An answer to prayer: court strikes down Alabama prayer law.

Alabama School Prayer Law Violates Students' Rights And Church-State Separation, Federal District Court Rules

Some people just don't know when to give up.

Since 1977, legislators in Alabama have passed three school prayer laws, all of which have been declared unconstitutional by the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1993, they tried again. The fourth attempt permitted "non-sectarian, nonproselytizing, student-initiated voluntary prayer, invocations and/or benedictions" during "compulsory or non-compulsory" assemblies, sporting events "and other school-related events."

The law was crafted to grant government sanction to regular organized religious worship in Alabama's public schools. It stated that prayer must occur even if only one student in a class requested it and made no provision for students who did not care to participate.

Last month a federal court in Montgomery struck down this law too, declaring that it violates the U.S. Constitution by allowing ,government intrusion into religion and forcing public school students to take part in religious exercises against their will.

The March 12 ruling was a vindication for Michael Chandler, an assistant principal at Valley Head Middle School in DeKalb County, in rural northeastern Alabama. Chandler, who had objected to a variety of school-sponsored religious activities at local public schools, filed suit last year with the assistance of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Alabama branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Chandler, an Americans United member, was at school when he learned about the decision through a spate of media calls. His first reaction was relief. "I was pretty excited that the judge had ruled in our favor on the school prayer law," he told Church & State. "I hope there's something we can do to see that this ruling is followed as we go down the road."

An anonymous parent in nearby Talladega County joined Chandler in filing the lawsuit. The woman, known in court documents as "Jane Doe," asserted that her daughter, a high school student, had been compelled to participate in religion against her will. Fearing community reprisals, the two insisted on remaining anonymous in court documents.

U.S. District Judge Ira DeMent of the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division, had no difficulty exposing the law's defects. In a sweeping decision, he ruled that it violated the free speech and free exercise rights of students, had no secular purpose, had the primary effect of endorsing religion, coerced students to participate in religious activity and excessively entangled government with religion.

"The right to be free from state-established religion lies at the heart of the concept of `freedom of religion,'" DeMent wrote. "It has been said that nothing short of a `wall of separation between church and state' can adequately safeguard our religious freedom. While this wall may be more metaphor than mortar, the concept continues to be a useful one as the separation of church and state is fundamental to the preservation of our pluralistic society."

DeMent, who was appointed to the court in 1992 by President George Bush and is considered a conservative, pointed out that objective study about religion is already permissible in public schools and noted that students may take part in truly voluntary religious worship through equal access clubs and before-school meetings. But Alabama lawmakers, he said, clearly intended the 1993 law to compel religious worship.

"The statute requires that prayer be permitted at school events, including compulsory school events," DeMent wrote. "Other students attending these school events (those who do not wish to pray) will have no choice but to listen to the prayers of their peers. Dissenting students will be unable to walk away, and presumably, will be unable to voice their dissent. Thus, the effect of [the school prayer law] is to create a school system wherein public school students must, at the whim of their peers, participate in a religious practice."

DeMent also had no trouble debunking the myth of "nonsectarian, non-proselytizing" prayer. This type of language is being promoted by some Religious Right groups, which have included it in model school prayer legislation. But as DeMent pointed out, requiring school officials to make certain that students' prayers fall within certain parameters only further entangles government in religious affairs.

"[S]chool officials will be forced to monitor the student prayers and decide which prayers are permissible," he wrote. "Such action by school officials could lead impressionable schoolchildren to believe that permitted prayers are officially sanctioned.

"Furthermore," DeMent continued, "the review of prayers by government officials is one of the very practices which the First Amendment was designed to prevent.... The implementation of [the law] will require school officials to make content-based reviews of students' prayers. The framers believed that such review posed far too great a danger to our freedom of religion. The First Amendment prevents Alabama school officials from taking the very action which implementing [the law] would require."

The federal judge emphasized that church-state separation is intended to protect the integrity of religion. "Although frequently touted as a telic tool used by religious dissenters," DeMent observed, "the Establishment Clause is properly seen as an essential safeguard for the sanctity of religious belief. James Madison acknowledged this when he stated, `[E]xperience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.' While government support of religion may, for the benefitted believer, have an initial appeal, this support ultimately leads to governmental influence and a concomitant erosion of religious tenets."

Despite DeMent's clear language, it remains to be seen whether the situation in Alabama will actually change. Remarkably, state officials have been sending signals that they plan to ignore the ruling.

The day after the decision came down, Alfred Sawyer, a spokesman for Alabama Gov. Forrest "Fob" James Jr., told the Montgomery Advertiser, "I doubt he'll be telling Alabamians to obey this order. The governor strongly believes that no court can take away the right to free expression provided by the First Amendment."

James, a Republican closely aligned with the Religious Right, is an avowed opponent of church-state separation. (Bill Gray, James' legal advisor, has said of the constitutional principle, "There is no such thing as the separation of church and state.")

Regarding school prayer, James once lamented to a Birmingham newspaper that not enough had been done to protest the Supreme Court's rulings striking down government-sanctioned school devotions in 1962 and `63. "It's time to challenge the government or the court's hostility toward God," he remarked.

The governor is apparently itching for a showdown over school prayer, and if it comes it won't be the first time he has flouted the law on church-state separation. Last February James sparked a firestorm of controversy when he promised to call out the National Guard and state troopers on behalf of Judge Roy Moore, an Etowah County jurist who has been ordered by a state court to stop opening his sessions with prayer and remove a Ten Commandments plaque from his courtroom. (See "Armed and Dangerous?" March Church & State.)

Given James' track record, some observers think it's likely he'll use DeMent's Chandler v. James ruling to launch more attacks on the courts. James seems intent on sparking some type of constitutional confrontation by challenging the authority of the judiciary over church-state matters.

While he may be able to successfully intimidate state courts in Alabama -- where judges are elected -- federal courts are unlikely to tolerate the governor's antics for long. DeMent has already sent James a strong signal to that effect.

In the last section of his 40-page opinion, DeMent ordered federal marshals to personally serve James and other state officials with copies of his ruling.

That's a step considered "highly unusual" by Americans United Legal Director Steven K. Green. Green, who assisted with the litigation in the Alabama case, notes that the normal procedure would be to simply mail the opinion to all parties.

"The judge is clearly sending them a message," said Green. "There's no other way to interpret that."

While the brunt of his decision deals with the school prayer law, DeMent also addressed the ongoing church-state abuses in DeKalb County. (Education officials in Talladega County earlier agreed to a settlement and promised to stop including prayers before assemblies, sports banquets and other school events.) DeMent ordered the parties to meet within 15 days and reach an agreement that conforms to his ruling. Green says that means DeKalb officials will have to stop including religious worship at school-related events.

"This decision is a clean-sweep victory for separation of church and state," remarked Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "When we initiated this litigation last year, I stated that one of our goals was to bring Alabama into compliance with U.S. Supreme Court decisions banning school-sponsored worship. I'm pleased to say that we've made important progress toward that goal."

But Lynn cautioned that Americans United's work in Alabama is not done. "Gov. James is a loose cannon who seems intent on defying the authority of the courts," said the AU director. "It' s incumbent upon Americans United to make certain the decision is enforced and that Alabama's public schools stop operating like Sunday schools."