Check out the latest column by Dr. Thomas Kidd, Associate Professor of History at Baylor University, over at the evangelical website Patheos. Here is a snippet from Kidd’s column titled Thou Shalt Not Say “Jesus”:
Tensions over church-state separation are mounting across America as courts increasingly require the erasure of religion from public spaces. A recent incident at a Campbell County Board of Supervisors meeting in Rustburg, Virginia, illustrated the growing furor: when advised that a July 29 ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals discouraged sectarian prayers at public meetings, the board made clear their contempt for the court’s judgment. Chairman Steve Shockley addressed the audience and said, “If you’re offended by the name of Christ or Lord and Savior, you are welcome to leave the room.”
Shockley’s response was rude. But his frustration—indeed, his alarm—is understandable. How can judges forbid anyone, even elected officials, from saying certain religious words?
First, the 4th Circuit did not forbid anyone from saying certain religious words. That’s a complete misrepresentation of the court’s decision (see highlighted passage below).
Note also that Kidd sees 4th Circuit’s decision invalidating the invocation POLICY of Forsyth County, North Carolina as proof that American courts are “increasingly requir[ing] the erasure of religion from public spaces.”
So what is this policy that the 4th Circuit invalidated? We don’t know because Kidd never delves into the details of the decision.
Later, Kidd invokes Jefferson and concludes that Jefferson could not have “imagined the day when judges would construe the First Amendment as restricting the religious speech of elected official, private citizen, or clergy.”
Again, the reader has to take Kidd at his word that this decision actually does what he says it does.
Here is a description of the 4th Circuit’s decision by Don Byrd:
The 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals today upheld a trial judge’s ruling, and agreed with the position of the Baptist Joint Committee (quoting the BJC’s brief in spots), that the invocation policy of North Carolina’s Forsyth County Commission violates the Establishment Clause. Despite the neutrality of the policy’s text – which allowed for clergy of any faith to deliver an invocation – its practical application resulted in the consistent promotion of Christianity, the Court found. The 2-1 majority fell in line with the longstanding interpretation of Supreme Court precedent in Marsh that insists legislative prayer can pass constitutional muster only by being nonsectarian, without promoting a single faith above others.
And below are snippets from the actual decision:
..[w]hile legislative prayer has the capacity to solemnize the weighty task of governance and encourage ecumenism among its participants, it also has the potential to generate sectarian strife. Such conflict rends communities and does violence to the pluralistic and inclusive values that are a defining feature of American public life. The cases thus seek to minimize these risks by requiring legislative prayers to embrace a non-sectarian ideal. That ideal is simply this: that those of different creeds are in the end kindred spirits, united by a respect paid higher providence and by a belief in the importance of religious faith….
The case law thus sets out clear boundaries. As amicus Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty puts it, “this [c]ourt’s legislative prayer decisions have recognized that the exception created by Marsh is limited to the sort of nonsectarian legislative prayer that solemnizes the proceedings of legislative bodies without advancing or disparaging a particular faith.” Put differently, legislative prayer must strive to be nondenominational so long as that is reasonably possible — it should send a signal of welcome rather than exclusion. It should not reject the tenets of other faiths in favor of just one. Infrequent references to specific deities, standing alone, do not suffice to make out a constitutional case. But legislative prayers that go further — prayers in a particular venue that repeatedly suggest the government has put its weight behind a particular faith — transgress the boundaries of the Establishment Clause. Faith is as deeply important as it is deeply personal, and the government should not appear to suggest that some faiths have it wrong and others got it right.
…
On a broader level, and more importantly, citizens attending Board meetings hear the prayers, not the policy. What this means is that we cannot turn a blind eye to the practical effects of the invocations at issue here. The dissent suggests that the “frequency of Christian prayer” was merely the “product of demographics,” post at 42, and the County “could not control whether the population was religious.” What the dissent offers as a defense of the policy, however, is one of the problems with it. Take-all-comers policies that do not dis- courage sectarian prayer will inevitably favor the majoritarian faith in the community at the expense of religious minorities living therein. This effect creates real burdens on citizens — particularly those who attend meetings only sporadically — for they will have to listen to someone professing religious beliefs that they do not themselves hold as a condition of attendance and participation. “To . . . Jewish, Muslim, Bahá’i, Hindu, or Buddhist citizens[, ]a request to recognize the supremacy of Jesus Christ and to participate in a civic function sanctified in his name is a wrenching burden.” Such burdens run counter to the essential promise of the Establishment Clause.
You can read the entire decision here.
Kidd alleges that this decision is an example of “church-state extremism.”
If someone wants to disagree with the court’s reasoning, fine. But if you’re going to paint the decision as “church-state extremism,” shouldn’t you first attempt to deal with the actual decision?
Extremism is a big charge.
Ironically, Kidd’s last article at Patheos called for “sober discussion” on church-state issues. Yet, this article offers a Christians vs. secularists narrative that characterizes Christian supporters of the decision as “secularists.” Not helpful.
Last I checked, Baptists through the work of the Baptist Joint Committee – which represents Seventh-Day Baptists, American Baptists, Virginia Baptists, Texas Baptists, Missouri Baptists and the three major African-American Baptist groups – have consistently opposed policies that have the effect of promoting one religion over another.
Apparently though, we BJC-supporting Baptists are “secularists” now….
Recent Comments