Prayer gets sacked

In the context of earlier decisions, the Supreme Court ruling this week that struck down a Texas high school’s policy of preceding football games with student-led prayer had all the surprise of a punt on fourth down. In the context of the long-running rivalry between church and state, the ruling has, in the parlance of sports, playoff implications.

The Sante Fe school district hoped to sidestep the ban on school-sponsored prayer with a policy in which a student elected by students composed and delivered a pre-game message to solemnize the event. Since the entire proceeding was organized by students, the district argued, there was no hint of government coercion.

By a vote of 6-3, the court found plenty of school-sponsorship and more than a hint of coercion: the election of the student speaker was organized by the school; the invocation was delivered on school property using the school’s public-address system; football fans who did not share the speaker’s religious beliefs would be forced to listen, made uncomfortable, perhaps ostracized if they did not participate.

Civil libertarians and others for whom church and state can never be separate enough cheered the ruling as a sign the court sees through the transparent attempts of government entities to sponsor prayer without appearing to. They noted with considerable satisfaction that the initial complaint that landed the policy in court was made not by pitchfork-tailed atheists but by Mormon and Catholic families concerned about being subjected to sectarian and proselytizing prayers in their predominantly Baptist community.

Critics of the ruling blasted it as one more sign that religion is being driven out of American life by a liberal court (four of the six voting with the majority were appointed by those notoriously liberal presidents Reagan and Bush). They noted with considerable justification that the ruling amounted to prior restraint — the policy had not yet been implemented, no student-led prayers or exhortations to good sportsmanship had been delivered. No harm, no foul.

But, because no one can overrule this Supreme Court but a future court, the call stands. And one thing both sides agree upon is that if the court can prohibit an activity that merely has the potential for school-sponsored prayer, the next fight will be over school-sponsored moments of silence that create the opportunity for prayer.

It has been 15 years since a previous court struck down an Alabama moment-of-silence law because it specifically devoted the moment to religious devotions. Since then, several states have devised what they saw as challenge-proof laws that describe the moment as being available for any type of quiet reflection, from prayer to meditation to daydreaming. Now, it may be that states with such laws will have to revise them to eliminate mention of prayer as a possible use of that time and hope students figure it out for themselves.

Students still can meet in voluntary prayer groups in school, they can pray on their own, silently, as long it disturbs no one. Meanwhile, Congress has benefit of taxpayer-funded chaplains, the Supreme Court opens its sessions with a plea to the Almighty for guidance. That’s the way the ball bounces.