Do “devil worshipers” deserve full protection under the Constitution? The Supreme Court of the United States asked that very question during arguments last month in a case that could determine the constitutionality of prayer before government functions.

In modern America, prayer of any kind, even if it appears to be all encompassing, will inevitably alienate people with certain religious affiliations.

Our country was founded by theists who believed that religion plays an important role in citizens’ lives. It was for this reason that religion has been intertwined in our government since its founding — for example, “In God we trust” is written on our currency.

But the religious freedom expressed in our founding documents only reflects the cultural norms of the time in which they were conceived. Our founders almost certainly did not consider atheists or polytheists when they drafted the First Amendment.

For this reason, the concept of non-sectarian prayer does not fit within our current culture. Prayer and references to any higher power should be eliminated and replaced with a period of silence before government functions, in which participants can pray silently — or not pray at all — to a deity of their choosing.

The case in question is Greece v. Galloway. Greece is a town near Rochester, N.Y., and the plaintiffs in the case are two residents — one of whom is an atheist — who objected to prayer before town council meetings. The Second Circuit used evidence that almost two-thirds of the town council prayers were explicitly Christian. The Court held that this amounted to promotion of one religion, thereby violating the Establishment Clause. The Second Circuit sided with the plaintiffs.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law “respecting the establishment of religion.” Prayer before sessions of Congress, oral arguments in the Supreme Court and in various other government bodies has been a tradition in the United States since our country’s founding. But constitutionality is not determined by historical significance — the justices were not satisfied with the government’s argument to this point. Justice Kennedy said, “It seems to me that your argument begins and ends there.”

The lawyer for the plaintiffs told the Court that a non-sectarian prayer would be satisfactory to his clients. “How could you do it?” Justice Alito asked. “Give me an example of a prayer that would be acceptable to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus…Wiccans, Baha’i.” Justice Scalia was quick to add atheists to the list and then with laughter from court attendees, sarcastically asked, “What about devil worshipers?”

The justices then tried to determine what would constitute an acceptable non-sectarian prayer. Laycock suggested that a government official could review the prayer prior to its reading so as to make sure it was acceptable to all religions. This argument was wholly unsatisfactory to Justice Kennedy who said, “Well, so in other words the government is now editing the content of prayers?”

It is not easy to predict which way the Court will rule. In the most relevant precedent, Marsh v. Chambers, the Supreme Court held that paying a chaplain to lead prayer before a Nebraska state legislative session was constitutional because of the country’s “unique history.” But this case was decided in 1983. The cultural landscape has changed dramatically since then.

A moment of silence and reflection in which government members can pray to whatever or whomever they choose is a reasonable alternative to government-sanctioned prayer. In this day and age, non-sectarian prayer simply will not suffice — not even to “devil worshipers.”

Michael Hacker is a senior political science major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter at @mikeincuse.

Published on December 5, 2013 at 1:40 am