There is actually a nugget of truth in House Speaker Brian Bosma's comment that Indiana is 2 percent Jewish and at least 80 percent Christian. If what prayer is said to open House sessions is not a constitutional issue -- and that is in legal play right now -- then it's a matter of whether what's said is offensive or not. And who better to offend, since there is no constitutional right not to be offended -- 2 percent or 80 percent?
But what value is there in offending anybody if there is no corresponding value to be gained? It should be clear to Bosma -- and his apology indicates it just might be -- that what the Jewish leaders heard was, "We're 80 percent, and you're 2 percent; we can do whatever we want, so go away and shut up now." That's also what people are hearing in the speaker's insistence, now backed by both the House and Senate in resolutions, on opening sessions with explicit Christian prayers.
I'm not sure about Christian prayers being unconstitutional. Yes, the speaker can be said to be putting the state's imprimatur on the prayers by inviting those who pray. But once the person is up there, he or she has a certain right to religious expression. The line between private and public speech here isn't as clear to me as it seems to be to others. And the court's solution -- vague, nonsectarian prayers to some higher entity -- don't make much sense. Those aren't really prayers.
But I guess I don't know what the legislators are trying to prove, either. What they're doing now, while the case is still being pursued, is to have their private prayer time before the session is officially opened. That would seem to take care of God's business and the state's business. What's the problem?
Comments
I can certainly understand if the State wants to ban an opening prayer for fear that such a prayer would be mistaken as the State establishing a religion. Perhaps it is best to simply acknowledge the fact that we are united by citizenship, not by religion. Americans do not by virtue of citizenship share the same god anymore than Americans all share the same mother or color of skin or political opinions.
Anyway, whatever is done, whether a prayer is allowed of not, there would be no doubt that if the State legislature mandated the content of the prayers to be said (such as insisting on a generic god that might fit into any religion) that they would thereby be establishing a religion. The best way to establish a religion is by cultus and the most fundamental buidling block of all religious rites is prayer. If we can't have a prayer, fine. But if there is to be a prayer, let it be in accordance with the convictions and faith of the one who offers the prayer. That is what freedom of religion means. It is free, not legislated.
There is no reason why Americans can't wait quietly and respectfully while prayers are offered by other Americans to gods they do not believe. But we would be wrong to stand by if the State legislature invented a new religion and forced us to use it for state events.
Rev. David H. Petersen
Redeemer Lutheran Church
Ft. Wayne, IN
Your point about "inventing a new religion" with a generic god is an interesting one, which I think underscores how tricky it is to determine the dividing line between public and private speech in this case. Granted that prayer is the fundmental building block of relitious rites, how appropriate or necessary is such a rite to open a legislative session. Is the person invoking his god to bless the work of the session? If Americans aren't united by religion, the members of the legislative body likely aren't, either. The longer I think about it, the most logical thing to me is to let everybody pray all they want to, to whomever they want to, before the session officially begins.