"[I]nexplicably, the lawyer for the two atheist women who had brought the case argued that such prayers are fine so long as they are 'nonsectarian.' Wouldn’t you expect two atheists to argue that such prayers were unconstitutional, period?...It appeared that their lawyer, Professor Douglas Laycock, was attempting to thread the needle between existing case law, like Marsh v. Chambers, which upheld 'nonsectarian' prayers in state legislatures and by extension, Congress. This approach was lawyerly to be sure, but shortsighted. His atheist clients deserved more vision and passion from their advocates."
Click here to read the full article.
Click here to read the full article.