Public prayer: Is Supreme Court missing the point?

Posted on Fri, May 14, 2010 : 12:51 p.m.

Public prayer: Is Supreme Court missing the point?

By Wayne Baker

Photo by flickr user dbking

Editor's note: Dr. Wayne E. Baker is a sociologist at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business researching the core beliefs that shape American culture. This is the fourth in this week's series on public prayer.

Prayer at graduation is our focus this week, given the season, but public prayer is a small case representing a large principle: the separation of church and state. The U.S. Supreme Court has been notoriously inconsistent in the application of this principle, as I noted yesterday.

Why? Because the high court has seriously misinterpreted the original intent of the drafters of the Constitution and misunderstood the role of religion in sustaining American democracy. Now that’s a tall claim. But it’s made by attorney Michael M. Maddigan in an article published in the California Law Review. And I think he’s right, based on the findings in my book “America’s Crisis of Values.”

Religious organizations are part of “civil society”—the voluntary sector for which Americans are especially proficient. This was true centuries ago and it’s true now. Over half of all the social capital in America today—the bonds of belonging, meaning and commitment—are formed via religious organizations, says political scientist Robert Putnam. Religious organizations teach more than theology. They also teach the virtues that undergird democracy: honesty, altruism, generosity, hard work, and concern for the welfare of others.

The drafters of the Constitution understood this. The Religion Clauses in the Constitution were meant to prevent state-sponsored religion and to grant freedom for religion. But their intent was not to eliminate state support of religion’s role in civil society. The high court’s focus should be distinguishing between theological religion and civil religion, refusing to support the theological side but promoting the civil side of religious organizations.

Do you agree? Read more and join the conversation over at OurValues.org.

Comments

Diagenes

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 8:40 p.m.

Nick, are you saying a person buried in a national cemetary cannot have a religious symbol on their headstone? Do the families have a right to express their religious beliefs in a public place like Arlington to honor their deceased family member? How is a headstone in the shape of a cross or Star a state establishment/endorsement of a religion? Is it not simply honoring the traditions of the family? I do not think government should restrict free expression of ideas or beliefs as long it does no harm to individuals or society.

W. Vida

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 12:58 p.m.

Great article Wayne. Very interesting. I think that your analysis makes sense of the data given that the founding fathers did allow prayer and other religious practices in public institutions during their own administrations. I posted some other thoughts here: http://religionannarbor.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/which-god/

mike from saline

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 6:07 a.m.

@ David Briegle, I don't believe I've ever described my self as a Conservative. In fact I know I havn't.

David Briegel

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 10:29 p.m.

Mike, Nick never said that. Nick was very clear in everything he posted. You might wish to take your argument to your fellow conservatives.

mike from saline

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 4:42 p.m.

@ nick bell. there is no "seperation of church and state" clause in the Constitution.

Nick Bell

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 10:37 a.m.

Diagenes: Good selection of examples of where the Christian majority has pushed religion into government. Those are WHY we need to continue to protect the Establishment Clause, so that those kinds of things do not get repeated. Think of a Muslim, a Hindu or an atheist entering Arlington. From that point of view, its really easy to see that religious establishment for what it is. Hot Sam: "The separation of church and state clause was never intended to eliminate the connection between God and country..." The United States Constitution was written as a secular document to create a secular country. Yes it was written by mainly religious people. But it was written to support all people, of all religious. Even those without religion. Inserting god into it dishonors that. Read the document. There is no God in it at all (the closest you get is the signature section, where the day is referenced as "in the year of our Lord"). Our rights are not God given, by self given by the people. The preamble itself states this idea best: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

David Briegel

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 9:57 a.m.

Tolerance and diversity are no more liberal mantras than intolerance and discrimination are conservative mantras. They are choices we make as sometimes civilized human beings. I already stated and it is accepted that free expression of our beliefs in our place of worship and homes is the law. Members of a "civil" society have the right to be free from the mythololgy of others!

Diagenes

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 9:36 a.m.

Tolerance and diversity seem to be liberal mantras. Are liberals being intolerant if they do not allow a high school graduate to publicly thank God during a graduation speech? Some Muslim women cover their faces in public as an expression of their religion. Should the State allow them to get a drivers license and drive with their face covered? We should be as tolerant of Christians expressing their view point as we are of any other religion or social movement. The "State" should not financially support religion of any kind. But it should not impede the free expression of it either.

Hot Sam

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:57 a.m.

