According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the 11th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that found a Georgia commission’s practice of opening their sessions with prayer was Constitutional.  According to the article, the lawsuit filed by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State claimed that

overtly Christian prayers [with respect to the government] are an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Instead, the court indicated (in its ruling here) that it was not appropriate for the judicial branch to “parse” prayers; and if they did, no one would be able to agree on what was or was not appropriate.

Whether invocations of ‘Lord of Lords’ or ‘the God of Abraham, Isaac and Mohammed’ are ‘sectarian’ is best left to theologians, not courts of law….We would not know where to begin to demarcate the boundary between sectarian and nonsectarian expressions….Even the [plaintiffs] cannot agree on which expressions are “sectarian.”

The ruling reflects the Supreme Court precendent of Marsh v. Chambers (the text of which can be found in Religion and the Military), which found that it was not unconstitional for legislative sessions to open with prayer, even if they are of only one faith tradition.  (It is worth noting that the Supreme Court decision was not unanimous, nor was this one from the 11th Circuit.)  In Marsh the Court also said

The content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief…It is not for us to embark on a sensitive evaluation or to parse the content of a particular prayer.

Military Relevance 

This case is interesting in that the courts have been asked to determine the appropriateness of “sectarian prayer” at government functions.  This is the same basic question that is the premise of the current lawsuit against the Department of Defense, in which an atheist soldier has complained of being in mandatory formations at which overtly Christian prayers were given.

The 11th Circuit explicitly said that Marsh applied to legislatures, and it also noted that the fact that only one faith group was represented did not violate the Establishment Clause.  Still, the logic of the analysis is relevant.  In essence, for the MRFF to prevail, it must prove that the military prayers at mandatory functions have “been exploited to proselytize or advance…one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.”

Also noted at the Religion Clause.