The Politics of Prayer

Sparking controversy nationwide, Texas Governor Rick Perry recently called for a day of prayer and fasting, along with a prayer rally to happen on August 6, 2011. The event responds to the many challenges facing his state and Americans nationwide, and it is fittingly called The Response. Predictably, “religious freedom” groups are fussing about perceived First Amendment violations, and some liberal Christians are complaining that the event is too exclusive.

On July 13th, Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a group of atheists and agnostics based in Wisconsin, filed a lawsuit against Gov. Perry to prevent him from participating in the rally. In their complaint, FFRF wrote that The Response “violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution by endorsing religion over non-religion, as well as by endorsing Christianity over non-Christian religions.” There is very little evidence supporting claims that the rally violates the Establishment Clause. The Response will receive no government funding, and it is not sponsored by the government in any way besides Perry’s personal involvement. Despite this, FFRF co-director Dan Barker argues that Perry should not use “his civil office to plan and dictate a religious course of action to ‘all citizens.’” Far from dictating anything to anyone, Perry has simply invited Americans to participate in a day of prayer.   

Also, as a legally minded organization like the FFRF surely knows, the Constitution does not impose a complete separation of church and state. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses say “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” With no legislation or funding involved in this situation, it is difficult to understand how Gov. Perry could have violated the First Amendment. Further, because Perry retains his constitutional right to free expression while in public office, it would be a greater affront to the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to prohibit Gov. Perry’s participation in the rally.

In a victory for common sense and constitutionality, U.S. District Judge Gray H. Miller dismissed the lawsuit after finding that the FFRF did not have standing. In a statement, Miller said “the governor has done nothing more than invite others who are willing to do so to pray,” indicating that Perry’s actions merely offended but did not harm the plaintiffs.

Perhaps more surprising is the Christian opposition to this Christian event. Rather than affirm prayer during a national crisis, the Houston Clergy Council issued a statement expressing “deep concern” that the rally blurs the separation of church and state, is not inclusive, and is sponsored by “a hate group.” Over 20 ministers and other religious officials from liberal congregations and groups including United Church of Christ, Alliance of Baptists, United Methodist, Unitarian Universalist, and others signed the letter on June 13th. One signer was Barry Lynn of the Washington, D.C. based Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which specializes in condemning public expression of traditional Christianity. Their primary concern is the event’s funding from supposed “hate group,” the American Family Association (AFA). The AFA is a pro-family organization working to “strengthen the moral foundations of American culture.” Their work defending traditional marriage earned them the unfounded label “hate group” from the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center.” But is unclear exactly what harm the Council fears from Perry’s loose association with the AFA.

Many if not most of the Houston Clergy Council signers seem to represent theologically heterodox congregations that reject traditional Christian sexual ethics. Their statement emphasizes that AFA leaders have a “long track record of anti-gay speech and have actively worked to discriminate against the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community.” By “discriminate,” they evidently meant disapproval of sexual behavior that traditional Christianity does not countenance. The council describes itself as a “welcoming and affirming interfaith coalition,” deploying terms usually associated with sexually liberal church causes.

Among the Council’s other concerns is the exclusivity of the rally. They claim the event is unjust because “the governor has made it clear that only Christians of a particular kind are welcome to pray in a certain way.” As the dismissal of the FFRF’s lawsuit shows, however, those of other faiths have not been harmed in any real way by Perry’s actions. They are free to pray or not pray in any way they choose, just as Perry is free to believe and pray as a Christian. For public expression of traditional Christianity, however, freedom is under attack. Probably the Houston Clergy Council would not object if a public official joined them in a religious rally for politically liberal causes, such as same-sex marriage, opposing federal budget limits, or opposing U.S. national security. These causes would be affirmed as “inclusive,” of course.  

Here is another instance where the First Amendment has been misinterpreted by hyper-sensitive groups trying to eradicate religious beliefs they find unpalatable from the public sphere. Rather than upholding freedom of expression and religion, however, they are motivated by a desire for freedom from offense.  Neither the Houston Clergy Council nor the FFRF have been harmed, but rather they are offended at Perry’s public expression of his personal faith. The Council closes its letter by asking “that Rick Perry leave the ministry to us and refocus his energy on the work of governing our state,” as if the governor has neglected his responsibilities.

True adherence to the First Amendment would respect Perry’s right as an American citizen to express his Christian beliefs. His involvement with the rally does not impinge on non-Christians but merely reflects his profession of Christianity. Perhaps members of the Houston Clergy Council should refocus their energy on ministry and affirm rather than criticize prayer in times of crisis.