Government Supported Religion: Can It Be General? (Book Notes: Without a Prayer)

There are many conservatives who object to strict separation between church and state, preferring instead that the government be allowed support "religion generally" and aid various religious bodies without discrimination. This position is mired in contradictions and errors, though.

In Without a Prayer: Religious Expression in Public Schools, Robert S. Alley writes:

[One] quite serious problem with non-preferentialism lies in its major premise, which inevitably results in requiring the federal government to “define” religion. One can hardly go about the task of plural establishment without definitions, which inevitably include and exclude.

[A]ny effort to provide a “generalized endorsement of prayer” as Rehnquist says the establishment clause allows, necessitates a definition of prayer. But prayer, as many prominent religious leaders such as Baily Smith, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention; Jerry Falwell; and Billy Graham have recently noted, is not generalizable. Falwell and Smith have publicly denied that prayer, other than in the name of Jesus, is prayer at all. What is the state’s position on the matter?

The Rehnquist strategy is merely a means of establishing “traditional” religions or it is a meaningless concept. If no definition of religion is forthcoming, then the argument is moot. If any definition is employed, no matter how broad, some belief systems will be excluded, which would be a clear violation of the establishment clause.

Alley’s conclusion here bear repeated reinforcement: efforts by religious conservatives to permit the government endorsement of “general” religious practices either means the government endorsement of the “traditional” practices of the majority religion which many already agree upon, or it means absolutely nothing because there are no “general” religious practices that everyone, all religious people, agree upon.

This should be obvious to just about anyone who is not a part of the religious majority — they recognize that their religious practices, if they have any, aren’t the same as those of the majority and therefore will not be covered by any government-sponsored actions that are narrowly constructed to please the majority. Prayers designed to please some people won’t please everyone; prayers designed to please everyone are sure to fail to please some.

If members of the religious majority recognize this, then either their intention is to establish majority religious practices without being honest and up-front about it or their intention is to upset rank-and-file members because the “general” religious practices will fail to endorse their particular religious beliefs. The latter is too implausible to take seriously. It also implausible that it’s a coincidence that members of the religious majority are the ones who are always advocating such “general” religious establishments, so we have to look to the former as the most reasonable explanation.

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.