Few phrases in the Constitution have divided Supreme Court justices quite like the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which says simply: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof .”
Next week the Supreme Court will hear a case, Greece vs. Galloway, dealing with prayer before town meetings in Greece, NY. Opponents of the prayers feel that Christian prayers have dominated in a pluralistic setting. Greece, New York has many different religions.
Some prohibitions seem obvious: There can be no official national religion, for instance. Government cannot compel Americans to identify with a certain religion, or any religion at all.
What has proven more complicated is defining the boundaries of religion’s inclusion in public life. Issues such as prayer in public schools, accommodation of certain religious practices, and the display of crosses, creches and other religious symbols have produced a series of constitutional tests for the court and case-by-case rules that please few.
Legislative prayer has been dealt with more leniently than other types of religious infusion into the public sector. In fact, the Supreme Court has its own chaplain and prayer before sessions. However, let’s take a look at what is now called, the establishment clause. It specifically says “Congress.” Does that mean the US Congress only or does it imply any legislative body? What if some group came in and overwhelmingly passed a law that allowed only Muslim prayers? Amish prayers? Voodoo prayers? Snake handler prayers, complete with snakes? People would be howling like stuck pigs.
I don’t see why there are any prayers before meetings. A moment of silent allows everyone to pray to his or her God or no god. Nothing is imposed on anyone. I have always thought that the politicians were showing off anyway. Let’s think about the legislative body establishing a religion. It doesn’t say for how long. Our board of supervisors meetings start off with a prayer. Often there is a guest minister. The guests are usually Christian of one flavor or another. I wouldn’t want to be a non-Christian forced to acknowledge prayers of another faith, even for a minute or two.
Can we comfortably say that for as long as that prayer lasts, whether a 30-second prayer or a lengthy one, during that time, the legislative body has established a temporary religion? If you want to do business with the local government, then you must at least pretend to participate or look like a real jerk.
Can we all just do our own thing without an organized prayer?
Perhaps the Supreme Court will clarify what can and can not be done by local and state governments…or they could muddle the works even worse than things are already muddled. I haven’t been able to figure out why people insist on performing religiously at secular events. I totally understand praying before church meetings, choir practice, or Sunday School or before starting the day at parochial schools. I don’t get praying before PTA meetings in public school or at the board of supervisors meetings. I don’t think all the praying in the world there has helped them make any wiser decisions.
More reading: Americans United: Greece v Galloway
An interesting question. At least two of the branches of our government, the Supreme Court and the Congress begin each session with a prayer. Each session of the Supreme Court begins when the Crier intones, “God save the United States and this honorable court.” Granted, it is not a long prayer but it is a prayer. Both the Senate and the House have chaplains. The present Senate Chaplain is Reverend Barry C. Black a retired Navy Rear Admiral and former head of the Navy Chaplain Corps. The present House Chaplain is Father Patrick J. Conroy, a Jesuit and only the second Catholic to hold this office. So it would seem the Establishment Clause does not apply to the Congress or the Supreme Court. In 2006, the “New York Times” noted that Billy Graham was about as close to a White House Chaplain as is possible.
In his Farewell Address, our Founding Father, George Washington, commented on the necessity of religion:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
He does not mention a particular religion and he was not a particularly religious man and to claim he or many of the Founding Fathers were “Christians” is just plain wrong. At best you might say they were deists and most did talk about a “Supreme Being” or “Providence” did not associate Jesus with that Being.
How will the Supremes come down on this issue? I expect they will be against prayers at such meetings. Will this be to our demise? Only time will tell.
This prayer nonsense is past its time. Stop the prayers, I say. I certainly find them ridiculous, as do many other taxpayers. If you want to beseech your non-existent God for good times, please let’s not make fools of ourselves and do it collectively in public.
Don’t we all know by now that “God” is just something that human being use as a term to encompass everything that they don’t know? To pretend that you’re talking to “God” or that he/she/it is listening is beyond absurd.
