Supreme Court cracks on public prayer

An important decision came from the Supreme Court today. Another small reversal in the wall that was built between Church and State in the mid-1900s was announced today. The Supreme Court decided 5-4 that minister-led prayer could take place at the beginning of city council meetings, with certain specifications. One, the civic body must give opportunity for a variety of religions to lead the prayer, depending on the makeup of the area. Also, the prayer may not specifically proselytize for a particular religion or sect. But, basically, the Supreme Court has reversed a wall that had been made thicker and thicker up until 1983. After that year, the wall became thinner through several decisions. I do not want it to go entirely away. After all, the First Amendment does create a firewall that the State may not cross. We need to keep that part of the wall. It will be interesting to see if the next decade or so of the Supreme Court continues its decision to lower the wall a little bit.

Of course, there are the inevitable detractors. At least one of them made me sigh and think that extreme people say extreme things.

In the hands of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who writes for five justices, these benedictions are now free and unfettered “prayer opportunities.” And “prayer opportunities” are, like “job creators” and “freedoms,” what make America great. … In other words, not only did the court move the goal posts—from now on sectarian prayer will be permissible until it isn’t—but it also threw out the rule book and benched all the refs. From now on, says the court, it’s improper for government or judicial officers to second-guess the motives of the prayer policy or the prayer giver. To the extent the court ever played a role in ensuring that minority religious rights were not trammeled by well-meaning majorities who fervently believe that here in America we are all basically just country-club Judeo-Christians with different hairstyles, the jig is up: From now on we just do as the religious majorities say, so long as nobody is being damned or converted. …

There will be a good deal of bitterness in the coming days among members of religious minorities and majorities who believe that the Town of Greece decision is just or unjust depending largely on how they feel about sectarian Christian prayers. But stepping back from the specific arguments of the plurality and dissent, it’s fascinating to see how Kennedy and Justice Samuel Alito relentlessly characterize religion as an essentially peaceful, civilizing, lofty influence that seems to have more to do with social politeness than religious zeal. Kennedy’s majority opinion contains the complete text of four prayers, presumably to calm and unify his stressed-out reader, and he writes lovingly of prayer that is “solemn and respectful in tone, that invites lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends before they embark on the fractious business of governing.” He seems unaware that for every solemn and respectful prayer, America offers up dozens of fiery, judgmental, even violent ones. …

So freedom in America now means more and more sectarian “prayer opportunities” will be hand-delivered to us as we go about our daily lives. And you can be certain that here in the Land of Opportunity, more and more such “opportunities” to respect and honor and even worship along with the majority religions will be offered to us. And more and more, “freedom” will come to mean that unless you are being condemned to hell or threatened with conversion, you are free to sit quietly and give thanks that you still live in a free country. Amen.

It is obvious that the author above holds to the conviction that only a strict non-religious stance is permissible. More than that, the author has bought into the idea that merely hearing prayers from the majority religion is an imposition that somehow violates you. There is no give in this author, no sense that there can be a moderating approach. No, one side or the other must win.

Fortunately, little by little, the courts are beginning to see that a moderating approach with certain reasonable guidelines may be the best way forward.