Time for the Supreme Court to End Government Sponsored Prayer

Last Wednesday (Nov. 6) at the Supreme Court, I joined a group from the Secular Coalition of America in support of the plaintiffs in the Town of Greece v. Galloway who opposed Christian prayers before the town’s council meetings. I have since come to realize that that was a false choice – one between Christian prayers and watered down prayers. What about no prayers at all?  Isn’t that what the “No Establishment” Clause requires?  What part of “no” don’t we understand?

The seed of illumination began when I heard Americans United legal director Ayesha Khan tell reporters after oral arguments: 

Participating in one’s local government is a universal right of citizenship. It should not be conditioned on recitation of the Lord’s Prayer or participation in any other prayer that is unique to a particular faith tradition. Town residents attend these meetings not as spectators but as participants. Children's sports teams are invited to receive awards, people come to ask the board to take particular action and they come to seek zoning permits.  Exercising those rights and seeking those important benefits should not be conditioned on bowing one’s head in recognition of Jesus Christ.

It is important to understand that we are not asking the board to discontinue its practice of presenting prayers.  We are asking that citizens not be pressured to participate in those prayers and that the prayers be nondenominational and [in audible].  Our national motto is “In God We Trust,” not “In Christ We Trust.”  Our Pledge of Allegiance refers to “one nation under God,” not “one nation under Jesus,” “under Allah” or “under Buddha.”

We brought this lawsuit because the Town of Greece has chosen to thumb its nose at this long standing historical and constitutional provision that has served us so well.  Under the town’s view, residents who come to participate in these meetings to be asked to join in a prayer that promises eternal hell fire to anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ as their savior.  That can’t possibly be constitutional.  We hope that the Supreme Court will agree that civic participation should not be conditioned on compromising one’s religious beliefs.

Something was missing from Ms. Khan’s remarks, so I asked her: “What do you say to Atheists that don’t believe in god?  They shouldn’t have to hear even nondenominational prayers.” 

Ms. Khan dodged the latter question by responding: “Yes, as Professor Laycock [who argued the case on behalf of the plaintiffs] said this tradition that the country has followed does in fact not recognize the increasing diversity of this country.  We do believe under the proposal we have made that Atheists would be allowed to come forward and present a prayer, as would polytheists or anybody else who comes from a more diverse tradition than the monotheistic one that the Court opened with today.”

While the Americans United’s “sausage” proposal may be the best we could hope for given the religiosity of the Supreme Court (six Roman Catholic and three Jewish justices), it doesn’t cure the problem of government sponsored religion.  It’s time for the Supreme Court to say that prayer – as a part of governmental meetings – violates the No Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

And so it comes to past that after years of supporting Americans United, I painfully conclude that the organization is a front for mainstream Protestantism. This really should not be surprising.  Originally, it was founded in 1947 as Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State to oppose Catholic influence on government.  The organization has since dropped “Protestants and Other” from its name and added Christian fundamentalism to its opposition list.  It is also notable that its executive director is an ordained Protestant minister and has two Christian ministers and two Jewish rabbis on its board of trustees.

The unmistakable fact remains that Americans United supports government sponsored religion, including prayer at government meetings, the motto of “In God We Trust”, the insertion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and the Supreme Court’s opening sessions with a prayer.  Americans United’s nondenominational half-measure is analogous to granting gays the right to enter into civil unions instead of marriage.  Americans United’s position is undignified.  It’s wrong.

It is important to make these final comments.  First, while some prayers are more sectarian than others, all prayers are inherently sectarian.  Second, removing the wrongful practice of government sponsored religion from the public square is not being hostile to religion.  Rather, it is being faithful to the Constitution which prohibits government from preferring one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion or, in all fairness, nonreligion over religion.  Third, the absence of religion is not the same as being pro-Atheist.  Rather, it leaves to individuals and private institutions they may associate with the practice of religion.  And fourth, the Constitution created a “limited form of government,” granting Congress, the president and the judiciary no religious powers or duties.

If the Supreme Court is faithful to the Constitution, it will first cease opening its own sessions with the prayer “God save the United States and this honorable Court” and then tell the Town of Greece “NO MORE PRAYERS.”