Supreme Court to Decide on Prayers in Public Meeting

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the Town of Greece vs. Galloway, a case addressing the constitutionality of sectarian prayers at a town council meeting in upstate New York.

Since 1999, Greece has opened its monthly legislative sessions with explicitly Christian prayers led by a "chaplain of the month." However, in 2008 two women--Susan Galloway, a Jew, and Linda Stephens, an atheist--sued the town of Greece claiming these prayers represent an unconstitutional government "establishment" of religion in violation of the First Amendment. They also argued that they felt uncomfortable by the prayers, which often mentioned Jesus Christ while the chaplain would sometimes ask everyone in the room to stand or at least bow their heads, reports USA Today.

After 2008, the town then invited non-Christian chaplains to offer prayer which included a Baha'i, a Jew, and a Wiccan priestess. However, a federal appeals court sided with the women, explaining that the "steady drumbeat of often specifically sectarian Christian prayers ... associated the town with the Christian religion," reports Slate. Nevertheless, the appeals court couldn't go as far as to tell the town how to make the practice acceptable. If town board members advised clergy to offer only non-sectarian prayers, the board would be in effect establishing a government-approved form of religion which is unconstitutional.

Arguments about the case were presented to the High Court Wednesday. At the heart of the issue is the long standing debate over how much religion and prayer should be allowed in official settings.  At the same time, the Supreme Court is tasked with crafting a constitutionally acceptable rule that will satisfy those of all faiths and those of no faith.

In a previous decision, Marsh vs. Chambers (1983), the Court decided that prayers before a legislative session were acceptable because they do not violate the Establishment Clause. In that decision, the Court stated that legislative prayers are "part of the fabric of our society." Furthermore, supporters of legislative prayer point out that both chambers of Congress routinely begin their sessions with a brief prayer, as do state legislatures. In addition, the Supreme Court opens with the religious phrase, "God save the United States and this honorable court."

However, opponents of mixing prayer and government note that though this is a longstanding tradition, it can still come across as a discriminatory and offensive practice.

Justice Kagan noted the difficulty in deciding the case on Wednesday when she stated:

"I don't think that this is an easy question. I think it's hard because the court lays down these rules, and everybody thinks that the court is being hostile to religion, and people get unhappy and angry and agitated in various kinds of ways. And every time the court gets involved in things like this, it seems to make the problem worse rather than better," she said.

After attending the arguments, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio defended the use of legislative prayer, telling CNN, "Every day before the Senate meets, the Senate chaplain comes out and gives a prayer, and that's important to us. It's part of our country's tradition; it's also our constitutional right, to be able to exercise that."

On the other hand, one of the plaintiffs argued that, "The pastors face the people, they don't face the town government, so it's like they're praying over us," Galloway told CNN after the argument. "When they all stood and I sat, and I have a hundred eyes looking at me, and questioning what's going on, they think I'm being disrespectful. It does put a lot of pressure on you and it makes you very uncomfortable. It singles you out, and that shouldn't be in my town government, and it shouldn't be anywhere."