Prayers

Can we expect an en banc hearing?
The most conservative of our appeals courts, the fourth circuit, just handed down an opinion striking down a town's pre-council-meeting prayers. The case is Wynne v. Town of Great Falls.

Wynne, a wiccan, brought the case in response to the opening prayers at each town council meeting--meetings she attended regularly. The prayers consistently invoked Christ particularly. Thus, Wynne asked the counsel to alter the prayer, invoking a more general "God." The town addressed the issue and decided to adhere to the traditional Christ-centric prayer.
Wynne attempted to participate in the council meetings while avoiding the prayer, but found the practice difficult. If she showed up late (to avoid the prayer) she lost her speaking place. She also found herself being taken less seriously, et al.
Thus, the establishment clause challenge.

The fourth circuit avoids the various tests floating about regarding what exactly is an establishment. Instead, the appeals court relies on some sturdy precedent regarding particulars in public prayer; to wit, particulars are a no-no; to further wit, government can acknowledge God (or religion), government can even make religious overtures. But, government cannot go so specific as to prefer a specific kind of religion. (As we look at the fourth circuit's review of the precedent, one sees the reasoning is most akin to O'Connor's endorsement test.)
The Appeals Court takes on the primary case for the Town's defense, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). There, the Supreme Court allowed the Nebraska state legislature to open sessions with a non-sectarian prayer. But the recipient of prayer becomes key.
The Supreme Court has consistently held against "denominational preference."

Regardless of the context or applicable "test," one "command of the Establishment Clause" is absolutely "clear": "one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another."

Importantly, Marsh discusses and relies on what is one of the major arguments in support of public prayer: tradition. Namely, the practice of opening governing sessions with prayer has been a consistent part of said sessions since our earliest days. Marsh, as our Chief Justice does now, goes into significant historical review. Of particularly poignant evidence, our first Congress authorized paid chaplains just three days before deciding on the words of the establishment clause--and the history of pre-session prayer has been uninterrupted.
But, the fourth circuit notes, Marsh "emphasized, however, that the legislative prayer at issue there did not attempt 'to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.'"
As said above, the recipient of the prayer matters. Since the town council prays specifically through Jesus, it violates the establishment clause quite clearly.

Now, coming off that reasoning, I have a question. (not to deny the remarks disparaging the precedent...I know you're coming)

What in the world is a non-specific prayer? The Allegheny case, amongst it's reasoning-brothers (setting the no-specific endorsement standard), always confuses me. Prayers are necessarily directed to something. The cases establish that, as long as the something is left unclear by the prayer, the prayer is OK. While the reasoning stands, the common sense fails me.
I won't go far into that for now...but it drives me batty.