but sprinkled it with God and
Father in providing guidance for the evening deliberations. I
reiterate -- it was I, not anyone else, who chose what the content of
my invocation was.
Now a court has agreed with two plaintiffs, one in jail and both
noncitizens of the government body sued, that somehow their 1st
Amendment rights were suddenly violated when they became offended
upon hearing the name "Jesus Christ" at the close of someone else's
prayer that didn't otherwise bother them.
As I understand the court's ruling, my prayer was OK, but if I had
closed it with "in Jesus Christ's name ... amen" rather than just my
"amen," it would have been unconstitutional. The court's dubious
rationale was that somehow a very sensitive person hearing the former
ending "could infer that the council was advancing a religious
belief," and that such inference was equivalent to "making a law
respecting an establishment of religion." The particular decision
further says that an invocation is OK, but that it "cannot be
sectarian." In other words, the council must now provide
directives/rest- rictions to the association for the first time.
My neighbor, Will Rogers, feels that the court made a reasonable
and legitimate ruling, but never attempts to address how it applies
to the 1st Amendment language that was pertinent to the case. The
ministerial association, which he somehow equates with coal-mining
polluters, is interdenominational and interfaith (there being Jewish
members who would never invoke the name of Jesus), which I believe
might welcome Muslim, Hindu or other faith leaders if there were such
active in Burbank.
His strange example of how a prayer could violate the rights of a
prayer supporter rest upon "feelings" when a Satan worshiper prays
for guidance from hell. A rational-thinking supporter in no way would
conclude that the city was establishing religion if that occurred,
and such occurrence is allowable under current policy. Will seems to
