I always enjoy when the Supreme Court goes through the whole analysis of "well, they are just being solemn, and they are just honoring local religious leaders and blah, blah, blah" to explain why such prayers are really not an endorsement of religion, then the party who wins on these grounds goes with this comment:
Senior counsel David Cortman of the Alliance Defense Freedom, which represented the town, applauded the court for affirming "that Americans are free to pray."
That is what is so hilarious about these separation of church and state cases -- the prayers are CLEARLY intended to support one particular religion (Christianity) and they are defended in court by people who don't give a fuck about "ceremony" or "honoring local leaders." They just want their own particular religion advanced in any way possible. If they could have a Christian theocracy, they would all line up to vote for that.
Yet the Court continues to apply the fiction that the supporters of these type of church/state combos are NOT AT ALL concerned about advancing religion and, instead, just want to make sure that something is said at the start of the city council meeting so that the people don't just sit there and stare blankly at one another.
I sincerely hope that some inner city neighborhood that is 85% non-Christian starts having Muslim prayers or Hindu prayers and adding things like, "And Muhammad said - the afterlife is reserved for believers in Allah, not for infidels." Hey, Justice Kennedy says if you are a Christian, you can get up and walk out - there is nothing keeping you there. The fact that your City presents weekly prayers basically calling you a wretched infidel outcast is overridden by the need to honor local holy men and to have something (anything) to say to start out the meeting.