“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others.”
Matthew 6:5
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.”
Matthew 6:1
On Monday the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, that is likely to further narrow the already slender separation between church and state.
Joseph Kennedy was offered a position as assistant football coach for Bremerton High School. As he considered the offer, he found inspiration in the movie “Facing the Giants.”
“God came down and just gut-punched me and answered the question of whether I should coach,” Kennedy said. The answer: “Absolutely.”
Kennedy began the practice of kneeling in prayer on the 50-yard line immediately following each game. He claims that this “solitary” prayer fulfills a promise he made to God when he became a coach. “I will give you the glory after every game, win or lose,” he said, adding that the setting mattered. “It just made sense to do it on the field of battle.”
Before long he was joined by students, players and coaches, including from opposing teams. “No pressure,” he and supporters insist. As the New York Times reported, “When athletes asked to participate, he said he told them that America was a free country.”
Though I don’t doubt Kennedy’s sincere religious beliefs, I have never understood this kind of insistence on highly conspicuous religious expression. His apparent compulsion to thank his God, win or lose, could be satisfied in any private setting. In fact the Bible verses cited above suggest that his blatantly public display might not please the God he wishes to thank.
As I listened to the live broadcast of oral arguments it seemed clear that Kennedy will prevail. The justices in the conservative majority offered various hypotheticals that served to present Kennedy’s prayers as falling far short of either a government endorsement of religion or coercion of anyone else — endorsement and coercion being the elements of government engagement that might violate the “establishment clause.”
The tension between freedom of religious expression vs. endorsement or coercion has a long, complex history. A number of religious “expressions” have been deemed allowable as ceremonial or traditional. “In God We Trust” on currency or a 40-foot cross on government property in Maryland are examples. On the other hand, the Court ruled against student-led prayers at football games or teaching bible verses in public schools.
The most cited precedent in recent decades is Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), a ruling that crafted a three-pronged test of the constitutionality of any statute or government religious expression:
■It has a primarily secular purpose.
■Its principal effect neither aids nor inhibits religion.
■Government and religion are not excessively entangled.
What has not been examined is the aggregate effect of religious (Christian) expression or symbolism on those who are not religious.
As an atheist, I have tolerated a level of discomfort for a lifetime. Every form I completed in school asked my religion. Parents of new friends would ask what church my family attended. I was expected to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, “under God” and all, every morning in public school. At countless events I’ve been asked to stand for “God Bless America” or bow my head in silence for an invocation or benediction. It cannot be argued that such standing or bowing does not implicate each person present in the religious intent.
Anyone who thinks prayers led by authority figures — even “solitary” prayers conspicuously “performed” on the 50-yard line — are not coercive, is dishonest. Although this act considered in isolation may seem innocuous and innocent, the intent is both to publicly endorse religion and to coerce others to join in the expression through the immense power of conformity.
As a young boy, I was so cowed by the overhanging religion in our small town that I learned to write “Protestant” in the space provided, hoping the generalization would prevent further scrutiny. When asked what church my family attended, I’d mumble and try to flee.
The majority of residents in Bremerton (and most communities in America) are Christian. That makes public prayer more problematic, not more palatable. A major premise in our constitutional republic is the protection of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
The Court began this session — all sessions — with an invocation: “God save the United States and this honorable court.” There was no recognition of the deep irony. Given the composition of the current Supreme Court, the outcome is nearly certain.
The Bremerton School District doesn’t have a prayer of winning.
Steve Nelson lives in Boulder, Colo., and Sharon. He can be reached at stevehutnelson@gmail.com.