"""Hot Sam, One has to be careful is saying that all the Founding Fathers were Christian. Look at this quote from Wikipedia""" Check my post...I did not say they were ALL Christians...I merely pointed out that the majority were, and the importance of God was evident in many of their decisions...still nothing to do with establishing a state religion or demanding that any one be any thing they did not desire...

David Briegel

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:14 a.m.

Values and morality are not the sole property of Christians any more than perpetual war or poverty or discrimination. Nick Bell is absolutely correct! Keep your religion in your church, temple, mosque or synagogue and your homes. The Wiccan is perfectly correct! You don't want to be exposed to Muslims, Wiccans or any of the host of other beliefs. So don't subject them to yours. Understanding! Tolerance! Any interference with your place of worship or your home and the ACLU and I will be there to protect you and your rights. Arlington. How many soldiers on both sides of any war went to their graves thinking "God" was on the side of the other guy? Foolish. "Civil Society". You mean the one that tolerates all types of unethical, immoral, unCivilized and anti-social bahavior in their name? Frankly, I wonder just how civil this "pseudo-Christian nation" is in the conduct of our affairs? Add to all this silliness the simple fact that man created "God" in his own image and you can see the perpetual dilema of our not so civil society!

tpmcfadden

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:13 a.m.

Hot Sam, One has to be careful is saying that all the Founding Fathers were Christian. Look at this quote from Wikipedia" The religious views of Thomas Jefferson diverged widely from the orthodox Christianity of his day. Throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, biblical study, and morality. He is most closely connected with the religious philosophy of Deism, and Unitarianism. He is reported to have said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."[72][73]

Hot Sam

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 7:38 a.m.

"""That's just the point, "virtue of Christianity" IS supporting one religion over any others. Are you willing to accept "virtue of Wiccan"?""" Wiccans did not found this nation...the author was simply pointing out he undeniable fact that religion...predominantly, but not totally, being Christian...was extremely important in the philosophy of the founding fathers... It has nothing to do with ESTABLISHING a state religion....

dextermom

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 6:43 a.m.

"Many of the laws of the states and federal government have their roots in the virtue of Christianity." That's just the point, "virtue of Christianity" IS supporting one religion over any others. Are you willing to accept "virtue of Wiccan"?

Hot Sam

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 6:25 a.m.

The separation of church and state clause was never intended to eliminate the connection between God and country...

Diagenes

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 10:43 p.m.

Nick, the religious establishment clause was intended to prevent a state sponsored church, like the church of England. It was also to prevent a religious limitus test for public officials, and allow for the free exercise of religion by the people. The issue is not as black and white as you would like it to be. Is the statue of Moses on the facade of the Supreme Court Building an establishment of a state sponsored religion or a recognition of our judea christian heritage and the foundation of our legal system? When George Washington took the presidential oath, he added "so help me God"; did he violate his oath to uphold the constitution? What about crosses at Arlington National Cemetary? They are on federal land. Is that Government supporting Christianity? I do not think so.

Nick Bell

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 7:42 p.m.

"But their intent was not to eliminate state support of religions role in civil society." What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" do you not understand? The government is not to support any religious establishment. Endorsing prayer (or any other religious activity) is exactly that. End of story. It is about as black and white as it gets. As an obviously educated man, I do not understand why you find this concept so difficult. Religious people are allowed in this country (as given by the second phrase of the First Amendment), but the government can not support any one of them. Nor can it simply support a few of them at once (aka a deist prayer). The United States government may NOT establish any laws support ANY religion in any form. The freedom of our government from religious interference is our RIGHT as citizens.

Michigan Reader

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 6:43 p.m.

The separation of church and state is purely judical activism by a liberal Supreme Court of the 1940s. The actual words of the Constitution don't mandate separation.Many of the laws of the states and federal government have their roots in the virtue of Christianity.

picabia

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 5:26 p.m.

"The high courts focus should be distinguishing between theological religion and civil religion, refusing to support the theological side but promoting the civil side of religious organizations." That's sounds OK, but what does it mean? How will that work in the real world?

Bill Wilson

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 3 p.m.

Religious organizations are part of civil societythe voluntary sector for which Americans are especially proficient. This was true centuries ago and its true now. Over half of all the social capital in America todaythe bonds of belonging, meaning, and commitmentare formed via religious organizations, says political scientist Robert Putnam. Religious organizations teach more than theology. They also teach the virtues that undergird democracy: honesty, altruism, generosity, hard work, and concern for the welfare of others. Wayne, You're correct, many of these bonds are formed by religious organizations. But rights are inhered by the individual... and the Government, and/or other individuals do not have the right to foist their religious views on others. Freedom from religion is equally as important as freedom of religion, and must go hand in hand with it.