TOWN OF GREECE, NEW YORK v. GALLOWAY
ET AL .
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 12–696.
Argued November 6, 2013—Decided
May 5, 2014
Since 1999, the monthly town board
meetings in Greece, New York,
have opened with a roll call, a
recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance,
and a prayer given by clergy
selected from the congregations listed in
a local directory. While the prayer
program is open to all creeds,
nearly all of the local
congregations are Christian; thus, nearly all of
the participating prayer givers have
been too. Respondents, citizens
who attend meetings to speak on
local issues, filed suit, alleging that
the town violated the First
Amendment’s Establishment Clause by
preferring Christians over other
prayer givers and by sponsoring sec-
tarian prayers. They sought to limit
the town to “inclusive and ecu-
menical” prayers that referred
only to a “generic God.” The District
Court upheld the prayer practice on
summary judgment, finding no
impermissible preference for
Christianity; concluding that the Chris-
tian identity of most of the prayer
givers reflected the predominantly
Christian character of the town’s
congregations, not an official policy
or practice of discriminating
against minority faiths; finding that the
First Amendment did not require
Greece to invite clergy from con-
gregations beyond its borders to
achieve religious diversity; and re-
jecting the theory that legislative
prayer must be nonsectarian. The
Second Circuit reversed, holding
that some aspects of the prayer pro-
gram, viewed in their totality by a
reasonable observer, conveyed the
message that Greece was endorsing
Christianity.
This
is the beginning of the brief that was presented to the SCOTUS in the
case of the Town of Greece vs. Galloway.
The gist of it is that the town of Greece, NY was upset because the
predominant prayer given at the beginning of their town board
meetings were Christian. This showed the domination of the Christian
faith in the area, and people wanted something more inclusive. (If
you're curious about the full brief given to the SCOTUS you can go
here.
The link is at the beginning of the first paragraph.)
It
doesn't look like anything serious. SCOTUS just struck down the
request for a more inclusive prayer session at the beginning of the
town meetings. The problem is this infringes on the First Amendment.
Now, this may not seem like something to get worried about. I feel it
sets a bad precedent.
My
concern here is what's going to happen if other people start bringing
cases like this to SCOTUS. Are they going to continue to break down
the wall between church and state? The predominant religion in the
United States is the Christian faith. There are several different
denominations but they have some of the same basic premises. Does
this mean that the First Amendment is being pushed to the side, which
goes against federal law?
North
Carolina tried to bring about a “state religion”. You can find
some information about that here.
The bill was struck down and it wasn't carried out. But how many of
us have the fear that someone is going to tell us who we have to
worship, that a religion that we don't believe in and we don't wish
to follow, will become the legally stated religion that we are
required to abide by?
Personally,
I think this decision by the SCOTUS could lead to others creating
state religions and forcing the citizens to follow that as the law.
Where is the freedom of religion in that? Though they would have to
repeal the First Amendment to make this a countrywide thing, what's
to stop them from doing that? It's possible.
Perhaps
I'm just jumping at shadows. But I don't like this.
