WASHINGTON (JTA) — An array of Jewish groups decried a U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing prayers at town hall meetings.
The
5-4 decision
along conservative-liberal lines handed down Monday reversed a lower
appeals court decision in favor of a lawsuit brought by Susan Galloway
and Linda Stephens, an atheist in Greece, a town in upstate New York.
The
town board has since 1999 opened meetings with a prayer, almost always
by a Christian clergyman, and some of these at times proselytized.
The
plaintiffs held that the prayers should be nonsectarian, a position the
Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled overextended government
reach.
“To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would force
the legislatures that sponsor prayers and the courts that are asked to
decide these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious
speech,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, “a rule
that would involve government in religious matters to a far greater
degree than is the case under the town’s current practice of neither
editing or approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content
after the fact.”
A number of Jewish groups, which had filed friend of the court briefs, condemned the decision.
The
Anti-Defamation League, in its statement, said the ruling was “deeply
disturbing” and noted the circumstances of the Greece case, in which
opening prayers involved not just lawmakers but citizens petitioning
their town council.
“The religiously divisive implications of
this new rule are troubling in any of these contexts, however it is
particularly disturbing at the local level where ordinary citizens seek
recourse from public officials and will likely feel pressured to
participate in religious observances not of their own faith,” the ADL
said.
Also condemning the decision were the Reform movement’s
Religious Action Center, the National Council of Jewish Women, the
Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the American Jewish Committee.
Marc
Stern, the AJC’s general counsel, said he was relieved that the court
did not go as far as some had expected and gut standards in place since
the 1970s that ban legislating toward religious purpose.
“It turns out to be a fairly narrow decision,” he said.
In
his decision, Kennedy said that “a pattern of prayers that over time
denigrate, proselytize or betray an impermissible government purpose”
would violate the constitution.
Stern said that the conservative
majority and the liberal minority seemed to accept that the Greece
council did not intend to advance a pattern of prayers advancing
proselytization, and that the impression that it was impressing
Christianity on its citizens was an inadvertent one.
“The only
discernible legal difference between the plurality and the dissent is
whether stupid bureaucrats violate the establishment clause,” he said.
Justice
Elena Kagan, in her dissent, cited a seminal moment in American Jewish
history, in 1790, when George Washington communicated with Moses Seixas,
a lay official of the Jewish community in Newport, R.I.
She
noted that Seixas, in a letter to Washington, expressed gratitude for an
American government “which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution
no assistance – but generously affords to All liberty of conscience and
immunities of Citizenship.”
In his reply, now
enshrined as a key document
outlining religious freedoms, Washington, Kagan said, “like any
successful politician” knew to borrow a successful turn of phrase – and
appropriated Seixas’ language.