Also looking forward to the day that someone can run for President and not have to give lip service to being “Christian”; we’re not quite there yet, but getting close. The irony is that when you have a guy who is clearly religious and takes his faith seriously, like Clinton, the right wing voters of America don’t even know how to react to it.
People may believe in Whomever they want. I just don’t think it has to be done publically. Rick’s point is very valid, albeit somewhat disrespectful to believers of all faiths. He is obviously a non-believer and he is being subjected to someone else’s belief system every time he tries to interact with government or even passively absorb what is happening with his government.
I will agree with his last sentence. There should be no formal or informal Christianity tests when running for President. I also agree about Bill Clinton.
I agree with Rick. The prayers at public government sessions need to stop. They can start the session by saying “Let’s take a moment for calmness and contemplation” and that should be enough time for people to find a seat, think about what they’re going to say, turn off their cell phones, or say a silent prayer. Then get on with the program.
The idea that Congress (bunch of lazy wh*res to corporate interests) and the Supreme Court (no intellectual integrity) pray is a negative testament to the power of prayer.
As to the necessity for an elected official to declare his or her religion, Article VI, Paragraph 3 of our Constitution specifically states:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
While I am certain a person would not get elected without espousing some religious affiliation, it would be an interesting to see what would happen if an individual standing for election would invoke Article VI, Paragraph 3 and tell folks that a question regarding their religion (the candidates) amounts to a “test” and therefore is against unconstitutional.
If a town had a high proportion of Imams invoking public prayers at the beginning of government meetings, I betcha more than a few people who are supporting this particular town in New York would be up in arms against a Muslim cleric delivering a similar vague prayer. That’s a pretty good test: if it would bother or offend you if a priest of another religion (take the one you are most uncomfortable with) were offering the same prayer in the same setting, then your support for Christian clerics giving these prayers needs to be re-assessed.
As I’ve mentioned before, passing deistic references are probably sustainable under the Constitution if they have no real sectarian or religious significance (hence the coin slogan and the Pledge bolt-on from the 150s). But that’s the delicious irony of this controversy – the only way these religious demonstrations in official contexts can be upheld is if they mean nothing.
Don’t forget….the prayers are the “free exercise thereof.”
Those who abstain from the ‘free exercise thereof’ of the publically said prayers stick out like sore thumbs also. Its the “see and be seen” doing of one’s religiosity.
Cargo, I just mentally blamed you for something you didn’t do. I apologize, even though you will never know about it.
It might be that simple, CS, if the prayers are spontaneous utterances of individuals. That’s not the issue here, however. The issue is whether government sponsorship of the prayers or their use in a government setting violates the Establishment Clause.
When people started belly-aching about prayers being “banned” in public schools, I reminded them that I prayed constantly while in public school and no one ever said boo. That’s because I did it silently and because I didn’t invoke the government to get my prayers out to other people or to draw others into my prayers. My guess is that more prayers get said in public schools by the 12-18 demographic than about anywhere else on the North American continent. Again, that phenomenon presents no constitutional issues. It’s when government officials get into the act that the problems start.
Cheer! Scout!!!
One good math test can bring about a lot of prayer. Social studies tests bring about the same phenomena of newly found religion.
@Scout
Can’t gov’t officials pray at meetings…if they are in agreement to do so?
What kind of meetings? Isn’t that what this case is over? Even if everyone agrees to prayers, how many of those people say it doesn’t matter when it really does? how many people would rather not but go along to get along?
There is also silent coercion.
I am trying to figure out Scout’s argument but it appears to be gibberish. Can or will someone help me here?
Scout said:
Is this the part that is messed up on your screen George?
@Scout, I assume you meant 1950’s and I stuck a 9 in there. Tell me if I need to take it back out.
Yup. left out the 9. makes a difference. I hope that was the only part that was gibberish. If not, I have some explaining to do to George.
It happens to the best of us.
At this point, the years run together. Perhaps it should have been an 8.
Cargo: I see I missed a direct query from you: of course a couple (or more) government officials might decide to take a prayer break. It would be like deciding to go get a cup of coffee or a smoke (in olden times). That’s their business. What they can’t do is imbue the process of government with religion. To do so triggers Establishment Clause issues that we are all better off without.
