The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, recently addressed whether a reference to Jesus Christ in an invocation performed at a city council meeting violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Rubin v. City of Burbank, 2002 WL 31008987).
Background
Since 1953, each city council meeting for the City of Burbank has begun with an invocation. The invocation is usually given by a member of the Burbank Ministerial Association (BMA), a non-denominational organization. The city council does not determine the content of the invocation and the BMA does not impose any restrictions on the content. At the November 23, 1999 meeting, an invocation was performed by a member of the BMA that included the phrase, “We are grateful heavenly Father for all that thou has poured out on us and we express our gratitude and our love in the name of Jesus Christ.” Two men, who had been present at city council meetings that included an invocation, filed a lawsuit challenging the city council’s practice of beginning its meetings with prayers that invoked the name of Jesus Christ.
The trial court found that the prayer recited at the November 23rd meeting violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was sectarian. The court permanently enjoined the City from allowing sectarian prayers at the council meetings and required the City to advise the persons conducting the prayers that sectarian prayers are not allowed.
The Appellate Decision
The Court of Appeal concluded that the prayer did in fact violate the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government practices preferring one religion over another. The Court noted that all legislative prayers are not prohibited by the Establishment Clause. The United States Supreme Court concluded in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), that a legislative prayer that was not explicitly Christian did not violate the Establishment Clause. However, in reaching its decision, the Supreme Court noted that all references to Christ had been removed from the prayers at issue. The Court of Appeal interpreted “Marsh to mean that any legislative prayer that proselytizes or advances one religious belief or faith, or disparages any other, violates the Establishment Clause.” The Court explained that the trial court’s “characterization of the invocation as ‘sectarian’ was merely a definitional determination that the invocation unconstitutionally communicated a preference for one religious faith (or sect) over another.” The Court found that the prayer that invoked the name of Jesus Christ violated the Establishment Clause “because it conveyed the message that Christianity was being advanced over other religions.”
The Court also concluded that requiring the City to advise the speaker conducting the prayer that sectarian prayers are not allowed does not violate the speaker’s constitutional right to freedom of speech.