Rejecting a number of bogus procedural challenges and some equally spurious arguments by the town, the Franklin Superior Court ruled that including prayers at the beginning of a town meeting violates the Vermont Constitution's prohibition on compelling anyone to "attend any religious worship, finding that "The court rejects the town's suggestion that the history of prayer at town meeting renders it non-religious and concludes that the prayers at issue constituted `religious worship'".
The court also ruled that the prayer at town meeting violated the constitutional provision that "nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments, or peculia[r] mode of religious worship." The court held that to establish a practice that required Ms. Hackett to remain outside of the meeting room while part of the meeting was being conducted, simply because the town insisted on the prayer, would deprive her of the right to attend the entire meeting.
The town's argument that the prayer does not constitute religious worship is of particular interest here. Whether it's "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance, "In god we trust" on coins, or religious invocations at the opening of sessions of Congress, those who want to impose their religion on others are fond of arguing that these are not true religious statements, but simply neutral acknowledgements of the religious beliefs of the majority of the population. One wonders, of course, why the religionists fight so hard to keep them if they are not there to express their religious beliefs, or whether they would so willingly accept a change to "under allah" or "In allah we trust".
As a result of its decision, the court granted Ms. Hackett a declaratory judgment that the town's practices have violated her constitutional rights, granted her a permanent injunction prohibiting the prayer at town meetings, and will be holding another hearing to determing whether to award her damages. The full decision can be read at the ACLU web site.
Congratualtions to Marilyn Hackett, the ACLU, and ACLU volunteer attorneys Bernie Lambek and Julie Kalish!
[UPDATE: I had dinner Friday with the plaintiff, Marilyn Hackett (and a dozen other Franklin County lefties, Democrats and Progs at our regular “first Friday” beer and burgers drop-in confab).
She announced the ruling was in her favor; someone else had heard it on VPR several times that day. She was grinning from ear to ear. “They can’t pray at me any more: there’s an injunction!” The ruling was apparently issued on Wednesday. Hackett got a call at lunchtime Friday.
The ACLU, which argued the case pro bono (of course), will be likely be seeking damages on Marilyn’s behalf, although she said that if awarded any damages, she would “turn them back to the ACLU.” And “The last thing I need is for people to be saying that I did this for the money, which of course I didn’t.”
Hackett also said that the reporter for the Associated Press, among other media representatives, asked her what religion she “is.” “I refused to answer. I told them that that is irrelevant, that the whole point is not to mix religion and government, and it doesn’t matter what religion I might practice,” she said. ~ NanuqFC]
In an era when personal liberties seem to be increasingly at risk of erosion through conservative activism, this is a heartening decision and Marilyn is to be commended for never abandoning her constitutional rights.
It should be recognized, even by her opponents, that her actions have brought about a victory for everyone’s freedom of conscience, including that of religious believers.
I wonder what it would take to move my local voting location out of the local catholic school gym. I dislike walking past and through the religious stuff on display.
There is an expression in German, “Zivilcourage.” (I am probably spelling it wrong) It is the quality of bravery in the social and political sphere. There should be a picture of Ms. Hackett next to the definition in the dictionary.
What she did wasn’t a momentary act of bravery. It wasn’t an impulsive move. It was a courageous existence in the face of social pressure, one that she will have to maintain into the future. I don’t think I’d have the guts. Well, maybe now I would. That’s the beauty of what she did.