itch doctors, new age hucksters, pagan priests, and even Satanist and the Ku Klux Klan should have equal and ample opportunity to lead the Salt Lake County Council in reverential prayer, says Utah American Atheists State Director Chris Allen.

   Fair is fair.    After a ten year hiatus, the Council recently voted 6-3 to resurrect organized prayer at government meetings. Society of Separationists, the legal arm of American Atheists, had successfully challenged the practice. County officials, though, approved a prayer measure and even assigned an administrative assistant to insure that prayers pass constitutional muster by supposedly representing a fair cross section of community faiths and beliefs.

   "It's amazing what groups we have here," Mr. Allen told the Salt Lake Tribune. "We want to recruit people from New Age organizations, people with tarot cards, psychics, crystal healers. We also need to get Native Americans who are involved in the peyote cult." He also mentioned other religious sects sure to annoy any straightlaced Mormons or other Christians on the government council, including the Pagan Student Association at the University of Utah.

   All of this could be a problem for the County Council; so could local civil liberties attorney Brian Barnard. Mr.Barnard is the crusading head of the Utah Legal Clinic and Foundation, and is a fixture in the court system over issues involving the separation of church and state. He is expected to be lead attorney in any case challenging the new prayer policy, and revealed his strategy to a recent meeting of Utah Atheists.

   "You can't attack it head on, because the U.S. Supreme Court and the State Supreme Court say you can have prayers before public meetings," said Mr. Barnard. "The way to attack it is to show the County Council the folly of their ways: 'You want diversity, we'll give you diversity!' "

   Indeed, courts have upheld the constitutionality of prayer at government events so long as it is -- somehow -- non-denominational, non-proselytizing, and does not give preference to one religious belief over another. Atheists and strict state-church separationists would oppose any government-organized prayer; but for Allen, Barnard and others now contemplating strategy in the Utah case, "diversity" is the Council's shortcoming. A token priest, occasional Protestant minister, Mormon Bishop or even the neighborhood Muslim cleric would not suffice. They want swamis, snake-handlers, devil worshippers, and anyone else who represents a "spiritual" belief.

   Barnard is no stranger to using such an approach. He recently represented a man named Tom Snyder, who has appeared before government councils in Salt Lake City and Murray City, Utah, asking for the right to lead his "prayer."

   Snyder implores, "Our Mother who are in heaven (if indeed there is a heaven)" that She will discourage "self righteous politicians from misusing the name of God in conducting government meetings ... We ask that you deliver us from the evil of forced religious worship now sought to be imposed upon the people of the State of Utah..."

   In November, 1998 the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that cities may be selective when they permit citizens to recite prayers. An earlier ruling against Snyder said, "The establishment clause (of the Constitution) does not give any individual the right to establish his religion by guaranteeing an opportunity to pray during public meetings, and certainly does not require Murray (City) to permit all comers to speak during the reverence portion of the City Council meeting."

   The Atheists may be in a better legal situation, though, since they are seeking representatives of formal groups to recite a prayer. City Council prayer supporters note that while the federal lawsuit was dismissed, Snyder has filed a separate action in the state's District Court seeking $3 million in punitive damages. At least one council member, Joe Hatch, voted against the latest prayer motion, and noted, "they should call it the Brian Barnard Full Employment" act.

   While government may set certain standards, Barnard notes that permitting only specific kinds of prayers violates the separation of government and religion. He noted that under the earlier prayer policy, only prayers which were "generic and bland" and would presumably offend no one could be permitted.

   Members of Utah Atheists have come up with their own list of possible prayer leaders in addition to those suggested by Mr. Allen and Mr. Barnard. Suitable candidates include representatives from polygamist groups such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ, modern-day Goths, and Skinheads of all varieties. There have also been a spate of letters to local papers, including the Mormon-owned Deseret News and its secular counterpart, the Salt Lake Tribune. One writer quipped, "While our Founding Fathers clearly realized that a person should not be persecuted because of his beliefs, they were adamant about separation of church and state. I trust that our County Council will educate themselves on the founding of our great nation, so they don't continue to violate our founding concepts. Religious proselytizing, including prayer, has no place in the business of our government."

   Meanwhile, Mr. Allen continues to contemplate his list of what the Desert News described as a "medley of prayer-givers." There is no indication of whether the Council will rescind its earlier decision, or risk spending taxpayer money to defend its new policy.

[text only]