It seems that "coercion" was the test used, and they determined that public prayer wasn't specifically coercive, because, as in my personal example, one could simply tolerate it, so long as it contained no abusive or derogatory components. But I can see where this can set a precedent for prayer or religious proselytizing in other spheres where, because of institutional hierarchy, the boundary between coercion and endorsement becomes blurred. It could set a bad precedent. I'm thinking of things like school or workplace impositions of at least tacit endorsement of spirituality.
(Not that the justices of the future should feel themselves bound to stare decisis anymore than, say, Justice Scalia does--even for his own previous decisions. Whosoever would be a man, must be a non-conformist, and consistency is the hobgoblin of etc. And also, what is the sense of looking for original principles if you then have to apply them consistently? Vide Whitman--does he contradict himself? Well then he contradicts himself; his head is large and it contains multitudes.)
But anyway, I just want to point out the really screwed-up part--Justice Thomas' opinion regarding state sanctioning of establishments of religion such as prayer as not being subject because the 1st Amendment should only pertain to Federal, not state activity just strikes me as wrong, although I'm not really a Constitutional scholar, as such. I thought the supremacy clause would pertain here? And what would that even mean for other Bill of Rights protections like the Fourth or Fifth Amendment--are they sunk in state prosecutions because it isn't a "federal case"? I don't even know--it just seems like he's out on a limb of the law that should be struck off.
1 comment:
Hi Vixen,
I congratulate you for being pretty even handed about this.
I think that both sides of this issue lead us into a mistaken direction.
Christians should not try to be overbearing and dominating.
Atheistic forces should not try to drive divinity from the public square.
I believe those 2 propositions should be thrown into the ashbin of history.
My view is that our direction should be how do we have a harmonious balance between public acknowledgment of divinity while at the same time excluding some power initiative that makes non-believers uncomfortable and distressed. A harmonious balance is what we should be aiming for.
Immediately we run into a problem. Prayer in and of itself does not necessarily have a religious connection. If the proposal were for a Catholic mass to be celebrated at these occasions, then obviously religion would be an issue. Spiritual life cannot be automatically relegated to one of the many forms of institutional religious life.
The 14 year old girl looking at the handsome guy and hoping silently, "Oh I hope he likes me," over and over. That could be considered a prayer. People don't have to have a connection to institutional religious life to find prayer directed at some metaphysical or ontological sense of beingness. In other words, you can have prayer without anything about it being conspicuously religious.
I believe you quoted Emerson (or what it Thoreau?), and he would probably have felt quite comfortable at prayer despite the fact that transcendentalism bears no relationship to organized Christianity.
So in short, it's pretty hard to assume that prayer in and of itself is religious.
--Formerly Amherst
P.S. May I offer a nugget of my own?
Orthodoxy to the orthodox,
Heresy to the heretic,
But the dust of the rose leaf
Belongs to the perfume seller.
--old Sufi proverb
Post a Comment