In November, SCOTUS will hear argument in Town of Greece v. Galloway, a case that involves a challenge to a town council’s practice of having Christian ministers open meetings with Christian prayers. SCOTUS previously ruled that similar practices were kosher, but there are some distinctions between the previous case and this one:
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the case is that the Obama administration filed an amicus brief on behalf of the defendants.
Anyway, I presume most of us will be hopping mad about this and demand that SCOTUS rule against the town (or even overrule Marsh). Personally, I expect the wink-and-nod approach to government endorsement of religion is here to stay, but I remain quietly hopeful that we can do away with this nonsense (religion in governance, that is, not religion in general).
I think we’re doomed to ad hoc distinctions and rhetorical hand-waving on this and all free exercise and establishment clause cases, because the only good theoretical basis for treating religious belief differently from other moral belief is that it reduces social conflict. Since the animating principle is practical and effects-based, the outcomes will be practical and effects-based.
Ceremonial deism fits that mold pretty well. The notion is that no one really cares if there’s some superficial vague religiosity, but people care the more it becomes exclusionary of other powerful groups (assuming that atheism and polytheism remain relatively powerless). But the closer you get to upsetting Jews or Catholics or whatever, then the less likely you are going to succeed on ceremonial deism. And that’s a perfectly *principled *position, since the principle itself is basically “let’s set up our laws in such a way as to avoid religious conflict.”
Question: Is that actually an established part of the jurisprudence on this matter? Just curious, because it’s not intuitive at all that religion “reduces social conflict”.
Not as far as I know. I think generally the courts take it as a given that we should avoid undue interference with religiously-motivated conduct, and then go about defining “undue” in whatever ad hoc way suits them for that case. I’m not aware of any Supreme Court case that tries to discover a workable principle for *why *we should protect religiously-motivated conduct and then tries to faithfully explore and apply that principle. (But I could be wrong. I’m not an expert in this area.)
I know I’m in the minority on this board, but 1st amendment jurisprudence is where the Court has simply run wild in what is a simple constitutional issue. In my mind, so long as the town of Greece has not:
Declared Christianity the official religion of the town, or
Prohibited or punished people in the town for exercising a particular religion, then
no constitutional problem.
But even if we stick with the current jurisprudence, to distinguish this from Marsh because of references to Jesus Christ is going to create an unworkable model. There are countless words in a prayer that might cause left-wing concerns. We would need Stephen Breyer to preclear every town council prayer across the country lest some minister say the wrong word.
If a priest gave a fire and brimstone sermon at the town council, that wouldn’t be declaring Christianity the official religion, either. Would that be OK with you?
You’re making up your own rules here, and where do you get #2? Have you considered Lemon, which says nothing about prohibiting or punishing anyone for a religious practice? For reference, here are the 3 prongs of Lemon:[ol][li]The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose[]The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion[]The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.[/ol][/li]
I’d say having a minister administer anything remotely like a prayer during a town meeting violates #3, and it certainly violates #1. It seems to violate #2 if only one sect of ministers have been invited. No Buddhists, Muslim or Shinto priests were included? Wouldn’t that be advancing one religion at the expense of others?
Yes and no. It did state that the prayers were non-sectarian, but it never said that the content of the prayers was the sine qua non of their constitutionality. It was one factor in dicta. The Court does this in many opinions as I’m sure you know.
I wouldn’t be okay with a hellfire and brimstone prayer, and I would bring a proposal before council not to allow it. But I don’t think it is unconstitutional.
Further, even with the Lemon test, I can’t see how allowing a Christian prayer “advances” Christianity. Are adults in the town so childlike that they will rush to the local fundamentalist church to convert because of the prayers at council meeting? Same way with #3. The council isn’t excessively entangled in church business or vice versa. It’s just a prayer.
If the only religion you are allowed to be exposed to is Christianity, at the exclusion of not only others, but the absence of religion, and the government provides this “service,” implying an endorsement, I think that advances a particular religion most definitely.
“Just” a prayer? How many atheists do you know who pray? And you don’t think that a religious concept such as a “prayer” to a* specific *supernatural being, endorsed by the government, isn’t entangling it with the church? Do the prayers of Muslims sound a lot like Christians? Do religious concepts like prayers fit well with secular government business?
It “advances” Christianity only in the most mundane way possible. I suppose that if you teach the story of the Pilgrims and mention their religious faith a student might infer that their faith helped their survival, and the school would thereby “advance” Puritanism. You would have to exorcise religion entirely from public discourse lest anyone take something positive away from it. That’s clearly not in line with even the most liberal of the Warren Court decisions.
Also, perhaps some people like you are turned off by the idea of a prayer at a secular council meeting. Maybe they are harming the Christian faith by having the prayer? Without data showing that any church is benefiting from these prayers, I can’t see how it advances anything.
The quote is “excessive entanglement.” By definition, a certain amount of entanglement is allowed, so long as it isn’t excessive. What, in your view, is entanglement that isn’t excessive?
