Prayer in Public Settings: The Indiana Statehouse
Three Hierarchies says of the private prayer huddle that replaced the official opening
prayer at the Indiana Statehouse:
…making opening prayers private actually marginalizes non-Christians
in the legislature far more effectively and openly than any “in the
name of Jesus Christ” tacked on at the end of an invocation ever
could. (Take a look at the empty desks in that photo; if you refuse to
participate in Christian prayer, you’re going to feel awfully
conspicuous!) .
That is a good point, and puts the judge’s command in an even
worse light. He has replaced the official prayer, which is for all the
legislature, with private prayer groups, which pointedly exclude some
members. Indeed, I could imagine competing groups, a Catholic, a
conservative Protestant, a liberal Protestant, and a Jewish group,
with a couple of atheists sitting forlornly up front.
This idea does give a possible excuse for Peggy Welch’s use of a
nonsectarian prayer: a desire not to exclude non-Christian members of
the Legislature. There might have been Jews in her prayer huddle, and
her prayer could have been said by a Jew without difficulty. I can
imagine that tact in such a situation would have been appropriate. It
is an interesting and hard question what to do about prayer when it
makes those who do not pray feel marginalized, a harder question than
what to do when it makes those who *do* pray feel marginalized.
I heard Representative Welch on the radio this morning, though, and
she didn’t say that. The interviewer asked her specifically if it was
hard to craft the prayer, and she said it was not, and made no mention
of other people in the prayer huddle.
In fact, it sounded as if her prayer might have been in compliance
with the judge’s dictates, as being sufficiently crypto-Christian
instead of Christian.
She also said that it was important to obey court orders, even if
they are wrong, because otherwise it would set a bad example for
citizens who might be ordered to do something like pay child support.
I should blog on that another time, since the “infallibility of the
Court” or “divine right of judges” argument came up yesterday at the
law-and-econ lunch too, with the argument that chaos will result if
anybody refuses to comply with a judge’s order, however unreasonable
and tyrannical.
I noticed that she did not say she disagreed with the judge’s order
either. I wish she had been asked about that. She did say that she
did not think it was an important issue and she was glad they could
put it aside, not think about it any more, and go on to more
important things such as minor changes in property taxes. She said
it was not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue, but from what she
said, it sounds like it certainly is not a Peggy Welch issue.