TRI In The News
Court Stands With Religious Freedom in Prayer Ruling
Prayer before town council meetings; OUR OPINION: Court correctly decides officials cannot dictate content of prayer
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on prayer at the beginning of government meetings won’t end debate about separation of church and state, but it is a correct decision that goes to the root of the constitutional guarantees of freedom to practice a religion as well as protection from government-sanctioned religion.
The divided high court ruled in favor prayer at the start of local council meetings, declaring in a New York case that they are in line with long national traditions though the country has grown more religiously diverse.
The content of the prayers is not significant as long as they do not denigrate non-Christians or try to win converts, the court said in a 5-4 decision backed by its conservative majority.
The outcome relied heavily on a 1983 decision in which the court upheld an opening prayer in the Nebraska Legislature and said prayer is part of the nation’s fabric, not a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.
Critics will say the ruling amounts to government favoring Christianity, which many in our country argue that it should, but this ruling is clearly about protecting the rights of both religious majorities and minorities.
Two residents of Greece, N.Y., began the case with lawsuit over the prayers always being Christian in nature. A trial court ruled in the town’s favor, finding that the town did not intentionally exclude non-Christians. It also said that the content of the prayer was not an issue because there was no desire to proselytize or demean other faiths.
A federal appeals court disagreed, deciding that the town violated the Constitution by opening nearly every meeting over an 11-year span with prayers that focused on Christianity, amounting to the town’s endorsement of Christianity.
The high court rejected the appeals court decision, saying the ruling amounts to government taking action against a religion by forbidding overt Christian references in the prayers at the meetings.
Writing for the Supreme Court on May 5, Justice Anthony Kennedy said forcing clergy to remove references to Jesus Christ and other sectarian religious figures would turn government officials into censors.
Echoing arguments made by The Rutherford Institute in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in support of the town of Greece, the court ruled that courts are not to censor the content of legislative prayer unless the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize one, or disparage any other, faith.
John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State,” correctly concludes: “The essential question in this case is whether the government can provide an opportunity to pray to citizens and at the same time dictate the content of the prayers, censoring those who invoke their personal God according to their conscience. The answer, as the Supreme Court has ruled, is in the negative — the government does not violate the Constitution by allowing sectarian references in legislative prayers and simply cannot prescribe or proscribe the content of any ‘official’ prayer without violating the First Amendment rights of persons.”
