A group of senators, led by Rubio, criticized the decision out of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that struck down the legality of prayers at town board meetings in Greece, N.Y.
An upcoming Supreme Court case has caught the attention of lawmakers concerned with curbs on public prayer, including their own.
The case, originating out of the Rochester, N.Y., suburb of Greece, asks if opening sessions of the town board with a prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In filing an amicus brief, 34 senators (33 of them Republicans) ponder the question of whether such a prohibition would apply broadly to legislative bodies including their own.
“The work of the Senate is often divisive. But for a few moments each morning, politics and party are set aside. Instead of debate, senators reflect on their duty to represent every constituent, mindful of the Nation’s core values and their need for divine assistance in carrying out their responsibilities,” the senators wrote in the court filing.
The group of senators, led by Florida Republican Marco Rubio and including the chamber’s GOP leaders, as well as Democratic Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, criticize the decision out of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down the legality of the prayers in the town of Greece, saying that it effectively constituted an endorsement of Christianity over other religions, even though other faith groups offered prayers.
“In practice, Christian clergy members have delivered nearly all of the prayers relevant to this litigation, and have done so at the town’s invitation,” the appeals court said. “We ascribe no religious animus to the town or its leaders. The town’s desire to mark the solemnity of its proceedings with a prayer is understandable; Americans have done just that for more than two hundred years. But when one creed dominates others — regardless of a town’s intentions — constitutional concerns come to the fore.”
Rubio and the other senators detail the history of the chaplaincy and the daily prayer, expressing particular concern that the 2nd Circuit decision could put the constitutionality of many legislative prayers in doubt because it says that single circumstance may appear to suggest an affiliation.
“This Court should eliminate the uncertainty and affirm the strong constitutional footing on which legislative prayer stands. In a nation of broad religious diversity, the best means of ensuring that the government does not prefer any particular religious view in the context of legislative prayer is to allow all those who pray to do so in accordance with their own consciences and in the language of their own faiths,” the senators wrote.