Because the Constitution so clearly protects religious expression, there is absolutely no need for governments to flirt with violations of the Establishment Clause (violations that ultimately, inevitably threaten freedom of religious expression).
I am hoping that there is now a women’s rest room for the 3 female justices. Let’s see, Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed at the beginning of the Reagan administration, 32 years ago. That should be enough time to build a bathroom for the lady justices. Does anyone know if the lady justices are still having to borrow bathrooms or do they now have their own facilities?
I guess anyone can pray with anyone they want to. It just shouldn’t be part of the official business of the group if it is a public meeting.
@ Scout–No need for “explaining”–I understand what you wrote. As to the “test” –well not everyone is comfortable about Congressional chaplains. Guest chaplains are invited in. In 1965 that James Kirkland became the first African-American to open the Senate with prayer. In 1971 Wilmina Rowland became the first woman to do so. Wallace Mohammed was the first Muslim to do so in 1992, and Rajan Zed was the first Hindu to say the opening prayer for the Senate in 2007. In 2007, the prayer delivered by Rajan Zed, the first Hindu Guest Chaplain was briefly interrupted by protestors described by news reports as members of the Christian Right. Activists had organized supporters to lobby Congress to stop the delivery of the prayer and failing that action to interrupt the prayer itself. The protestors were removed by the Capitol Police, charged with disrupting Congress, and barred from the Capitol and its grounds for twelve months. [Thanks to Wikipedia for this]. Chaplains of non-Christian faiths are routinely invited as “Guest Chaplains”.
@ Moon–“It happens to the best of us.” The mistake or explaining to me? 😉
Restroom for female Supremes? Here is what Justice Sandra Day O’Connor had to say in her book, “Out of Order”:
“In the early days of when I got to the court, there wasn’t a restroom I could use that was anywhere near that courtroom. [It] was a long way down the hallway, so it wouldn’t have been convenient. And we had to find something in the way of a restroom that was near the courtroom that I would be able to use when we were back there or in the room where we discussed cases. And, I think, I borrowed a restroom in the nearest chambers there at the court. I think I just borrowed one there that kind of became the one that I could use. … They just didn’t have a woman justice, so that’s what you’d expect under those circumstances.”
I presume that has been corrected but could find no info. 🙁
I couldn’t find the information either. I think it might have been renovated about 2-3 years ago. I read something and now can’t remember the details. I believe the women senators had a similar problem. I don’t know what their female staffers did.
From my perspective, and I have shared it many a time. I am always uncomfortable when the BOCS meeting does their invocation. First of all, I find it disingenuous, if you need to say a prayer right before you debate how you might or might not screw over your community as it pertains to land use or any other agenda item, we have big problems.
The prayer, all but one time, always revolves around Jesus Christ and I don’t “go” that way so why I am standing? Well, to be respectful and not look like a heathen. But I do feel uncomfortable and I imagine that an Iman would evoke the same response from everyone else sitting in the atrium.
Maybe as our friend Bill Golden once said, we should pray, “To whom it may concern.”
P.S. Maybe one of you regular BOCS attendees should ask them to invite the Imam from the mosque on Hoadly Road to provide the opening prayer.
My favorite prayer was this one, 41 seonds in to this – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBqe5xvYnNc
Sorry folks, the argument that the founding fathers were “deists” is not supported by the historical record. A few (Franklin, Jefferson) were, some were Unitarians, some Methodist, Presbyterians,and all the rest of the protestant denominations pretty much a reflection of the regions in which they were from. Some were extremely devote, others more secular. What is clear in the writings of all is that there was some recognition of an authority higher than man, a creator, from which our rights flow. They viewed any earthly government with suspicion, in that if rights were granted by man, they existed at the whim of man. They also resisted a state-sanctioned religion, because many of the colonies were established by persons fleeing persecution by the state (England) for holding beliefs that fell outside of the established (Anglican) Church of England. Puritans settled New England. Quakers Pensylvania, Catholics VA and MD, Convicts settled Georgia.
