A new issue on the horizon, public prayers

A fierce argument continues in the United States about religion. Was it the intent of the founders to establish a secular state with a clear separation of religion and government? Or was it their intent to have a Christian nation? That disagreement is about to go through a new round of debate.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on May 20 that they have accepted the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway. The case is calendared for the court’s fall session. The case comes out of the practice of the Town Board of Greece, N.Y. to invite local clergy to give an invocation prayer before each session of the board. Two residents objected. In court, when the prayers were examined, it was clear they were distinctly Christian. A Federal Court found that the prayers were a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Invocations given by clergy have been quite common in all kinds of meetings of elected bodies across the country including the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. As long as Christianity was the dominant religious tradition of the country, no one seemed to care about this mixing of religion and government. No one complained.

The practice was first legally called into question 30 years ago. In a case, named Marsh v. Chambers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the practice of having a clergy led prayer before the meeting of a governmental body was constitutional with the comment that the practice was “deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.”

The past 30 years has seen dramatic changes in the religious make-up of America. First, we have become much more religiously diverse. The United States has seen a rapid growth in the Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other non-Christian populations. In addition there has been a significant growth of the non-religious population. Secularism has xpanded. “None” has become an acceptable identification.

It is in this new context that the meaning of the First Amendment is being re-examined. We all need to remember that the First Amendment makes two provisions. The first is the protection of the free exercise of religion. The second prohibits any government agency from participating in the establishment of religion. It is the meaning of the establishment clause that is being pursued by the Supreme Court.

Because of the change in the religious make-up of the nation, I suspect the high court will break new ground and will place new rules and limitations on invocations at the meetings of elected bodies or may even prohibit such prayers. I hope the Supreme Court will ban such prayers entirely.

Invocations by clergy at all kinds of non-religious meetings have always been a bit strange. An invocation is a prayer. Prayers are addressed to God. Jesus taught that the best place to pray was in a closet. Unless an invocation is completely innocuous, the praying clergyperson is publicly asking the Almighty to bless and influence the activities of a secular gathering.

I do not understand why a clergyperson is invited to pray at such meetings. The commitment of secular organizations, governmental or otherwise, is not to God. In my own faith tradition, believing people pray to God and witness to people. There is a vast difference between praying and witnessing.

Praying takes place at religious gatherings or in private. Witnessing is distinctly public. I have heard many invocations at secular gatherings, which were clearly witnessing (preaching). Such so called prayers are disgraceful to clergy and, I suspect, ignored by God.

A few years back, I decided that I no longer would give invocations at non-Christian gatherings. Then I was put to the test. I was invited to give an invocation prayer at the annual Convention of the Alaska State Democratic Party. I respectfully declined. When I was asked why I declined, I explained my convictions and reasoning. I was then asked if I would “say something.” I was eager to do so.

At the convention I was given the privilege of speaking to the hundreds of delegates. I told the Old Testament story of Cain killing Abel. The punch line of the story comes when God confronted Cain and enquired about his brother Abel. Cain replied “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

I concluded with a faith-based witness. “The character of the Democratic Party will be determined by its answer to that one question.”

I hope the U.S. Supreme Court, once and for all time, takes invocations out of the meetings of elected governmental bodies in the United States. I would hope also that clergy of all kinds would stop prostituting themselves to secular organizations with meaningless and innocuous invocations. Our public witness to our secular world is needed. Our prayers about anything are most effective when they emanate from a closet.

The Rev. Howard Bess is a retired American Baptist minister, who lives in Palmer. His email address is hdbss@mtaonline.net.

Opinions expressed on the Faith page are the author’s and are not necessarily those of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, its staff or its parent company, Wick Communications Co. To submit a column or other news for the Faith page, send email to news@frontiersman.com, or call 352-2250.