Backers of public prayer may regret ruling

Now that District Judge Joseph Farnan has divined that opening school board meetings with prayer is constitutional, supporters should consider the costs of what they've won.
 It's a tough prospect, perhaps, for many of the majority Christian faith to consider, but this most recent ruling makes it necessary. Farnan's 57-page opinion threw out the lawsuit brought against the Indian River School District filed in 2005 by two Jewish families. They charged the district created an environment of exclusion by allowing explicitly Christian prayers at school events. One family had a student in the district, the other family complained of harassment after objecting to a Christian prayer at their daughter's graduation the previous year. They even moved out of state because of the intimidation. Farnan found that elected school boards are closer to a legislative body than a school, and therefore a prayer is permissible. Both Houses of open sessions with prayers.


"Although reasonable people can differ as to whether the board's policy is wise, could be more inclusive or is actually necessary to solemnize board meetings, too much judicial fine-tuning of legislative prayer policies risks unwarranted interference in [a legislative body]," Farnan wrote.
That was a direct rebuttal to prayer critics' claims of a constitutional bias in favor of separation of church and state.
And he concluded that the Sussex County School Board did not use its prayer policy "to proselytize or advance religion," which means the court "may not demand anything further" of the board.
Of course, no harm is intended in these prayers, and while outright campaigning for new converts is rarely the point, to others it seems so.
But this is the larger issue, which is difficult to ignore for those of minority faiths, who sit silently as the religion of choice for elected officials gets an unfettered public expression.
The plaintiffs plan to appeal the ruling to the Third Circuit Court, which could set the stage for U.S. Supreme Court review.
But in the meantime, local communities can lead the nation's high court on this matter.
Requiring scripted, non-offensive prayers omitting references to deities is disrespectful of any religion.
However, the nation's changing plurality is trending more to subpopulations of minorities, as opposed to monolithic majorities.
Up against the Constitution, only two options seem unlikely to offend -- moments of silence or the solitary bang of the gavel.