The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
‘Twas a Famous Victory Print E-mail
By Hadley Arkes   
Tuesday, 20 May 2014

Let us imagine that, in a spirit of “diversity unbounded,” we established a celebration of religion in this form: two days a week we might pray to the God of Israel, or receive the Eucharist of the Lord who died on the Cross, while on other days we burned incense to local divinities, invited in animists to sacrifice chickens, and Wiccans to cast their spells of the season. Could this scheme be represented to the world as a civic ritual manifesting our “respect” for “religion”?  

Or would it be quite the opposite? Would the whole spectacle be grounded on the premise that these devotions could be equally “respected” because none of them could be truer, with a higher claim to our respect and adherence, than any of the others? Which is to say, the whole project begins by refusing to respect the way in which these devotions and teachings have been understood, and found compelling, by those who hold to them.

To grasp that point is to grasp what a strange “victory” the religious managed to secure at the Supreme Court two weeks ago in the case of Town of Greece (NY) v. Galloway. The town, in upstate New York, began in 1999 to ask local clergyman to give an invocation before the monthly meetings of the town board. Most of the local clergymen happened to be Christian, though the board has been ecumenical in its invitations. The predictable complaint arose that the prayers “established” a Christian definition for the town, that they were “imposed” even on those in attendance who did not share them.

Over the last fifty years, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been inverted from its original purpose and used as a lever to push religion out of the public square altogether. But in the most curious counterpoint to this trend, the Supreme Court has sustained the tradition of legislative chaplains and prayers in legislatures. As Justice Kennedy noted, the First Congress moved to appoint chaplains only days after approving the language for the First Amendment.

For those who are willing to be guided by claims of “original meaning,” that move established at least that the people who framed the First Amendment did not see anything in that Amendment that barred chaplains and prayers in legislative assemblies. And thirty years ago the Court had rejected a challenge to legislative chaplains in the States.

But if it could be claimed now that there was something unconstitutional even in these lingering vestiges of religion, another gentle barrier would be swept away, and there would no limit to the purging of religion from our public life.


        First Prayer of [the Continental] Congress by H.T. Matteson, 1848

Some of us felt an obligation then to contribute to the briefs in the case, and we were both relieved and astonished by the outcome. On the one hand, relieved, that the Court did not overthrow the tradition of prayers in legislatures, and even better than that, immensely pleased that the Court was willing to sustain prayers with a definite character. Christian prayers could still be Christian prayers, invoking the Holy Trinity. They did not have to be submerged in vague “non-sectarian” prayers offered merely to the “divine.” 

On the other hand, we could be astonished and sobered by the fact that the outcome hung by a thread: four justices of the Court were willing to throw out legislative prayers if the search for clergymen were not more ecumenical, seeking out a fuller diversity of religious persuasions or near-persuasions.

And yet, how much fuller could the town have been in the range of “religions” that it was willing to encompass? As Justice Kennedy noted, “the town at no point excluded or denied an opportunity to a would-be prayer giver. . . .[A] minister or layperson of any persuasion, including an atheist, could give the invocation.” A Wiccan priestess who had read about the case quickly tested the waters by offering her services – and they were accepted.

And so what exactly has been won here? The Supreme Court “vindicated” the place of “religion” in the republic only by sustaining a policy that incorporated, in the understanding of religion, a-theism, or the notion of being “without God or gods.”  But this incoherence has become one of the defining features of jurisprudence in our lifetimes.

The conservatives on the Court have been willing to sustain religion in legislative assemblies solely on the ground that the chaplains and prayers have been accepted from the beginning. The conservatives invoke history or “tradition.”  But the flaw in that stance is that the judges divert themselves from the task of explaining, even to themselves, what makes “religion” a good to be preserved and defended in our public life.

Justice Kennedy suggested that prayers may “lend gravity” to the occasion and encourage people to reflect on “shared ideal and common ends.” But those qualities could be supplied by baseball or the arts, as millions come to venerate the grace of Joe DiMaggio or Luciano Pavarotti. Justice Kennedy finds in these rituals “acknowledgements of the divine in our public institution.” Except: that the decision entails no fixed meaning of the “divine,” and it may encompass a materialist view that radically rejects anything divine.

