Role of Public Sectarian Prayer in Government Settings

On March 25, State Rep. Stephanie Borowicz’s invocation took the podium as the House chamber’s first female Muslim, Movita Johnson-Harrell was sworn in. Borowicz led a prayer that mentioned Jesus 13 times in less than two minutes, sparking controversy among Pennsylvania lawmakers and citizens at large.

In her 2018 campaign, Borowicz, married to a pastor, ran as a Christian conservative and made many biblical references throughout her campaign. She also founded Make a Stand USA, a nonprofit organization that holds prayer rallies, hoping to bring the country back to God. Some lines in Borowicz’s prayer during the convocation included: “Jesus, we’ve lost sight of you. We’ve forgotten you, God, in our country” and “Jesus, you are our only hope.” She then ended the prayer with a reference to the New Testament that “every knee shall bow” in the name of Jesus.

Johnson-Harrell was offended by the prayer, stating that “It was very chaotic and disrespectful.” Looking to the future, Johnson-Harrell hopes lawmakers will be able to focus on the matters of governing — not arguing about religion and religious prayer.

Although Pennsylvania has prided itself on religious tolerance in the past, Jesse Garner, the board chair of Interfaith Philadelphia believes that Borowicz’s prayer did not fit the tradition of religious tolerance. Borowicz’s speech illustrated the problems that can accompany prayers that appear to favor one faith over another. John Inazu, a professor of law at Washington University affirmed that “The law encourages generic, nonsectarian prayer,” yet “Many people who want to pray in public want to pray specific, nongeneric prayer.” Furthermore, in commenting on Borowicz’s prayer, he acknowledges that “Just because we have the right to say something doesn’t mean we should say it.”

In a society that is increasingly pluralistic, the challenge of navigating public prayer and the separation of church and state is at the forefront. The 2014 Supreme Court case Town of Greece v. Galloway highlights the debate surrounding sectarian prayers at government meetings. In a 5-4 majority in favor of the Town of Greece, it was decided that the Town of Greece in New York may permit chaplains to open each legislative session with a prayer. The plaintiffs argued that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, yet the Supreme court ruled that opening Greece’s town board meetings with a prayer offered by members of the clergy did not violate the Establishment Clause since the practice was consistent with the tradition followed by Congress and state legislatures, the town did not discriminate against minority faiths in determining who may offer a prayer, and the prayer did not coerce participation with those non-adherent.

Although this Supreme Court case set the precedent to allow State Rep. Stephanie Borowicz’s invocation prayer, not deeming it a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, I do believe that sectarian prayers in a government setting should be considered a violation of the First Amendment. Generally speaking, legislative prayer should be broadly inclusive since government representatives, at all levels, represent the people, and thus their statements and prayers must respect all citizens. Town, state, or federally sponsored sectarian prayers violate the basic rule that requires government neutrality on matters of religion. Neutrality, meaning no one religion is preferred by the government. Allowing Jewish or Catholic prayers, but not Islamic or Buddhist prayers is an example of potential preferential treatment. This is especially important due to the existence of both majority and minority religions in the United States. By ignoring the burden that sectarian prayer imposes on citizens with different religious beliefs or without religious beliefs, citizens are marginalized. The majority faith in a town or state has the power to dictate the prayers, thus excluding minority religions who must stand up for theit religion and push for diversity of religious practices and acknowledgment. If a town or state government can identify itself with a particular religious statement or tradition, then what is the establishment of religion clause preventing?

Although religion is a large part of civil society and prayers have been used for ceremonial purposes, the only way to fully separate church and state is by banning prayer in all government settings. By leading sectarian prayers, citizens are excluded and can be left feeling unwelcome, offended, or confused. Citizens have the right to practice whichever religion they believe in, and no one should have the authority to determine which prayers are appropriate and which are not. Even if secular prayers were permitted, bias would evidently erode this process in determining the appropriate content of prayers leading majority sects to be preferred over minority sects.

This conflict alludes to the contention between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Written together, the first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” Although citizens have the right to hold personal religious beliefs and opinions, the government does have the authority to interfere with religious practices. I believe this ability to interfere with religious practices should be applied to the use of prayers in government settings. In my opinion, by allowing the free exercise of religion in the form of prayer in government meetings, speeches, invocations, and court cases, the establishment clause is violated.