Monday, September 9, 2019

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.

9 comments:

  1. I agree with your points that having a sectarian prayer in government settings violates the establishment clause. It clearly is only affecting the religious minority negatively, as the majority have the power. I think what could possibly be incorporated to not have an establishment of religion but also have people exercise their religion is to hold a time/space in which people can do their form of prayer/rituals pertaining to their religion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also agree with the main points of the argument, specifically that sectarian prayer in government settings does favor religious majorities. Going off of Jala's comment, it does seem that the majority has the power, and so I can see an argument on behalf of the religious majorities for keeping sectarian prayer on the basis of free exercise. I can also see an argument for refusing a ban on sectarian prayer since at this point the sectarian prayer is common practice, or a "tradition," for legislative sessions, as supported by Town of Greece v. Galloway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with the main points of your argument that discuses the fact of the the government does have the authority to interfere with religious practices which should be applied to the use of prayers in government settings. Even though citizens have the right to hold their personal religious beliefs and opinions, by allowing the free exercise of religion in the form of a prayer (freedom of speech) in a government setting, the foundation of this idea is breached.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with Emma’s argument that the nature of the prayer by the particular state representative in Pennsylvania was controversial and questionable because it excluded non-Christians to such a large extreme. As far as Emma’s argument that prayer should be banned in all government settings, I personally believe that that goes against the freedom of religion in the First Amendment. However, I do agree that judgment and respect should be used in the tone and content of prayers given in government settings.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with Emma's arguments as well as the comments above. In my opinion, all prayer should be excluded from governmental ceremonies because regardless of intent, it sends a message that pushes one particular religion's agenda. I understand that this would be difficult to enforce as it is a common practice, but I believe that the prevalence of prayer in governmental settings is the issue in and of itself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with Emma's statement that it is not within the government's jurisdiction to decide which forms of prayer are "appropriate and which are not". However, I do not believe that prayer should be banned from governmental settings for this reason, as I do not see this as a violation of the free exercise clause. Rather, all forms of prayer should be welcomed in these settings to encourage the free exercise of religion. It should be made known that the Supreme Court is not aligning itself with any particular religion through prayer, and if that were to become the case, the free exercise clause would then be violated.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think you articulated the delicate balance between establishment and free-exercise really well. I agree that to hold a prayer, whether it is intended to be neutral or not, is a violation of the Establishment clause even though it may be consistent with the Free Exercise clause. I also agree with Jala's comment that, if prayer is such a necessary tradition, a time for prayer/rituals should be allotted for individuals to choose how to spend rather than coerced public prayer that will inevitably favor the majority. The only way to truly solve this issue is to ban public prayer at any government function and the allotment of time devoted to it seems to find a good compromise to please the religious and non-religious alike.

    ReplyDelete
  8. While I do agree that the practice of communal prayer leaves room for the expression of religious biases and exclusion of religious minorities, I do think that the tradition of opening prayer should be upheld, especially if this seems to be something that the officials themselves want. I think, to avoid the slippery slope into religious preference and minority exclusion, there could be an established time of silence for individual prayer like Jala suggested. Alternatively, a national prayer that seeks to be as pluralistic as possible could be created and established as the prayer that is said.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This argument was well formulated and I agree with it. All prayers should be excluded from the government. As soon as the chairperson steps up and starts leading prayers, a foundation of religion on behalf of the government is established. However, the fact that the chairperson is a devout religious citizen, and that she is the head for religious organization does not matter. She is allowed to be as religious as she wants in her private life, but as soon as she starts praying publicly in a legislature building, there is a problem.

    ReplyDelete