And so, the win in Town of Greece recalls the old joke about the airline pilot who gives to the passengers the bad news and the good: We have lost our flight plan, but on the other hand, we’re making good time.

 
Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College. He is also Founder and Director of the Washington-based James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding. His most recent book is Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law. Volume II of his audio lectures from The Modern Scholar, First Principles and Natural Law is now available for download.
 
 
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (9)Add Comment
0
...
written by Manfred, May 20, 2014
We are paying a tremendous price for the Reformation which has generated 30,000 "christian" cults and denominations. Freedom of religion is not a Roman Catholic term as only one religion is TRUE, that is founded and overseen by God. Judaism expired with Christ ("I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me") and Islam is a heresy based on Judaism-Catholicism (Abraham, Jesus and Mary are mentioned in the Quran and are revered by Muslims). All religions cannot possible be true as they disagree with each other on doctrine and praxis. Therefore, religion becomes confusing and irrelevant.
Take contraception: the Catholicism of the Ages has always and everywhere forbidden it. Novus Ordo catholicism tolerates it and in many cases encourages it. Which religion is TRUE?
Thank you for an interesting article, Dr. Arkes
0
...
written by scm0e, May 20, 2014
So many details for the Devil to wander around in.

"Which deity"? How absurd.
0
...
written by Pietro Pantalones, May 20, 2014
It boils down to the Court saying "This really isn't that important folks. Let 'em do it."
0
...
written by Paul, May 20, 2014
Not everyone can be right but everybody could be wrong. If you take turns worshiping with different faiths you worship none of the faiths.

Judaism, Islam, plus a whole bunch of other religions and even Christians including some Catholics I've meet deny The Father Son relationship and therefore are anti-Christ. Therefore it seems to me we can't say we worship the same God. If this is so, why get involved in the ecumenical movement at all? It seems to me they are not just talking about common problems, they are talking about a one world church.
0
...
written by Seanachie, May 20, 2014
Would the Court have decided differently if it perceived God as a Black, Hispanic illegal, or woman?
0
...
written by WSquared, May 20, 2014
"The conservatives invoke history or “tradition.”"...

...in much the same way that many people decide on a "church wedding" when they get married-- they're getting married the way Mom and Dad did, and the way their grandparents, great grandparents, and great-great grandparents and yadda yadda yadda did, "in the same ceremony" (or insert preferred, cutesy, bloviated bromide about "religion" here...) but with no profound idea of what that ceremony actually involves.

"But the flaw in that stance is that the judges divert themselves from the task of explaining, even to themselves, what makes “religion” a good to be preserved and defended in our public life."

Yes. "Religion" rather begs the question of who or what is being worshiped, and what we even mean by "God."

"Justice Kennedy suggested that prayers may “lend gravity” to the occasion and encourage people to reflect on “shared ideal and common ends.”"

I'm afraid that this idea is trite. Actual gravity doesn't come with the territory of sentimentality or sentimentalism.
0
...
written by Carlos Caso-Rosendi, May 20, 2014
@WSquared: Yes. Gravitas goes with veritas and dignitate.
0
...
written by Ken Tremulous, May 20, 2014
Oh, no, Dr. Arkes! Pant, pant! Soon you'll be wanting Catholic morals to actually be taught in Catholic High Schools. As the Nashville Domincans found out recently, we can't have that now!
0
...
written by jason taylor, May 22, 2014
"Freedom of religion is not a Roman Catholic term as only one religion is TRUE, that is founded and overseen by God"

But justice is a Roman Catholic term, Manfred; as is honesty. Freedom of Religion simply means freedom from state compulsion with regard to faith, in other words freedom from being compelled to lie about one's conscience.

Admittedly that is a red herring as the writer is not writing an essay about whether there should be compulsion in religion but on how to properly interpret ordinances that justly and rightly forbid said compulsion.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner