Last Name

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course Number
Date
Question Number 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Lvy,
L.W.,1986).
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a
national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of
a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the
"separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-
preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause
prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to
denomination. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one
religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make
accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

Courts have ruled that prayers are legal before certain legislative sessions. But few courts have
tackled the issue of prayer in the courtroom. At least one federal appeals court ruled in a 1991
case that a North Carolina judge’s practice of personally reciting a prayer in his courtroom was
unconstitutional. The appeals court ruled that the state judge’s prayers had no secular purpose,
advanced religion and destroyed the appearance of the judge’s neutrality

Sam Grover, an attorney with the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which pushes for
separation of church and state, said Paxton’s legal opinion was “bending over backward to find
courtroom prayer legal.”

The prayers in Mack’s courtroom began soon after he took office in 2014. In a September 2014
letter to Mack, the Freedom from Religion Foundation explained “that as a Justice of the Peace it
was inappropriate and illegal for him to use his power and prestige to advance his personal,
private religious views.” The group demanded that Mack stop.

But Mack refused, claiming he was under attack by “atheists.” In a mass email to his supporters,
he wrote that “God has a place in all aspects of our lives and public service.”
The Freedom from Religion Foundation then filed a complaint with the Texas Commission on
Judicial Conduct, the agency that investigates complaints about judges, calling Mack’s
courtroom prayers unconstitutional government endorsements of religion.

Mack, meanwhile, teamed up with lawyers from the First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit religious
liberty legal firm, to make his case for courtroom prayer.

First Liberty argued to the commission that the judge has every right to allow prayers in his
courtroom. Religion, the group said, always has played a role in government. A summary of First
Liberty’s arguments on its website notes that the U.S. Supreme Court opens with a solemnizing
prayer and that the Texas Supreme Court opens with a prayer and by reciting, “God save the
United States and this honorable court.”

The commission ultimately dismissed the judicial misconduct complaint against Mack in
November 2015. But in a letter to Mack, the commission cautioned the judge to stop the
courtroom prayers.(Harris,2016)

References

Lvy, L.W. (1986). The establishement clause: Religion and the First Amendment. New York:
Macmillan.)

(https://ballotpedia.org/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment)
Harris, Julia(2016).https://revealnews.org/blog/its-ok-to-pray-in-the-courtroom-texas-top-
attorney-says/