“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .”

Unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise?

The Hobby Lobby ruling which progressed from Citizens United brought to my attention this terrible May decision that has gone well beyond jeopardizing the separation of Church v. State.

This NPR piece by Nina Totenberg discusses several SCOTUS decisions and the controversy behind them. Here is one decision she highlights that is particularly egregious:

“A divided Supreme Court ruled . . . that legislative bodies such as city councils can begin their meetings with prayer, even if it plainly favors a specific religion.” “Offended” parties can simply leave if it bothers them.

In truth, the ruling panders to government officials who are “offended” by the Constitution’s clause for church-state separation. Perhaps, instead, there should be greater questioning of their fitness for the role of public servant.

This 5-4 decision unduly favors those of religious faith, and especially those of the Christian faith who make up the majority of the country’s current legislature.

One of the most important components of a thriving democracy that must exist alongside majority rule is the preservation of the individual rights of the minority. Victories in overcoming the tyranny of the majority are exemplified by the Civil Rights Movement and the Suffragettes.

If you look at democracies abroad, a major factor in civil unrest, economically- and socially- damaging political paralysis, and democratic collapse is majoritarian policy that alienates or disenfranchises minority groups. While in the US the affect might not be quite so dramatic in terms of violent civil unrest, we already meet the standards for political paralysis. Take a look at the extreme divisions within Congress and the toll it has taken on passing necessary legislature. Another alarming consequence is the discrepancy between what the public wants and the policies that are actually passed. Things simply don’t look good for Democracy.

There are few parts of the Constitution more clear than the First Amendment. The exact wording “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” directly contradicts the premise of the ruling. This makes it rather apparent that the Supreme Court came to its conclusions based on party/religious lines rather than bothering with interpreting the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court does not have the power to revise the Constitution. But, as they have shown, they are exercising the power to ignore it completely and fabricate their own precedents. This is the same thing, in essence, as rewriting the Constitution, but is entirely removed from public discourse.

Rising from the majority opinion is one particularly problematic claim — that these prayers have simply become a “tradition” akin to The Pledge of Allegiance. This claim simply serves to elevate their position above proper scrutiny that is fitting of the Supreme Court or critical discourse that is essential to a healthy democracy.

The “tradition” argument assumes its own conclusions as true- that because it is a tradition it is inherently good, and we know this because the majority is comfortable with it and has been in the past. That does not answer objections posed to town hall prayers in the first place by the troubled minority. In addition, their defense of “tradition” uses glorified political spin to serve itself, conveniently omitting any mention that the Pledge’s “under God” phrase was added in 1954 — a relic of Cold War rhetoric. In such a context, “Under God” appears to be a more chilling than venerable tradition — hardly a justification in and of itself.

I personally, while reciting the Pledge, have fallen silent during the words “under God” since I can remember. I have always felt uncomfortable with the presence of those words in the Pledge and being required to recite them in public school. While that battle is lost to the inalienable realm of “tradition”, that does not justify further infringements whenever a few conservative Justices deem it appropriate.

The fact of the matter is this: Between groups, religion is polarizing, controversial, and divisive. Even in communities where, for example, it may seem that “everyone” is a Christian, that is because religious dogma silences and outcasts dissenting opinions as inherently unholy and immoral. There are regions of this country that are generally more tolerant and forgiving than others, but that does not erase this problem, which can exist within families, community organizations, churches (children do not always have a choice whether to attend), and schools.

Another important aspect that has been omitted from this entire discussion is the increasingly large prevalence of nonreligious persons in this country. As of 2012, one fifth of the US population — including 30% of adults under 30 — are nonreligious (according the Pew survey). This is not an insignificant number, and yet the assumption carried throughout the Court’s comments is that there is only a problem with the diversity of the religious groups that will be prompted to pray and not the fact that government endorsement of religion in and of itself is the problem.

To conclude: There are plenty of religion-neutral phrases that can be used that give equal space to religious and secular thoughts alike. It just takes a little respect and creativity — respect for the Constitution and what it represents for the health of our Democracy and for valuing of our citizens as equals.