If it makes the appearance that the local governing body is only concerned in ‘Christian’ views - it is advancing that faith over the others - it may be that the people may feel thier voice will not be heard unless they accept christianity or go to the ‘same church’ as the rest of the council members.
If those same churches are able to get ‘favor’ in the council as compared to others - it is advancing the christian faith.
This is why it must be stopped - the mere appearance of favoritism of one faith over the other starts down a path of entanglement - look where we are 235 years later - the interweb is ‘full’ of folks making the claim that the USA was founded on ‘Christian’ principles alone.
A ‘non-denominationa’ type of prayer would be non-entangling if a prayer must be offered bt that still leaves out the atheists - and begs the question - who’s guidence/supplication is being requested that the individual can’t ask for before leaving for work to begin with?
Really? I’m not being snarky, but am simply asking. Do you think that because the town council begins its session with a prayer that you won’t get the pothole fixed on the road in front of your house because you are an atheist? And even if you did think that, are there examples of people accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior to get a building permit?
I don’t think its reasonable nor actionable unless they actually don’t fix your pothole or grant your building permit without trying to coerce you into joining the church.
So long as the Supreme Court goes along with the fiction of “ceremonial deism” (I’ve said it before: There’s no such critter), that’s exactly what’s going to happen.
They may see that the new road construction in front of the new church got higher priority than the local pothole in front of the ‘church of satan’ - or the fact that I see police officers in front of the ‘big churches’ guiding traffic on Sundays but not in front of the smaller ones - there are lots of places that favoritism can be seen/felt even if its not truly being done - this is what disenfranchises people to the point we are at today.
but lest we get to far into the hypothetical here - its the ‘notion’ that one side may get favoritism that is supposed to be gone here - ‘of the people, by the people’ and all that.
Further, I would say that if the prayers are truly ‘ceremonial’ in nature - then they do not need to be calling members of any faith ‘in’ to do it - they can* agree to a non-denomination ‘prayer’ that they can rotate thru the members of the council to open the meeting with. If they feel the need to bring in the local clergy to ‘bless the meeting’ - then it is no longer ceremonial but serves an ‘actual purpose’ in the minds of the people present (or atleast the ones that like that particular clergy)
*in so much as any group of politicians can agree to anything.
Don’t the police usually direct traffic where there is more traffic and not direct traffic where there isn’t so much? This is part of my point. The fact that the cops direct traffic for the thousand people coming out of Mega Church, Inc. and don’t direct traffic in front of the Fourth Reformed Presbylutheran Church with eleven people coming out is NOT evidence of religious favoritism any more that direct traffic after the football game and not my backyard barbecue is evidence that they like football better.
Second, I contend that there is no such “notion” that church members get favorable treatment, and if there is, such a notion it isn’t reasonable. If there actually IS such favorable treatment, then I agree it should be stopped.
Third, I agree. I don’t think it is a good use of town resources to pay a professional to lead a prayer. I think it is frivolous waste. There is no reason a council member can’t say a 30 second prayer. But my judgment as to the proper allocation of town resources shouldn’t control over the council members. That’s what they are elected to do. If they are wasting money, then I can vote them out next time.
I will go one step further. “Non-demoninational” is a code word for the broadest of “Judaeo-Christian” faiths; it includes Catholics, Mormons, most Protestant sects, Jews and might even include Essenes. It certainly doesn’t include atheists, Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindus, Muslims, worshipers of Zeus, pagans, and most of the world’s religions.
And any way you look at it, a “prayer” is a supplication to a supernatural being, usually of a specific type. It certainly excludes atheists.
For the first two items - the point I’m trying to make is that the appearance of favoritism is what is to be avoided - the example of police directing traffic - for those that don’t go to church - it appears to be favoritism, even if its something that is ‘needed’ - but then ‘megamonsterchurch’ should maybe consider parking and exit requirements as part of the permit to build said church - if you’re going to build and invite that many people - then the onus is on you to provide those services and plan accordingly.
In any event - IMHO - one of the the ideas behind the ‘non-establishment’ clause was to avoid even the sense of favoritism and to insure that all voices were heard - not just the most popular - keep in mind that when it was formed, there were far fewer ‘differences’ to deal with.
This is a tangent - I think we agree that the idea of the ‘prayer’ before every meeting - especially as stated in the aforementioned suit - go far beyond what would generally be considered “ceremonial deism” and do, to a degree, favor ‘Christianity’ over other faiths.
OK , but if you then don’t put that same onus on shopping malls and football stadiums, the apparent favoritism has now become actual favoritism - we’ll have police officers direct traffic out of parking lots when needed, just as long as it’s not a religious organization/service causing the traffic.
I don’t like prayer before council meetings, but I don’t think eliminating the prayer would eliminate any favoritism that exists. I also have actually never heard anyone express a belief that police directing traffic in front of large churches but not small churches shows favoritism, anymore than I’ve heard anyone suggest that NYPD directing traffic away from the Met game but not the Cyclones game shows favoritism.