Supreme Court’s ruling chisels away at the wall between church and state

The U.S. Supreme Court missed an opportunity to declare that this is a nation in which local governments value each individual, regardless of the individual’s religion or lack thereof.

As recently as 2012, the court declined to hear an appeal in a lower court ruling that found the Forsyth County, N.C., board of commissioners were wrong in opening their meetings with Christian invocations. The lower court had written that “invocations must consist of the type of nonsectarian prayers that solemnize the legislative task and seek to unite rather than divide.”

This month, however, in the case of the Town of Greece (N.Y.) vs. Galloway, the Supreme Court has thrown out a similar appeals court ruling. It has declared that while a governing board can’t write its own prayer, it’s perfectly all right for the board to invite others to start the meeting with a sectarian prayer. And if those prayers are almost, or even exclusively, Christian, well nonChristians should just get used to it.

This is a court that seems to enjoy divorcing itself from the reality of everyday life in making its philosophical rulings. And it does so generally by narrow majorities split on ideological lines.

Chief Justice John Roberts and four other conservative members seem convinced that America has evolved beyond the racism of just 50 years ago, and so it found that the Voting Rights Act placed excessive burdens on states that historically tried to keep black citizens from voting. The same justices have declared that money equals free speech and that corporations are people — and that hundreds of millions of dollars poured into political campaigns won’t affect how politicians act. Or even give an appearance of impropriety.

And now the court has found that the First Amendment is not violated when government favors one religion over another unless coercion is involved. Thus the supervisors of Greece are free to invite ministers and priests to open their meetings with sectarian prayers. Further, they need not go to extra lengths to make sure all faiths are represented, even if that means one faith provides the dominant message.

Residents of other faiths

Only 3 percent of Greece’s population is Jewish. Others in unknown numbers are agnostics, atheists. Baha’is, Muslems or of other beliefs or nonbelief. The numbers are not an issue. Each is entitled to appear at a town council meeting without having to go through the motions of the majority’s religion.

Prior to 1999, Greece opened its meetings with a moment of silence, which allowed those who felt a need to seek divine guidance in their own way to do so.

But that wasn’t good enough for board supervisor John Auberger when he was elected in 1999. He began inviting Christian clergymen to give an invocation, some of whom recited the sign of the cross or called upon Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit to guide the town board.

There is a place for such specific invocations, and it is the church, where believers are free to congregate or not.

The most recent Supreme Court imprimatur on sectarian prayer in a government setting notes that “In God We Trust” remains on U.S. currency; the Pledge of Allegiance and oaths of office mention a creator, and Congress has a chaplain and opens its sessions with a prayer. But our currency and our historical documents reference God, a creator or divine providence. We may be a God-fearing nation that is made up predominantly of Christians, but we are not a Christian nation.

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the court’s ruling could lead to sectarian prayers at trials, polling places or naturalization ceremonies.

This was dismissed by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who said “some readers will take these hypotheticals as a warning that this is where today’s decision leads — to a country in which religious minorities are denied the equal benefits of citizenship.”

It is not surprising to hear Alito say that, “nothing could be further from the truth.” But it is surprising to hear even Alito add that, “all that the court does today is to allow a town to follow a practice that we have previously held is permissible for Congress and state legislatures.”

Significant difference

Because there is a significant difference between state legislatures and town councils.

The people attending a town council meeting are in a more intimate setting, and often they are there seeking something to which they feel they are entitled: a zone change, a road repair, additional police protection. As such, they are almost certain to feel compelled to stand for a prayer, even if it goes against a religion they were taught as a child and have observed their entire lives.

It is difficult to believe that the supreme court’s majority would not see the coercive nature of a sectarian prayer in such a public forum. This is yet another instance of a “conservative” court breaking new ground — not because it was necessary, but because the court’s majority wanted to do so and knew it could.