Download Multiple Court Rulings Advance Government Sectarian Prayer

Greasing the Line: Multiple
Court
Rulings
Advance
Government Sectarian Prayer
The combined case of Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Conestoga
Wood v. Sebelius may be one of the most important religious
liberty cases in American history.
But the recently
decided—but less well known—case Town of Greece, NY v.
Galloway should not get lost in the shadows. These cases’
impact on how we manage the intersection of religion and
public life may be transformative.
At issue in Greece was the practice of opening town
meetings with Christian prayers over a ten year period.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a
lawsuit on behalf of two citizens (one Jewish, one atheist)
objecting to the practice—which they said made them feel
alienated and unwelcome. The case was originally decided in
their favor, but when appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court,
the justices ruled 5-4 in favor of the Town, overturning
the lower court’s decision and declaring that sectarian
prayer was constitutionally permissible. The author of the
majority opinion however, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,
sought to limit the practice to what he called “ceremonial
prayers,” to open governmental meetings. But the justices
offered a variety of concurring and dissenting opinions, so
it is clear that the courts have a long way to go with an
issue that may be forever litigated and never completely
resolved.
“The Supreme Court just relegated millions of
Americans—both believers and nonbelievers—to second-class
citizenship,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive
director of Americans United for Separation of Church and
State. “Government should not be in the business of forcing
faith on anyone, and now all who attend meetings of their
local boards could be subjected to the religion of the
majority.”
For the Greece decision, SCOTUS relied on a 1983 decision
in which the court had ruled that state legislatures may
pay for official chaplains and open sessions with prayers.
The Kennedy-led majority in Greece believes that the
reasoning of this case authorizes the town’s practice.
(Underscoring how divided the judiciary and the country is
on these matters, the decision in 1983 case was also a 5-4
vote.)
Indeed, Justice Kennedy explicitly rejected the argument
that government-sponsored prayers must be non-sectarian.
“Respondents argue, in effect, that legislative prayer may
be addressed only to a generic God,” Kennedy wrote. “The
law and the Court could not draw this line for each
specific prayer or seek to require ministers to set aside
their nuanced and deeply personal beliefs for vague and
artificial ones.”
Paradoxically, Kennedy also suggested that even as he
thinks the depth of religious expression should not be
limited, there also are limits.
“If the course and practice over time shows that the
invocations denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities,
threaten damnation, or preach conversion, many present may
consider the prayer to fall short of the desire to elevate
the purpose of the occasion and to unite lawmakers in their
common effort,” Kennedy declared,. “That circumstance would
present a different case than the one presently before the
Court.”
Justice Elena Kagan, writing in dissent, said the decision
will foster majoritarianism rather than respect for
religious differences and the rights of individuals. “I
think the Town of Greece’s prayer practices violate that
norm of religious equality – the breathtakingly generous
constitutional idea that our public institutions belong no
less to the Buddhist or Hindu than to the Methodist or
Episcopalian,” she wrote.
The two Greece residents who brought the suit, Susan
Galloway and Linda Stephens, objected to the town board’s
practice of inviting clergy to open meetings with prayers
that left them feeling unwelcome and alienated. That,
Kennedy feels is OK, because if they don’t like Christian
prayers, they can step out for the prayer and come back for
the meeting. No one is coercing anyone to pray.
But since the board had not required that the invocations
be inclusive and non-sectarian, unsurprisingly, town
records showed that about two-thirds of the 120 recorded
invocations over about ten years contained references to
“Jesus Christ,” “Jesus,” “Your Son” or the “Holy Spirit.”
And almost all of the prayer-givers have been Christian
clergy.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals unanimously ruled in May 2012 against the Town.
Judge Guido Calabresi said “a given legislative prayer
practice, viewed in its entirety, may not advance a single
religious sect.” Nevertheless, the Kennedy-led majority of
the SCOTUS saw it differently.
“This ruling is out of step with the realities of modernday America,” Lynn added. “In a country where pluralism and
diversity are expanding every day, a Supreme Court decision
that gives the green light to ‘majority-rules’ prayer at
local government is exactly what we don’t need.”
Sectarianism Today, Sectarianism… Forever?
One of the first results of the SCOTUS ruling in Greece was
the lifting of a preliminary injunction against sectarian
prayer imposed earlier this year by a federal judge on the
Carroll County, Maryland Board of Commissioners. The judge
had essentially put the case on pause until SCOTUS ruled in
the similar case of Greece vs. Galloway.
In the Carroll
County case, a Catholic and a deist said they had been made
to feel unwelcome by the Christian prayers offered at
meetings of the county Board of Commissioners.
The Carroll County case is different from Greece v.
Galloway in one important respect, and will continue
despite SCOTUS’ ruling.
“The sectarian prayers being said here are being said by
the elected officials themselves, whereas in the Greece
case the prayers were said by invitees, usually clergy,”
David Niose, legal director of the American Humanist
Association explained to The Washington Post. “When an
elected official speaks, he or she presumably speaks for
the government, whereas when someone else is invited in
from the outside it is not the government endorsing the
prayers.
Supporters of the sectarian Commissioners might agree with
Niose on this point, albeit for very different reasons.
As we previously reported here at Eyes Right, Pastor David
Whitney of Anne Arundel County, Maryland was very animated
about the prayer issue in nearby Carroll County and the
role of the Federal Courts. Whitney said that telling “an
elected official that they cannot acknowledge our Lord
Jesus Christ, the one to whom all authority belongs, is to
deny that the so-called civil government has any authority
at all.”
Similarly, a leading national Christian Right political
operative, David Lane of the American Renewal Project, has
also denounced the preliminary injunction and the judge
who issued it—U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles Jr.,
who was appointed by President George W. Bush.
Mockingly referring to “Emperor Quarles,” Lane wrote,
“[u]nelected and unaccountable Judges imposing a false
religion of political correctness, multiculturalism and
secularism have no right to rule a free people…”
“The pretension and foolishness of the U.S. Supreme — and
inferior courts – Court,” Lane continued, “is mindblowing.”
Lane is widely seen as a behind-the-scenes “kingmaker” who
has helped develop the national profiles of major political
leaders and 2016 presidential prospects who have
demonstrated appeal to the Christian Right. These include
Fox News personality Mike Huckabee, Governors Rick Perry
(R-TX) and Bobby Jindal (R-LA), and Senators Rand Paul (RKY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX).
“Let’s decide if America is a Christian or pagan nation,”
Lane concluded, “and get on with it.”