Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
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)....

  • Why not a fraud-free election?
    Why not a fraud-free election?

    We in Texas want our elections to be as fraud-free as possible. We have more illegal immigrants than any state, thanks to no border security except what the state provides ("Messing with voting rights in Texas," Oct. 21).

  • Brown has a lot to answer for, too
    Brown has a lot to answer for, too

    Larry Hogan should release the questionnaire from the National Rifle Association but only as soon as Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown answers all the questions about the rollout of the health exchange. After all, he was in charge.

  • O'Malley should ban fracking
    O'Malley should ban fracking

    Based on Robert Lawrence's commentary, "Ban fracking, O'Malley" (Oct. 10), we have to be ever grateful that Gov. Martin O'Malley and the legislature decided to "look before they leap" by requiring a health study before authorizing hydraulic fracturing to drill...

  • Balt. Co. bond bills a mystery
    Balt. Co. bond bills a mystery

    A few days ago, I received a sample ballot from the Baltimore County Board of Elections. I am a recently arrived resident of Maryland and consider this a worthwhile public service. Other states I have lived in did not provide such a guide.

  • Texas ID law is fair and necessary
    Texas ID law is fair and necessary

    The claim there is a lack of evidence of voter fraud is not a good enough reason to dismiss the voter photo identification law here in Texas as unconstitutional ("Messing with voting rights in Texas,The Sun's recent editorial also claims the ID law will do, is a complete fabrication...

  • U.S. had role in Iraq's chemical weapons
    U.S. had role in Iraq's chemical weapons

    I want my local newspaper to be fearless and to report the unvarnished truth. I am aware that opinion writers have a different role from reporters. However, in expressing an opinion, one must place everything on the table. This came to mind when I read Jules Witcover's commentary,...

  • How we treat the most vulnerable among us says a lot about who we are
    How we treat the most vulnerable among us says a lot about who we are

    A recent article about the lack of discernment and questionable ethics among those who own and manage foster youth group homes once again points up the treatment accorded the most vulnerable among us ("Troubles hit Maryland group home for disabled children," Oct. 18).

Comments
Loading