Town meeting prayer case goes to court

The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to hear a case involving prayers at town meetings. The ultimate decision has the potential to clarify a longstanding question about the separation of church and state.

The case involves the Town of Greece, N.Y., a small community near Rochester. Since 1999, the town board has opened its meetings with a prayer by a “chaplain of the month.”

Town officials have defended the practice and say that prayers by any denomination of clergy or even atheists are welcome.

However, in most cases, the clergy leading the prayers at these sessions have been Christians and two citizens of the town, with the assistance of the organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State, have sued to have the prayers stopped.

They claim the prayers violate the First Amendment’s prohibition against establishing religion, and a federal court of appeals in New York agreed. Now it’s up to the high court.

The Supreme Court has already said it’s okay for Congress to open with a prayer. In a Nebraska case in 1983, the court sanctioned prayers by the state legislature, claiming the practice was “deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.”

Generally, the Massachusetts House and Senate open their sessions with only the Pledge of Allegiance.

But some towns in Massachusetts begin their town meetings with a prayer, although the number of towns that do so has been declining in recent years, as reported by town moderators through their association’s email exchange, the Gavel Line.

Town meeting prayers have long history

As in the Nebraska case, it can be argued these town meeting prayers have a long history and tradition and should be allowed to continue. But the court has consistently sent mixed signals about religious observance in government settings.

For instance, even though prayers are lawful in Congress, state legislatures and the Supreme Court itself, the court in 1962 outlawed mandatory prayers in public schools.

It didn’t matter if they were nondenominational or that students could excuse themselves from participating, the court said state-sanctioned school prayers of any kind are unconstitutional.

It’s not okay to have a teacher or pupil read a prayer in a public school, but it’s fine to read a prayer before Congress or a state legislature. This is nonsense.

Even if a majority of legislators in a given body agree to read a prayer before their business of the day, that majority should not be able to impose its religious preference either on the minority of the assembly who may not want a prayer or on the citizens who observe or interact with the assembly.

This should go for any level of government – federal, state or local. The conduct of government is a civic exercise, the public’s business done under laws and regulations.

Prayer is a religious exercise, conceived and guided by a myriad of religious organizations according to their traditions and faith.

The upstate New York case will not likely clear up these seemingly contradictory rulings. It will probably cover only town meetings and may not even apply to New England town meetings, where citizen legislators run the show rather than elected boards.

But the Greece appeal would be a good place to restart the conversation about the role of religion in government.

Prayers in government are either lawful or they aren’t. There’s no middle ground.

Posted by Bruce Garlow on May 30, 2013. Filed under Berkshire Beacon Hill Spotlight,Columns,Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry