Christian Prayer Allowed in Delaware School Board
A judge in Delaware ruled that a local school board can give Christian prayers before starting meetings, quoting a legal precedent that the practice is 'deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.'
A judge in Delaware ruled that a local school board can give Christian prayers before starting meetings, quoting a legal precedent that the practice is "deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country."
The Christian prayer issue was just a small part of a civil rights lawsuit brought on by a family with a son in the Indian River School District. The prayer matter was dismissed early this month by the judge, though the suit against members of the district alleging other religion related issues will continue. The case is still in the pre-trial phase.
U.S. District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. quoted the opinion from the 1983 Supreme Court decision of Marsh v. Chambers, which concluded that the opening of a session of the legislature and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Farnan quoted from the earlier decision, writing that "There can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance ... is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."
Farnan wrote, "In light of this precedent, the Court cannot conclude that prayer is not part of legitimate, legislative processes"
The suit against the district had stated that school board members had specifically opened meetings in "the Lord's name" and "in the name of Christ," according to court documents.
Reacting to the decision, the staff attorney for the National School Boards Association, Tom Hutton, told the News Journal of Delaware that the organization did not have a strong view on the matter either way. However, he said that the Association recommends that school boards use a "moment of silence" instead, as a way to prevent causing offense to some members of the community.
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Thomas Allingham, who supported plaintiffs in the case, indicated that the decision would be appealed and believed that they would be vindicated, according to the News Journal.
In its website, the ACLU states it believes that "any program of religious indoctrination -- direct or indirect -- in the public schools or by use of public resources is a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state and must be opposed."
In court documents, the Dorich family, one of several plaintiffs bringing the case against members of the Indian River School Board, stated that it had been persecuted and sometimes threatened for having raised objections to the prayers. They stated that the family eventually moved because of the actions.
Included in the suit, which is still pending, were also allegations the Indian River school district is improperly promoting Christianity and violating non-Christians' rights. Allegations included statements that prayers were regularly offered during school events, including graduations and dinners, adding that school members participated in a Bible club during school hours.
An attorney for the Indian River school district was "encouraged" by the partial decision regarding Christian prayers.
"I was a little surprised the court made that ruling in this opinion because it probably wasn't absolutely necessary. It was not something we pressed in that motion," said attorney John Balaguer to the News Journal. "We're encouraged by that."
While prayer initiated by school officials in public schools is illegal, the ACLU argued in the suit that the school board meetings are school functions and that prayer before the meetings was therefore improper, as some previous court rulings maintain.
Other court decisions agree with Farnan's view that the school board is a legislative body similar to state legislature, thus allowing prayer.
The ruling also dismissed the school board members as individual defendants, meaning that their personal finances and homes are no longer on the line.
Both parties are scheduled to hold court-mandated mediation talks to attempt to end the case before it proceeds to the trial phase.
