In Response To The Case Town of Greece v. Galloway
No one believes everything they hear. But usually, despite disagreeing, those people go on with their lives without causing too much drama. So why, then, should it be illegal for some non-believers to listen to a few minutes of Christian prayers before town meetings? The prayer-holders are not forcing the non-believers to convert and they are not insulting them either. Priests are simply exercising their right of free speech, from the first amendment, by preaching their beliefs out to the public.
I have to say that I am ashamed of being so ignorant beforehand. I dove into this topic blind, failing to see the true substance. As I did some research into the plight of Susan Galloway (Jewish) and Lisa Stephens (Atheist), I saw that while priests were allowed say their beliefs without penalty, the governmental context in which the prayers are said in Greece makes the whole practice unconstitutional.
The case against the Town of Greece came to light when Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens were enraged by the prayers held before their town council meetings. I urge you to imagine being a member of the town council ready to protest school budget cuts, when suddenly, a priest enters. This chaplin starts saying things that the majority believes in, but you do not. You feel uncomfortable, unwanted, almost discriminated against. That same feeling is what drove Susan Galloway (Jewish) file a lawsuit that has now reached the Supreme Court where, if heard, will declare Greece’s prayers constitutional or unconstitutional.
The prayers are known to be very Christian in the thoughts and the messages that they mention. Evidence of this lies in Judge Calebresi’s statement on the content of the average Greece prayer. According to Judge Calebresi, who heard Galloway’s case at the appeals court level, “Roughly two-thirds [of the prayers] contained references to ‘Jesus Christ,’ ‘Jesus,’ ‘Your Son,’ or the ‘Holy Spirit’” (Liptak). Now that the nature of the prayers has been revealed, I can prove that they belong in the ‘unconstitutional’ category because they violate the Establishment Clause. Directly from the words of the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” hails the Establishment Clause (US Constitution). This clause forbids the government from favoring any particular religion. Thus, Greece’s Christian prayers are against the law.
Let us now look at a case in similar nature to the Greece v Galloway case. Many people who side with the state in this matter look at the verdict of the Marsh v. Chambers case. In the Marsh v. Chambers case, where Chambers was a member of the Nebraska legislature who did not believe that legislative meetings should begin with a prayer because too much federal money was going to the chaplin, the prayers were allowed to continue. The 6-3 verdict of the Supreme Court was that the legislative meetings were allowed to start with the standard prayers because it had become an American tradition that had been practiced since the time of the First Continental Congress in 1774 (Supreme Court).
On the basis of the Marsh ruling, people are correct in believing that religious prayers should continue at Greece’s meetings as well to keep up with the ‘American tradition’, right? Wrong. A key piece in the Marsh v. Chambers case is that the legislative meeting prayers are allowed under the condition that the “government does not act with improper motive in selecting prayer-givers or exploit the prayer opportunity to proselytize, advance, or disparage any one faith or belief,” as pointed out by Dahlia Lithwick- a recognized writer for Slate (Lithwick). With those guidelines in mind, Greece should adapt its prayers to fit with the restrictions.
For example, one of Greece’s prayers is as follows; “For our prayer this evening I selected a paraphrase on the psalms. From Psalm 127: ‘If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do its builders labor” (Oyez). The priest quotes directly from the Bible, the holy book of Christians. It is first of all, meaningless to people of other religions, and second, is associating the governmental body (town council) with a specific religion. Sectarianism can easily be dodged, by the elimination of directly quoting holy books whether it be the Bible, Torah, or Qur'an. Rather than mention Jesus (or Moses, or the Buddha, or Mohammed) by name, the prayers could refer to a spiritual being more vaguely.
There are examples of unbiased prayers from as recently as December 5, 2013 that Greece can follow. On December 5, 2013, the prayer held at the House of Representatives began with “Eternal God, we give You thanks for giving us another day” (“Opening Prayer”). This is directed to “God” but has not given this god a name. Therefore, people of all religions are free to interpret it to their beliefs. Since prayers have been held since the time of our founding fathers, it would be a shame to abolish the practice entirely. Instead, the prayers should be regulated so as to not offend any religion by glorifying another.
It may seem difficult to have to constantly police the content of prayers like a nagging parent scrutinize their children’s homework, but there are a few ways in which to go about it. One such way is to look at each prayer and put it through the Lemon test, “1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose; 2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and 3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion” (“Lemon Test Law and Legal Definition). The Lemon Test ensures that all prayers come into accordance with the Establishment Clause. If the Greece prayers follow the Lemon Test, then they can continue, rather than being declared unconstitutional.
In history, we have seen people going to great lengths to free themselves from the burden of being forced to follow a certain religion i.e. Roman Catholic dictators in England prompted the Pilgrims to come to the US on the Mayflower. If the unhappiness within the non-believers grows, the US will face protesting, and possibly rebellion that could lead to the migration of citizens to les sectarian countries.