Yeas or nays on Jesus’ name at town meeting

loading...

Should residents in Maine be allowed to invite a local Christian minister to pray publicly at their town meetings? What do you think?

This month we’re asking for your voice on the matter.

But beware. The issues are more complex than they may seem to be, as I personally discovered early last year.

For more than 100 years, prayers have been offered at public meetings in the little town of Monson.

Since 1976, I have been regularly invited to offer the invocation at Monson’s annual town meeting. But no longer. Such practices are now likely a thing of the past.

In the spring of 2004, for the first time ever, someone became disturbed that I had ended my prayer “in Jesus’ name.”

A complaint was filed with the Maine Civil Liberties Union. The MCLU proceeded to ask the town to “cease its practice of including sectarian prayer in its public meetings.” They intimated a willingness to litigate if no action was taken.

Monson’s selectmen, assuming that the town was not inclined to fund a big legal battle, voted to discontinue the practice. For the cost of a postage stamp, the MCLU and one Monson resident got their way.

Other town residents complained. With 49 articles on the warrant that evening, some wondered why anyone would make a scene over the name of Jesus. One man observed, “There’s profanity on TV, vulgarity on the radio, expletives in popular music – and someone gets upset over Jesus?”

Even those who didn’t particularly care about prayer were concerned that the town was “being bullied.” How can a practice that is OK with the majority of townspeople suddenly be ended just to suit one person?

The MCLU was quick to respond: “The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to be free from government endorsement of particular religions. Putting an end to practices that show official favoritism for particular religions allows people to practice their own beliefs without feeling excluded from community life.”

Are they correct? Did my prayer that evening really create a legitimate basis for anyone feeling “excluded from community life”? Does sectarian public prayer always automatically violate the Constitution?

Who is right? What’s legal? What’s fair? What’s your opinion?

Here are four questions for those who believe that there’s absolutely no place for sectarian prayer in a public setting today:

1. How can calling for a brief public prayer (sectarian or not) be construed as “making a law” that establishes Christianity, thus violating the U.S. and-or Maine constitutions?

2. Is it democratic and fair for the will of just one citizen to usurp the will of 100 other citizens? Isn’t the Constitution meant to assure freedom of religion, not freedom from religion? And aren’t sectarian prayers being offered for the town, not by the town?

3. Given the fact that many Christian ministers view the failure to mention Jesus in prayer as spiritual compromise, wouldn’t the state’s insistence on nonsectarian prayer actually constitute a prohibition of the “free exercise” of religion?

4. Doesn’t the fact that the 1st Congress passed the First Amendment and voted to appoint their own chaplain within the same week make it clear that they never considered the First Amendment to be a basis for forbidding public religious expression, sectarian or otherwise?

Now, for Christians who remain convinced that a town should still be allowed to ask a Christian minister to pray at their public meetings, here are four questions:

1. Are Christians prepared to listen to Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, Satanists or those of other religious persuasions take their turns praying publicly to whomever or whatever they may choose?

2. On what scriptural grounds do Christians contend that anyone should pray in Jesus’ name in a public venue (Matthew 6: 5-6), especially where those who do not want to hear such prayers are “trapped” and resentful?

3. Are you aware that some very thoughtful Christians, given contemporary complexities, now favor banning all prayer in public settings?

4. Does democracy always just mean that the majority rules? Isn’t it also at times the legitimate and necessary task of a democracy to protect individuals against the “tyranny of the majority”?

The issues are complicated, aren’t they? Both sides make some powerful points. Which is why I’d very much value your counsel in further weighing the matter.

The Rev. Daryl E. Witmer is founder and director of the AIIA Institute, a national apologetics ministry, and associate pastor of the Monson Community Church. He may be reached at AIIAInstitute@aol.com or through ChristianAnswers.Net/AIIA.

What do you think?

Public prayer prompts powerful emotions and raises important issues. Should Christians or other members of religious or spiritual groups pray at public functions? What do you think? Please limit your response to 150 words or less. We will consider publishing some of these in the July 2-3 edition of the religion section. Send by e-mail to bdnreligion@bangordailynews.

net or to P.O. Box 1329, Bangor 04402; attn: Tom McCord. You must include your name and a contact phone number.