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.”