Saturday, February 28, 2009
Freedom from government religion
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Bob Crawford
Crawford, of Roanoke, is an artist and a writer.
The government prayer issue continues to occupy the General Assembly's time, diverting that body from the important state matters needing its attention, ("Religious breakaway," Feb. 24 front page). By now, legislators, if not the general public, should realize that prayer conducted under governmental auspices is government prayer or, as the courts call it, government speech.
Advocates of government prayer, while they do not use that title, call for either amending or sidestepping the Constitution. But, in fact, in full accord with the Constitution, any individual may pray silently at any time and in any place. In addition, students are quite as free to pray together as they are to chat with each other while at school, provided it is not an official (recognized) component of the school's program. That these points are so often missed in discussing issues involving prayer and the Constitution raises doubts as to how much people know about either.
If we reject the unlikely notion that the advocates of government prayer believe they are ever prohibited from making their own private silent prayers while in school or at a governmental proceeding, it seems we must conclude that their wish is not to pray but to involve those present in their chosen form of this religious exercise, enjoying the implied government backing conferred by the circumstances.
The full constitutional issue involving prayer originates in the First Amendment exclusion of religion as an activity or function of government -- either to promote it or a particular variety of it, or to interfere with the free exercise of it. The Constitution provides that citizens are to be free to follow no religion or any religion of their choice, and forbids government intrusion in that arena of choice.
Some, including some members of Virginia's General Assembly, claim that the Constitution would be satisfied if a universal prayer, one which would fit any religion, could be concocted for use under governmental auspices. But, aside from whether such a prayer could be devised, that proposal ignores the fact that by conducting or sponsoring a prayer at all, the government is performing a religious activity.
Another approach of government prayer advocates is based upon an assumption that the practice could be continued by inviting religious representatives from a rotating list inclusive of religions. Perhaps the advocates imagine a short list would be lifted from some authoritative broad-brush overview of religions.
But when we picture the rotation, for example, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist (though Buddhists are divided on accepting the "religion" label), and perhaps a few others for the initial list, what becomes apparent is that this outcome is not the intent of advocates of government prayer. The slogan, "Keep prayer in the schools," never seems to mean: "Keep Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Jewish and other prayer in the schools."
Many who observe the urgency with which advocates of governmental prayer insist upon the practice find it puzzling that those individuals, who seem to hold in high esteem their right to practice their religion freely, would wish to hand to the government any degree of authority over religious practice.
No doubt each of them assumes it would be his or her very own form of religious practice that the government would promote. To see how disconnected from reality such an expectation is, we do not need to look back in history or to a distant country such as theocratic Iran, instructive though that would be, but only turn to the smallest nearby town, where, almost without fail, we will find that those practicing religion are not joined in a common practice, but are separated into at least two churches.
It illustrates that freedom to suit oneself in religious practice -- including following none -- is what people's actions show to be their preference.
And that freedom -- to suit oneself in the matter of religious practice -- is what the Constitution guarantees.
Let us pray our legislators will realize the folly of devoting more time and public resources to the attempt to sidestep the constitutional guarantee of citizens' rights to be free of governmental conduct of religious exercises.
