The right to religious freedom is
defined under the First Amendment as follows: “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress
of grievances.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment).
This in itself creates a solid argument for the right to begin a public meeting
with a religious prayer, but it is not that simple – the law, after all, is
rather tricky. For instance, there is the Constitution’s Establishment Clause,
the separation of church and state, which prohibits government regulation
and/or endorsement of religion.
It is debatable whether an argument can be made for the government endorsing religion via these opening prayers or not, but nevertheless, it is still infringing upon others’ rights who do not follow the same religion. In this regard, an atheist may not have any rights, but anyone within the Supreme Court not of Christian faith does have the right to express concern over where these prayers fall outside of constitutional bounds. “The question raised by Town of Greece v. Galloway is how sectarian these prayers can get.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/supreme-court-wrestles-with-how-religious-prayer-should-be-at-public-meetings/2013/11/06/01e8fec6-4733-11e3-95a9-3f15b5618ba8_story.html).
This is an especially messy area of law. There are courts across the country that have come up with rulings on legislative prayer that are at odds with each other, and it is not always clear what passes constitutional muster. The justices of the Supreme Court grappled with limits that would allow such prayer without making those who disagree feel coerced or alienated and in an attempt to create an acceptable prayer for all faiths. However, as seen during Town of Greece v. Galloway, not everyone is in agreement of coming to a conclusion for those of differing faith, as demonstrated by Justice Antonin Scalia: “What about devil-worshippers? They are there as citizens, and as citizens, they bring to their job all of — all of the predispositions that citizens have. And these people perhaps invoke the deity at meals. They should not be able to invoke it before they undertake a serious governmental task such as enacting laws or ordinances?” (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/06/21334088-supreme-court-tests-limits-of-prayer-at-official-government-meetings). Rather, the main issue presented with allowing prayer before public meetings is not to impose sectarian prayer on the citizenry, and until a prayer that is all-inclusive is presented, it is imposing government-sponsored religion on the public citizenry.
It is debatable whether an argument can be made for the government endorsing religion via these opening prayers or not, but nevertheless, it is still infringing upon others’ rights who do not follow the same religion. In this regard, an atheist may not have any rights, but anyone within the Supreme Court not of Christian faith does have the right to express concern over where these prayers fall outside of constitutional bounds. “The question raised by Town of Greece v. Galloway is how sectarian these prayers can get.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/supreme-court-wrestles-with-how-religious-prayer-should-be-at-public-meetings/2013/11/06/01e8fec6-4733-11e3-95a9-3f15b5618ba8_story.html).
This is an especially messy area of law. There are courts across the country that have come up with rulings on legislative prayer that are at odds with each other, and it is not always clear what passes constitutional muster. The justices of the Supreme Court grappled with limits that would allow such prayer without making those who disagree feel coerced or alienated and in an attempt to create an acceptable prayer for all faiths. However, as seen during Town of Greece v. Galloway, not everyone is in agreement of coming to a conclusion for those of differing faith, as demonstrated by Justice Antonin Scalia: “What about devil-worshippers? They are there as citizens, and as citizens, they bring to their job all of — all of the predispositions that citizens have. And these people perhaps invoke the deity at meals. They should not be able to invoke it before they undertake a serious governmental task such as enacting laws or ordinances?” (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/06/21334088-supreme-court-tests-limits-of-prayer-at-official-government-meetings). Rather, the main issue presented with allowing prayer before public meetings is not to impose sectarian prayer on the citizenry, and until a prayer that is all-inclusive is presented, it is imposing government-sponsored religion on the public citizenry.
No comments:
Post a Comment