Photo by Rachel Elisa Gardner. Taken outside Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Houston at a Mass honoring the city’s fire-fighters.
Driving home Wednesday I heard this piece on NPR about the Supreme Court hearing arguments for Town of Greece v. Galloway, a case involving prayer and town hall meetings in Greece, NY. I decided to look into what other sources were saying about the case (NY Times, Deseret News, Fox News, Townhall.com, Christiannews.net, Progressivevoices.com are some of the ones I looked at) and also research the actual court transcripts of Town of Greece v. Galloway.
Rather than give you my own summary of the events, I invite you to peruse the sources above, and/or find your own, and take some time to sort through the issue. What do you think?
I’d like to offer two questions that resonated with me, that I would like to pose to you – please offer your thoughts!
Question one: I would echo Chief Justice Roberts question: what exactly is coercive in this environment?
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What exactly – since you are adopting the coercion test, what exactly is coercive in this environment? Having to sit and listen to the prayer?
MR. LAYCOCK (for the respondents): There are many coercive aspects here of varying degrees of importance. Citizens are asked to participate, to join in the prayer. They’re often asked to -
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: They are asked to participate, and — but not in any tangible way. Theysay: Well, I’m not going to participate, and everybody’s just sitting there.
MR. LAYCOCK: They are often asked to physically participate, to stand or to bow their heads. The testimony is most of the citizens bow — most of the citizens bow their heads whether they are asked to or not. So people who are not participating are immediately visible. The pastors typically say: “Please join me in prayer.” They offer the prayer on behalf of everyone there. They talk about “our Christian faith.”
JUSTICE SCALIA: This is coercion? He says, you know — he says, “May we pray,” and somebody doesn’t want to pray, so he stays seated.
MR. LAYCOCK: What’s coercive about it is it is impossible not to participate without attracting attention to yourself, and moments later you stand up to ask for a group home for your Down syndrome child or for continued use of the public access channel or whatever your petition is, having just, so far as you can tell,
irritated the people that you were trying to persuade. (p 36-37)
I understand that there could be, or perhaps were, coercive elements when only one religion was/is honored or represented. But as I understand it, back in 2008 when the plaintiffs first filed a complaint, an effort was made to get the word out that people of all faiths were welcome to offer the opening prayers, and for a few weeks, people of other faiths did (people representing the Jewish and Baha’i faith offered prayers, and also someone practicing Wicca). If that invitation was explicitly extended, where is the coercive element that violates the Establishment Clause?
Mr Hungar made this point during Wednesday’s arguments:
MR. HUNGAR: No, Your Honor. I mean, as we — as we said in our brief, the principles that undergird the Establishment Clause are equally consistent with the position we’re advancing here. As the — as your opinion in the County of Allegheny case Alderson Reporting Company indicates, the fundamental — the core of Establishment Clause concern is coercion or conduct that is so extreme that it leads to the establishment of a religion because it is putting the government squarely behind one faith to the exclusion of others, and that’s clearly not - not what’s going on here. (p 14-15)
JUSTICE BREYER: Do you have any objection to — to doing one thing that was suggested in the circuit court opinion, which is to publicize rather thoroughly in — in the area that those who were not Christians, and perhaps not even religious, are also welcome to appear and to have either a prayer or the equivalent if they’re not religious? Do you have an objection to that?
MR. HUNGAR: Certainly not.
Question TWO: When we “approach the government,” should we, or can we, leave our faith out of it? Justice Kagan says:
JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Gershengorn, could you respond to this? Here’s what our — our country promises, our Constitution promises. It’s that, however we worship, we’re all equal and full citizens. And I think we can all agree on that. And that means that when we approach the government, when we petition the government, we do so not as a Christian, not as a Jew, not as a Muslim, not as a nonbeliever, only as an American. And what troubles me about this case is that here a citizen is going to a local community board, supposed to be the closest, the most responsive institution of government that exists, and is immediately being asked, being forced to identify whether she believes in the things that most of the people in the room believe in, whether she belongs to the same religious team as most of the people in the room do. And it strikes me that that might be inconsistent with this understanding that when we relate to our government, we all do so as Americans, and not as Jews and not as Christians and not as nonbelievers. (p 24)
It doesn’t seem to me that we should, or can, leave our faith, or any values, out of our “relating” to the government. I say that for two reasons. One, because healthy human persons are integrated – their culture, upbringing, values, etc interact to form a congruent whole, with each aspect of the self informing the other aspects. To say we can block off or compartmentalize a part of the self is false, or if done, unhealthy and mechanistic. I would argue that no value or outlook, whether that be the lens of faith, or the lens of growing up poor/rich, or having big family, or have divorced parents, or having mixed heritage, whatever it is – you cannot separate that out, or neutralize it, and then call that fictitious, neutral part of your self “American.” Two – because isn’t the dialogue richest if we all bring what we have to the table? It seems like the issue Justice Kagan’s points out is that the plaintiffs felt left out for not being on the majority team (I’m not diminishing this, being left out can quickly lead to discrimination).
