SCOTUS Got It Wrong (again)

It's no suprise that I'm not a fan of the current SCOTUS.  Indeed, I think they've made one bad decision after another.  As a Baptist, their latest one really irked me.  The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty had filed a friend of the court brief opposing the town of Greece, NY's practice of beginning municipal meetings with prayer, almost exclusively with Christian content. 

I have to admit that I'm more than a little surprised at the support the ruling has received from many right of center Christians.  Justice Kennedy in his opinion repeatedly refers to the prayers as "ceremonial." As a person of faith, my prayers are never ceremonial.  To make them such is to denigrate them and lessen their importance.  On the other hand, to allow me to pray as I truly believe and to give that prayer the place I believe it deserves must by definition offend the conscience of some people.  Also, as a Baptist who believes in Soul Liberty, I believe it is never the place of government to endorse any particular religious belief whether I believe it or not.  All this ruling does is domesticate real faith and force it into the service of civil religion.  For what it is worth, I do not believe that the meetings of Congress should begin with a prayer either.

Back in '07 a Hindu priest, Rajan Zed, offered a prayer in the Senate and this is what happened...



I have to say that I found Zed's prayer less offensive than the prayers shouted by the protestors but I do agree that he should not have been praying publicly.  Of course, they should not either.  And that leads to the second point.  The government cannot stop them or me from praying silently any time or any place we choose including government buildings or meetings.  Those prayers that I have spoken silently at city council meetings were real prayers about real issues and not merely ceremonial ones.

Church & State... never simple

Justice is a central pillar of my understanding of what it means to follow Jesus.  I believe in civil rights for women, racial minorities, sexual minorities, religious minorities and, especially, any minorities I missed.  I believe in the role of the law in enforcing anti-discrimination laws.  Indeed, if anything, I believe they should be stronger than they now are... except...

I have to say I cringe even as I write this, except when we're talking about religious institutions.  Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear a case involving a Lutheran school in Michigan who fired a woman.  She says it was because of a disability.  They say that the government has no say in hiring and firing of people who transmit the values and teachings of a religious institution and that her behavior showed that she was not fit to do just that.  That principal is broadly accepted when it comes to clergy.  It makes sense there.  If a religion believes that one must be Jewish to be a Rabbi, it is understandable that they will discriminate against non-Jews.  Ditto for a group that believes women cannot be priests not being held legally culpable for not hiring women priests.  It makes sense that the leader of a religious organization can be required to fit with all of the tenants of that faith, whatever they might be. What happens, though, in a situation where the person under consideration is not clergy and may even have a majority of responsibilities that could rightly be described as "secular?"  In this case, the woman was a teacher who taught primarily "secular" subjects although she did lead prayers and perform other religious duties.  

The case has brought together the strangest bedfellows ever with everyone from the Southern Baptists to The National Council of Churches, Yoruba, and Hare Krishna's supporting the Lutherans.  The Baptist Joint Committee , has filed a brief in support of the school, arguing that 

Indeed, questions that might seem facially nonreligious take on a religious coloration in a dispute between a religious organization and one of its ministers. ...
This case exemplifies how theological or religious issues are almost impossible to avoid in cases involving employees with spiritual duties...  

Ultimately, the church congregation terminated Perich‘s commission because, given her behavior surrounding the request to return, it had lost confidence in her ability to represent the school‘s purposes to children... [I]t is up to the Church, not a jury or judge, to decide whether she could be effective.

It is true that allowing for such a broad interpretation of the current law regarding "ministerial exemptions" may open the door for serious abuse by religious organizations.  Still, a more narrow interpretation impinges on their ability to live out their faith.  The government has no right to do that.

National Day of Prayer

I have to say that I have ambiguous feelings about a national day of prayer. I believe in prayer. I do it regularly even if without the degree of discipline I'd like. I pray for our government, our leaders, and the world. I think it is good when other people pray as well. Here's the problem for me, pray to whom and how?

As a Christian, I pray in the name of Jesus. I don't feel a particular need to force my theology on other people but if I am praying authentically, that is how I pray. So what do I do in an interfaith gathering? I know of some gatherings where each group prays as authentically as they can, where a Muslim might pray in Arabic, a Jew might recite a Hebrew prayer, etc. But if we go that way, eventually we get to a point that somebody can't cross. A Jew might be offended by a Christian's prayer, a Christian might see a sacrifice done by a Santeria priest as going too far... you get the point. More often then, the prayers are watered down and made generic so as to avoid offending anyone. I find that offensive.

In a recent talk to the Baptist Joint Committee, Martin Marty began with a quote from Montesquieu, who observed that the way "to attack a religion is by favor, not by what drives away, but by what makes men lukewarm." Watering down anybody's prayers makes them lukewarm and ineffectual. If I really feel that my government needs prayer, I want to do it with passion and commitment, not some watered down version meant not to offend anyone. Indeed, if I am praying what I truly believe, I'm going to offend someone.

Bottom line... I'm going to pray. And I'm going to pray for my government, but not because a President has asked me to. I'll be praying because he needs my prayers and because as a nation we have not filled full the promise of the vision of our founders. Part of that vision is a nation where faith is neither curtailed nor supported by the powers of government because government has no role in matters of faith.