In Case You Missed It: NBA in Baltimore
NewsOpinionReaders Respond

Court should rule public prayer constitutional

Laws and LegislationNational GovernmentFitnessU.S. Congress

The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Town of Greece, New York v. Susan Galloway is to consider whether Christian prayers at town board meetings are constitutional ("Justices to hear prayer case," Nov. 4). The U.S. Court of Appeals based in New York held that such prayers violate the Constitution because they represent "an endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint."

The First Amendment provides that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]" That amendment prohibits the Congress — that is, the federal government — from establishing a national religion as did King Henry VIII who broke with the Catholic Church and established the Church of England in the 16th century. Note that the First Amendment refers to "an," rather than "the," establishment of religion. By its use of "an," the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from passing legislation to establish something not previously recognized in America; that is, a national religion. Moreover, regarding religion, what provision of the Constitution mandates that "the free exercise thereof" is restricted to the confines of a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, etc.? Religious people live their religion on a daily basis; their religion is not something that is limited only to religious observances on Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays at their places of worship.

How is it that the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from regulating religion, has been construed by the federal courts, based on various Supreme Court rulings, to prohibit high school football players from praying prior to a game for the safety of the players, invocations at public school events, a Christmas creche on public property, display of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, prayers at the beginning of town or county board meetings? None of those activities has anything to do with Congress or establishing a religion. It seems to me that the chief effect of such activities on atheists and non-Christians is annoyance or the sense of being slighted, just as many are annoyed by "In God We Trust" on our currency and "one nation under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance.

However, the Constitution does not guarantee anyone freedom from annoyance or from a sense of being slighted. Those perceptions, real as they may be to some individuals, do not trump the First Amendment. Regarding religion in America, the fact is that Christian churches outnumber all others by approximately 200 to one. Government (federal, state or local) endorsement of the Christian religion, or acknowledgment of a divine being, is not synonymous with "an establishment" of religion.

For those who are irritated by the Christian religion, or religion in general, try "live and let live." You are not being forced to participate in any religion or religious activity. You are merely in a situation where you have to listen to something you do not want to hear. Welcome to the club. You are not being harmed in any real sense. As to the Supreme Court, hopefully, it will overturn the ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and render moot those prior rulings on church and state, the reasoning of which have no legitimate connection to the actual wording of the First Amendment.

David R. Holstein, Parkville

-
To respond to this letter, send an email to talkback@baltimoresun.com.

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
Laws and LegislationNational GovernmentFitnessU.S. Congress
  • Prayer case reflects intolerance
    Prayer case reflects intolerance

    The recent article about the two woman taking a case to the Supreme Court because they did not like the Christian prayers at town board meetings in Greece, New York perhaps epitomizes the ills of American society ("Supreme Court to hear case on separating church and state," Nov. 2)....

  • Ulman-Rutherford (or vice versa) the best ticket
    Ulman-Rutherford (or vice versa) the best ticket

    Count me among the people who are dispirited by the governor's race. Thus, The Sun's suggestion that a ticket featuring the candidates for lieutenant governor, Democrat Ken Ulman and Republican Boyd Rutherford (or vice-versa), would present a far better ticket than pairing Mr. Ulman...

  • Brown ads are appalling
    Brown ads are appalling

    The latest attack ads from Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown's campaign and the Democratic Party hit a new low in sleaze, lies and hypocrisy ("Heading into final weeks, Brown shifts tone," Oct. 15). With oozing self-righteousness, they show youngsters and speak of how their opponent is...

  • A frackless future for Maryland
    A frackless future for Maryland

    Jim Guy's "No fracking in Western Md." (Oct. 10) and Robert Lawrence's "Time to ban fracking, O'Malley" (Oct. 10) make an indisputable case for keeping fracking out of Maryland.

  • Thanks to the O's
    Thanks to the O's

    What a great editorial ("Somewhere the sun is shining," Oct. 16). It almost helps. But, alas, it also reminds me of how much we lost when we lost Bart Giamatti.

  • Farm bill is bad for Baltimore Co.
    Farm bill is bad for Baltimore Co.

    Your recent article on the Baltimore County agricultural tourism bill unfairly describes battle lines being drawn between farmers on one side and local land preservationists on the other ("County bill sparks debate over tourism on farms," Oct. 14). This is an inaccurate...

  • In the global village, Ebola is a threat to us all
    In the global village, Ebola is a threat to us all

    Now that it has left Africa, the developed world is finally paying attention to Ebola ("Ebola fears continue to mount, spill into port business, politics," Oct. 16).

  • Keep the Conowingo
    Keep the Conowingo

    The Conowingo dam has done a wonderful job of supplying our power cleanly for the last eight decades ("Support the dam to support Md.," Oct. 13).

Comments
Loading