Get unlimited digital access to baltimoresun.com. $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

Court should rule public prayer constitutional

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 © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • 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). At a time...

  • Does free birth control encourage teen sex?
    Does free birth control encourage teen sex?

    Your recent article and subsequent editorial on the decrease in teen pregnancies brought a few questions to mind ("Teen pregnancies in Baltimore drop by a third," Feb. 24).

  • Repeal ACA — and get single payer
    Repeal ACA — and get single payer

    Conservatives better hope Obamacare is not repealed ("Supreme Court takes up major fight with Obamacare subsidies," March 4) because if it is, we will be taking a giant step toward the (preferable, inevitable and much simpler and business friendly) Single Payer System!

  • Help our disabled vets
    Help our disabled vets

    Day after day there are advertisements on TV, radio and in the mail from various organizations asking for help for disabled veterans.

  • Baltimore's affordable housing crisis
    Baltimore's affordable housing crisis

    Natalie Sherman's recent article on apartment rental rates in Baltimore focused on high-end tenants but largely ignored the plight of low- and moderate-income individuals and families ("As apartments boom in city, a new market reality emerges," Feb. 27).

  • Executive orders are a bipartisan pastime
    Executive orders are a bipartisan pastime

    House Speaker John Boehner has made it clear that he intends to block the Obama administration's executive order shielding millions of undocumented immigrants from the threat of immediate deportation ("Congress scrambles to avoid Homeland Security shutdown," Feb. 26).

  • Stormwater remediation needs to happen at the source
    Stormwater remediation needs to happen at the source

    Property owners need to be responsible for their storm water discharge, not local government ("Senators hear bid to repeal law requiring stormwater fees," March 3).

  • An alternative approach to addiction
    An alternative approach to addiction

    Recently, heroin addiction has gained attention beyond the usual remedies of harsh law enforcement and occasional drug treatment ("The new face of Md.'s fight against heroin," Feb. 26).

Comments
Loading