The recurring debate concerning government sponsored prayer must rank among the least edifying of public conversations, and that is regrettable because the issue of governments proper role in our lives is truly the issue of our time.
The recurring debate concerning government sponsored prayer must rank among the least edifying of public conversations, and that is regrettable because the issue of governments proper role in our lives is truly the issue of our time.
The recent lawsuit against Indiana University for inclusion of sectarian prayer at its graduation ceremonies provoked predictable accusations from predictable sources that the ICLU is "anti-religious." Not so – the ICLU is not opposed to prayer; we are opposed to giving government the authority to decide when and how we shall pray. In fact, It Is precisely because we believe that religion is so important that the ICLU opposes government efforts to dictate religious observance.
Let’s apply a bit of logic to this issue. There are two basic reasons given for upholding state sponsored prayer – that it is good for people (i.e., prayer is important) or that it is no big deal (i.e., prayer is unimportant). Proponents of government sponsored prayer who fall into the first category want the government to make us pray because they are convinced that in the absence of government coercion, we won’t. That is why they also object to non-mandatory, private baccalaureate services in lieu of prayer at the graduation ceremony itself. Such baccalaureate services, which used to be the tradition, permit meaningful prayer for those who wish to participate. They are also entirely constitutional. So what is the objection? Interestingly, that such services are voluntary – that those who "need" to pray won’t come. The folks making this argument know best what is good for you and me and if we will not voluntarily pray, then we must be forced to participate in a ceremony that includes prayer.
A far more common defense of government sponsored prayers is that they don’t matter. This is the argument that such prayers are "traditional," "don’t hurt anybody," and are "no big deal." It is essentially the argument made by Indiana University and (at least initially) upheld by the U.S. District Court.
When Myles Brand, president of Indiana University, was asked in a deposition to explain how a tax-supported university justified the practice of inviting clergy to deliver sectarian prayers at graduation ceremonies, he was candid. Such prayer, said Dr. Brand (a philosopher by training) is not religious. Presumably, then, these exercises are empty formalities invested with significance only by virtue of tradition.
People of faith can only find such characterizations deeply offensive. Forget, for purposes of this discussion, the theological divisions over public prayer – no religion I know of sanctions the notion that prayer is merely ceremonial, void of particularistic significance and useful only as an archaic (albeit charming) tradition. Such use of public prayer does not offend those of a more secular bent. It is only those for whom faith is important and prayer an engagement with deity who resent the appropriation of religious devotions for such purposes.
The religion clauses of the First Amendment were intended to restrain government from interfering with the free exercise of our individual beliefs. The founders believed that government neutrality was essential if religion was to flourish. One need only look to nations without a First Amendment to see how right they were. Countries like England have seen state sponsored religions degenerate into a pleasant ritual without vitality; nations such as Iran have employed the force of the state in the service of religious conformity, issuing death sentences to authors deemed guilty of blasphemy. Neither alternative is attractive. Both are instructive