Instead of giving this false solution of “let’s just be Americans and nothing else,” as if being American were some neutral value-less state, I think the solution is perhaps more along the lines of affirming what each individual brings to the table, and letting that contribution stand on it’s own merit as part of the discussion, regardless of majority/minority.
That sounds American to me.
Please offer your comments or other resources – and let us respect what each one brings to the table!
Hi Rachel, I love that you’re inviting us to think of issues that have such an important bearing on our faith and life. It will take me some time to read and think through the specifics of this case, but I did want to bring to your attention to a pair of articles by Benjamin Wiker on the common perception of religious liberty, questioning whether it really means that anyone can believe anything they want. Each is roughly a 20 minute read, and both are outstanding. Great topic, Rachel!
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1886/the_puzzle_of_religious_liberty.aspxhttp://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2210/rethinking_religious_liberty.aspx
Sorry, the comment tool botched my links, let me try again –
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1886/the_puzzle_of_religious_liberty.aspx
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2210/rethinking_religious_liberty.aspx
As a follow-up, here would be my response to Mr. Laycock’s concern about nonconformity attracting attention. All religions point to a universal Good, though what that Good looks like differs in accordance with each religious view. That Good cannot be arbitrary, because human nature itself witnesses to the truth or falsehood of different views, and human nature is not arbitrary. The respect given to the practice of another religion, in public prayer for example, testifies to the universal Good as the object of that religious view. Refusal to participate in that particular religious practice does not signify disrespect to that religion. Any religion that views non-participation as a sign of disrespect denies the free will on which human dignity is based. Human rights are founded on this dignity, so it would forfeit its own right to be publicly recognized as a valid religious belief.
Also, one of the purposes of government is to facilitate the achievement of the common good, but first there must be agreement on what this common good entails. This is where we are going wrong today. ANY reference to the common good implies faith, whether it be in Christianity or in atheism, so neutrality is an illusion. The rules to which we refer in arbitrating disagreements have their own basis in some conception of the common good, and the “best” conceptions of this good are those most in accordance with our nature. As C. S. Lewis indicated in “The Abolition of Man”, redefining this good leads to abolishing human nature.
Finally, dialogue is only possible when all participating parties are seeking the truth in mutual respect, as Josef Pieper states in “Abuse of Language – Abuse of Power”. When an unstated, ulterior motive drives part of the discussion, honesty suffers and dialogue is replaced by sophistry. There are religions and ideologies that view deception, coercion and marginalization as acceptable tactics for the advancement of their belief systems. So any attempts at dialogue should be balanced by a prudent examination of patterns in other belief systems, as well as the beliefs themselves, that may indicate these tendencies. No one has an inalienable right to be believed.
Hi Matt! You make some great points. I love how you point out that “Any religion that views non-participation as a sign of disrespect denies the free will on which human dignity is based.” That’s exactly what I feel Shawn was talking about, and what I commented, about freedom – God respects each individuals freedom, and we must do the same. And indeed, as you said, what kind of religion would it be that denied its members or non-members the freedom to choose?
I do think it is pretty complex when we talk about a conception of the common good, precisely because there are many different view points on what is the “nature” of human beings, and what is “in accordance” with that nature or not. But I do like where you’re going with any reference to the common good implying faith – as Shawn said, Christian groups have often been culpable of not recognizing the virtues and graces brought to the community by people who don’t ascribe to any religion. We would do well to remember Jesus words: ““I have other sheep, which are not of this fold;” (John 10:16).
Thanks again for the comment. I’m about halfway through the article you shared – and hope to comment soon on the rest of it!
Well written post Rachel! A few things come to mind…(oops this got long….)
First, to your second point, I think Kagan has a pretty good point to make. It’s less that when we come together before the government we should *ignore* our heritage or pretend that we aren’t integrated beings, but rather it’s that the thing which should be emphasized above all else is what we all hold in common: citizenship, Americanness. How a group identifies itself and the minorities within it is always a political issue with real consequences: for example the difference between Muslim, Muslim Fundamentalist, and Muslim Extremest. Who gets to decide who is whom? In one way, Kagan is fulfilling one of the founding premises of our country: religion is a private matter, not a public one (I would even make the argument that the founding of a private sphere was actually how we have the notion of “religion” as a category. See my post about that http://cwgardner.blogspot.com/2013/03/religion-vs-science-still.html).
To put this another way, somebody recently at the school where I teach put up HUGE posters advertising for a local church’s youth night. I brought them to the attention of our principle, whom nobody had bothered to ask if they could be posted. If you are a member of a community (town, school, etc) and it’s assumed that everybody belongs to the same church, or faith, or whatever, then you feel immediately like an outsider, like a minority, like you don’t belong. Imagine if a majority white school allowed posters for a Wednesday night white people club. While this situation is a bit different, there is a common theme: the politics of identity.
When we come together as Americans to govern ourselves, we must be very careful how we choose to identify the commonalities and differences between us. By assuming we are all alike, many fall between the cracks, even if that assumption is implicit rather than explicit.
