Court shouldn't parse prayers

e-mail this story discuss this issue in our forums

If last month's opinion from a three-judge panel stands, our nation's courts increasingly will be asked to sign off on the scripts for invocations at meetings of our public bodies. And once that happens, public bodies will be pressured to forgo the invocations that are a part of our nation's heritage.

That's why South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster is right to announce he will appeal the panel's ruling that, if it stands, will prohibit the person doing the invocation at public meetings from praying "in Jesus' name." He called the decision by the three judges hearing the case involving the Great Falls Town Council "illogical and unhistorical."

The lawsuit was brought by Darla Kaye Wynne, a Wiccan who practices what the court called "an earth-based religion reconstructed from ancient Pagan beliefs." Wynne started attending Great Falls council meetings a few years ago and became frustrated when council members repeatedly ended their prayers "in Christ's name" or some variation thereof.

The argument escalated between her and the council members, and she eventually sued. A three-judge panel for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case and concurred that the Town Council had crossed the line. Closing a prayer "in Christ's name" is unconstitutional, the court said.

A few points are in order:

The Town Council did cross the line in its treatment of Wynne. For example, when she appeared a few minutes late at a meeting to avoid the prayer, she was not allowed to speak because she was late. The council was not showing appropriate respect for her and seemed to try to make life tough for her. And it probably invited at least a bit of her wrath.

Although many Christians can in good faith deliver a nonsectarian prayer, some cannot and remain true to their religious beliefs. A nation such as ours that encourages tolerance and embraces diversity should be able to withstand the brief public prayers of people who make a slight mention of a specific deity.

Our nation's courts should not get into the business of monitoring prayers. Once they start this, they will be parsing words and eventually demanding scripts in advance lest some poor soul somewhere be offended.

Our country has a rich religious heritage, one grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. But despite its religious roots, or perhaps because of them, America has shown remarkable tolerance for other faiths and provided them with a friendly environment. On occasion, that tolerance should be returned in kind, and the Great Falls case is just one of those times.