Prayer in the Statehouse 2
From today’s Washington Post:
Ceremonial prayer in the Statehouse or other such venues is not nearly so permicious as prayer and religion in public schools. Indeed, one could argue that, if anyone needs prayer, it is our elected representatives incongruously assembled.
Yet, this statement from Clarence Brown, one of the Indiana legislators whose prayer helped spark the suit, gives me something to chew on:
“I wanted to share the word. That’s what I’m supposed to do,” Brown said. “I have to do what Jesus Christ says for me to do as a witness.” And, apparently Mr. Brown prays quite eloquently:
Brown’s prayer included thanks to God “for our lord and savior Jesus Christ, who died that we might have the right to come together in love.” When the prayer was finished, (Brian) Bosma (speaker of the House–ed.) announced that Brown would “bless us with a song.”
As Brown led the rollicking tune, some members and staffers clapped and sang along.
I’m not sure whether his attempting to gain converts from the legislative pulpit constitutes “establishment of religion.” I think one could make a strong argument that, given the forum and the audience, it does not–at least not in the same way as requiring the teaching of religious doctrine to school children; it does, nevertheless, show a motive beyond that of asking the God “bless this house in its endeavor to steer this state.”
It is notable, though, that the plaintiffs in the suite included “a Quaker, a Methodist and two Catholics.” This suit was clearly not anti-Christian–no atheists here. It would seem to be more indicative of divisions within the Christian community of where rendering unto God stops and rendering unto Caesar starts.
January 1, 2006 at 11:14 pm
As I recall, proselytizing was not a factor in the court’s decision. Being able to identify the pray-er’s religion from the content of their prayer was.
Disappointing as the decision was to me, it wasn’t created out of whole cloth; the judge based it on some interestingly arbitrary previous decisions. Two critical points from previous law were involved:
First, that when someone prays before the state legislature, that speech is to be considered state speech and not speech from the individual. Establishing this was necessary in order to render the person’s free speech rights inoperative for the occasion.
Second, that such prayers can only be reflective of the “American Civil Religion,” whatever the heck that is. This was the precedent that really stunned me; I thought the whole point of this case was to show that the government had no particular religion!
But anyway, that’s how the judge arrived at his decision, or at least how he justified it. I’ll be interested in seeing what an appellate court says, if it’s taken there, because then we’ll probably get opinions on both sides, unless it’s unanimous.
January 2, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Do you have a link to the decision?