Another possible test that could be applied under a student body of law, is the Endorsement Test. The Endorsement test prevents, “particular religious’ belief being favored or preferred.” This test is similar to the second prong of the Lemon Test.
We have recognized that the Plaintiff will most likely argue that religion is being advanced. That one religious group is being favored, but that argument is not very strong. The Plaintiff believes strongly that religion should not be apart of such meetings, because when there is a religious presence, personal beliefs become tied together with government.
As you know, the board only recently allowed for prayer to be read at such meetings. But this was not for a religious purpose, the purpose was …show more content…
If this test was to be used, I believe that we would likely win under summary judgment.
Then there is the Legislative body of law. This body is typically more favorable to the government because of their long standing tradition. It’s a more historical approach, while looking how history has opened such meetings with prayer. “Practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of congress” and has “been followed consistently in most of the states.”
Yet there are still rules we must follow. In order for the board to have the best chance of prevailing in a summary judgment motion, we want to have our case tried as a legislative body of law. We are going to establish that the board did not violate the nonsectarian maxim and that the board did not advance any specific religion, therefore the Establishment Clause was not violated.
It will be brought up that the board did violate the nonsectarian maxim by allowing prayers to be read which referenced Christ more than once. Most notably the September 13, 2013 incident, which Plaintiff was in attendance. This claim is very straight …show more content…
There were no rules stated in handbook that said one religion was to be preferred over another. It would be senseless to put blame on one to find members of a different religion, if such religion were not available to them. Although the prayers were mainly Christian, for the most part those prayers made no references to any particular set of beliefs. It could easily be argued that the board did promote a free democracy, by allowing the students to make such decision, while the board only had one guideline which had nothing to do with the choice of religion.
Therefore, if tried as legislative prayer body of law, we feel much more confident that this case would prevail in your favor. The board has no religious preference, the whole idea of prayer was student initiated, none of this took place during school hours, and there is a lack of students present.
In reality it would be in our best interest to have this case heard as a legislative prayer body of law, but it seems highly unlikely that the court would feel the same way we do. Although the meeting in dispute only represents a few member of the student body, the fact is that students are present, which would lead a court to believe this is a student prayer body of
We have recognized that the Plaintiff will most likely argue that religion is being advanced. That one religious group is being favored, but that argument is not very strong. The Plaintiff believes strongly that religion should not be apart of such meetings, because when there is a religious presence, personal beliefs become tied together with government.
As you know, the board only recently allowed for prayer to be read at such meetings. But this was not for a religious purpose, the purpose was …show more content…
If this test was to be used, I believe that we would likely win under summary judgment.
Then there is the Legislative body of law. This body is typically more favorable to the government because of their long standing tradition. It’s a more historical approach, while looking how history has opened such meetings with prayer. “Practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of congress” and has “been followed consistently in most of the states.”
Yet there are still rules we must follow. In order for the board to have the best chance of prevailing in a summary judgment motion, we want to have our case tried as a legislative body of law. We are going to establish that the board did not violate the nonsectarian maxim and that the board did not advance any specific religion, therefore the Establishment Clause was not violated.
It will be brought up that the board did violate the nonsectarian maxim by allowing prayers to be read which referenced Christ more than once. Most notably the September 13, 2013 incident, which Plaintiff was in attendance. This claim is very straight …show more content…
There were no rules stated in handbook that said one religion was to be preferred over another. It would be senseless to put blame on one to find members of a different religion, if such religion were not available to them. Although the prayers were mainly Christian, for the most part those prayers made no references to any particular set of beliefs. It could easily be argued that the board did promote a free democracy, by allowing the students to make such decision, while the board only had one guideline which had nothing to do with the choice of religion.
Therefore, if tried as legislative prayer body of law, we feel much more confident that this case would prevail in your favor. The board has no religious preference, the whole idea of prayer was student initiated, none of this took place during school hours, and there is a lack of students present.
In reality it would be in our best interest to have this case heard as a legislative prayer body of law, but it seems highly unlikely that the court would feel the same way we do. Although the meeting in dispute only represents a few member of the student body, the fact is that students are present, which would lead a court to believe this is a student prayer body of