As much as we try to re-write our history, the foundations of our government were laid upon Judeo-Christian principles, the greatest being that our rights were “endowed by our creator” and government served to protect those rights. John Locke, Jefferson, Madison, George Mason, Washington, almost all of them acknowledged this relationship, and I’ve got news for you, the majority of the founding fathers weren”t Deists, or even unitarian. They were members of a trinitarian denomination of protestantism, and 3 Catholics. Of the 204 individuals that Signed the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, were delegates to the Constitutional Convention, the number is 204. Here’s the breakdown of their professed faiths:
Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers
# of
Founding
Fathers
% of
Founding
Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
As you can see, the majority were Episcopalians/Anglican, or Presbytarians, and all except the Unitarians (Franklin, Jefferson) were trinitarian denominations. So, the fundamental premise from which many of you are basing your arguments is false, you might need to check your assertions. Additionally, if you are arguing that the US Constitution’s establishment clause governs the conduct at a BOCS meeting, High School football game, etc. etc., you would again be wrong. It says “Congress shall pass no law establishing…or prohibiting…. and a non-sectarian prayer, using the universal term for our creator (God, Lord) and avoiding terms like (Yahwe, Christ, Allah, Jehova, Father/Son/Holy Spirit) does not violate the establishment clause. The courts have ruled on this time, and time again. But, that is not to say you aren’t entitled to your own opinions. I’d just like to point out that many of the arguments are not supported by the facts. Historical facts. Verifiable facts.
Actually, I wasn’t basing my opinion on much of anything other than my opinion. I don’t know what the outcome of the court case will be but I expect it will influence what we do here in PWC. I just see no reason to open the meeting with public prayer when moment of silence can be tailored to each person. They can pray, make a mental grocery list, or sweep out the cob webs. Up to them.
I feel that regardless of who is doing the prayers, it gives government control of what religion you will be practicing for however that prayer lasts. I also believe that congress stands for “governing body.”
Just out of curiosity, how many residents would have a fit if a wiccan priestess delivered one of those BOCS prayers and prayed to earth mother? That very well might make many people uncomfortable, perhaps as uncomfortable as Elena has felt at times when she found herself worshipping Jesus as a deity.
Note that Jefferson and Franklin were the thinkers in that bunch.
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
@Rick Bentley
Oh…really? So Madison, Mason, and Adams….just free riders?
Okay then.
Which is why NY State Assembly candidate (D-Brooklyn) Charles Barron referred to Jefferson as a ““slaveholding pedophile.” So which is it? I guess that would depend on which argument the left is trying to make at the time, and whether or not it fits the narrative they are trying to foist on a public ignorant of history. I notice that you don’t even acknowledge that the left’s constant argument that the ” founding fathers were Deists…damnit” fails at the most objective level…the factual level. I also notice on the one-hand, you call those who pray “fools” and yet congress and scotus praying “is a negative testament to the power of prayer”. How can folly be negatively impacted? I thought folly is only surpassed by malice as the province of negativity. I will concede that you may be the resident expert in folly, and will differ to your vast experience.
Steve: I haven’t followed the thread meticulously, but I doubt that the aversion to government prayer is based on perceptions of the religious affiliations of the Founders. I would think the better, and probably generally underlying concern derives from the standard 18th Century practice, a practice not entirely unknown in today’s world, of having government and religion mixed together in ways that tends to politicize and debase religion. In those days, the intermixing went right up to monarchs being regarded as heads of the national churches (as is still the case in England). Many of us to whom our religious faith is important are very much opposed to politicians trying to overtly mix religion into their political and governance activities and feel that our Constitution protects us against that.
The Grace, New York situation is one which may pass constitutional muster if, but only if, it is found that the prayers did not favor any one particular sect, and if the prayers are non-religious in their substance – the kind of “ceremonial deism” identified by Justice Brennan as essentially harmless constitutionally because there is really nothing to them of any theological or religious significance.