Second, I’d say coercion can be a soft-power coercion. No body is holding a gun to anyone’s head, but there are still consequences to not being Christian in that setting and your non-Christianness being noticed. Those consequences should be enough to stop the practice, even if they are simply a damaged first impression.
I keep trying to think of alternate scenarios: a black group meeting starting with some Spoken Word or Slam Poetry with a white person feeling left out; or a white meeting where some country song is sung and a black guy just sitting there looking around; or perhaps a cultural division or class division, lots of rich people with a poor person stuck in the middle.
It seems that this case is being used more as a “our religion is under attack” case, politicized for other reasons. Why do they need to start with a prayer at all? “Here-ye Here-ye this council is now in session.” Having other faiths come and pray just emphasizes that religion is something you need to have to be a member of the group. I say just get rid of the whole thing…
Thanks for the comment Chad! I suppose to address the issue with the example you offered, the problem I see with the posters is the “assuming.” The church group would have erred in assuming that everyone was Christian, yes. And they would have erred in not following proper procedures for asking to post outside material (ie not directly school related). But I still feel that the solution in this case would not be to remove all the Christian posters, but rather explicitly encourage all communities to post flyers, and perhaps even reserve space in some way so that minority communities could receive as much publicity as majority communities. Then, although there are different numbers of groups in each community, one community is not “left out” or made to feel less, but rather given the chance to grow as well. I would definitely not want to keep re-creating what Shawn experienced (see above comment).
I don’t think we should assume we are all alike. I agree with the plaintiffs that there should be an explicit welcome and encouragement of all faiths, if any one faith is going to be given time to lead a spiritual moment.
I do see that this case could be being used as you said for political reasons. But I think it is also important that the Supreme Court took the case, I think that lends it some weight, and I would hope, bring the issue to a place that is less volatile and easily influenced by political or party agendas.
To your last point: why start with a prayer at all? My hope would be that the prayer is not to “just emphasize that religion is something you need to have to be a member”, but rather to emphasize, as you said, “what we hold in common.” I would argue that one of the strongest human characteristics we all share in common is the inclination to appeal to greater wisdom, especially in decisive moments. Creating a space where people can intentionally orient themselves to that greater wisdom (be it philosophers, poets, religious teachers, God or historical tradition) is, I think, vital to decision making. Moments of silence where we orient ourselves to a greater wisdom are transformative – I think they have a direct outcome on the efficacy, depth and ingenuity of whatever work follows that moment of connection.
For this reason, I would want to safeguard such a space before the town hall meetings, either with a moment of silence where each participant could invoke their own relationship to greater wisdom, or, as suggested, a rotating thing of sorts where different wisdoms were represented. But as you point out, the key is not assuming everything ascribes to the same sources of wisdom – we must work towards accepting and hearing what each person has to offer; ie, hang up many posters, not just take down the Christian ones.
Thoughts???
Thank you again for the comment, and for reading the post!!
Well done! That’s some good research, some good thinking, and some good writing. I know what this issue feels like from the view point of, not a different faith person, but a definitely atheist person. The thing is a lot of atheists don’t feel like they are missing something good. They feel like they have their own values and goodness and that people of faith never consider that. I was in first grade when they still allowed prayer in school (in small, Texas towns, anyway) and I used to hide under my desk during that. I didn’t believe in what they were doing and I didn’t want to say anything but I didn’t want to do it or be part of it. My parents were against that sort of thing. Now I’m a devout Catholic. And I think it’s funny when we all have a moment of silence and pretend we’re not praying. (Silence IS prayer anyway, to me.) I don’t know what should be done but I don’t want to make other people feel as I used to when others started praying or invited to do so and having to refuse in some way.
I think what I like best is having someone read an inspirational quote about cultivating virtue that is not particularly about God (though it is to us, as He is the source of all good.) And then having a moment of silence. We all need direction and inspiration. Who’s going to fight about that? There are things every religion values, that cross over to secular humanists just fine, and that transcend cultural differences. So does silence. To me it is prayer. To my mother-in-law,who is a saintly atheist, it is a moment to think, remember what is right, or focus or be respectful. We could let that silence be personally interpretable as art. We could do that. And whether some of us know it or not, or even feel it, God can work in that silence if He wants. Nothing stops Him from being there or working. We should try and handle it the way God does. He’s silent and He comes into the hearts that invite Him, and he moves in mysterious ways among those who do not. We could act like that too.
Thank you for sharing your insight Shawn! I agree – I don’t want to make others feel as you felt either.
I love what you said about silence and inspiration (see my reply to Chad below!). We do need direction, and making a space to seek that direction makes a difference.
I also love that you point out that through the lens of faith, we should see God working in that silence. How artificial and limited would our understanding of God be, if we didn’t see His Spirit behind secular inspirational quotes or virtues? It’s all God.
And like you said so well, it must be carried out through invitation, and a respect for freedom – “the way God does.” I would not ever argue that all prayer before town hall meetings, etc, should be Christian, of course not – but I would argue to keep that silence space open.
Thank you for your comments!