Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution

Donald J. Pickard has made the right call.

Reacting to a concern raised by a voter in Bourne, Mr. Pickard, who is the town moderator, has decided to drop the invocation at the start of Town Meeting.

Mr. Pickard said he understands that his decision will upset a number of people in town.

However, I believe it is more important that we do not offend anyone and their specific religious beliefs by providing an invocation that is perceived as Christianized, he said.

The First Amendment to the Constitution is usually mentioned in connection with freedom of speech or of the press.

But if you look even moderately closely at the wording of the amendment, youll see that theres more in there.

Besides freedom of speech and the press, the amendment also brings in the right to assemble peaceably and to petition the government for a redress of their grievancesa right brought home recently in the widespread and justified protests over the death of a Minneapolis man, George Floyd, while in police custody.

But the very first line of the First Amendment concerns religion: that Congress will not make any law respecting a particular religion or prohibiting the exercise of any religion.

The line was and remains a masterstroke. In 16 words, the Founders took religion off the table. Aware of then-recent European history, when religious wars had devastated the European continent from which they came, the Founders set the entire issue aside.

You can practice whatever religion you want, the First Amendment says, but dont expect that the government will elevate your religion over another or provide you with any special favors.

America essentially has hewed to that idea ever since.

Certainly there was fuzziness around the edges. The Founders were, for the most part, practicing Christians, nearly all of them Protestant. The Christian God was woven into their lives and into their ideals.

So you do have some seepage, such as the phrase In God We Trust or the eye atop the pyramid on American currency.

And, human nature being what it is, religious tensions didnt disappear from the United Statesanything but.

The Roman Catholics, who were fellow Christians, were hardly greeted with open arms by Protestants as they immigrated in increasing numbers into the United States.

The Jews encountered the same discrimination as they arrived on these shores from Protestants and Catholics alike.

In recent decades, Muslim immigrants have run into resistance from Americans who already were here, regardless of whether those Americans practiced any religion themselves.

Leaving aside religious bigotry and discrimination that continue to be practiced by some American citizens, theres the issue of the intrusion of religious, usually Christian, words and practices into what should be secular proceedings and matters.

Flash points in recent decades have included what had been the longtime presence of creches at Christmastime on public land outside town halls and the like.

And prayer in public schools was outlawed only about six decades ago.

Its true that sessions of Congress are opened with a prayer. But in light of a true reading of the First Amendment, the practice is questionable.

Here in Bourne, the issue has properly arisen over the invocation that opens Town Meeting.

A Bourne voter, Robert Zibbell, questioned the Christian nature of the invocation that opened last years Fall Town Meeting. The selectmen told Mr. Zibbell that they would take action to make certain that invocations in the future would be nondenominational in nature.

Along comes last months Annual Town Meetingand a Christian-infused invocation.

Mr. Zibbell again objected, properly. In response, the chairwoman of the board of selectmen, Judith Froman, said communication had fallen down regarding the selectmens decision on the issue last fall.

The town moderator, Mr. Pickard, subsequently decided to drop the invocation entirely for the reason stated above.

Elsewhere on this page, Mr. Zibbell makes the case in a letter to the editor to keep the invocation but to make certain the words are more inclusive and not favoring one religious belief or another.

But any invocation as an official part of a government proceeding is going to violate the First Amendment, even a Town Meeting in a relatively small New England municipality.

On a human level, put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesnt believe in a deity, nondenominational or not. Why should you have to listen to a statement espousing a deity-based message?

This doesnt mean that voters going to Town Meeting should be prohibited from praying. Indeed, they should feel free to pray if they wish to do so.

Exercising their First Amendment rights, they can pray out loud with fellow believers before Town Meeting starts. They can pray silently during the moment of silence just before the meeting, which Mr. Pickard plans to retain. They also can pray silently during some of the lengthy debates that characterize Bourne Town Meetingan understandable reaction in more than a few cases.

But an official prayer from the podium to launch the meeting is, as the expression goes, a bridge too far.

Rather than insist on publicly sponsored words, why not follow the core beliefs of so much spirituality present and active in the United Stateswhether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or otherand make a point of speaking kindly at Town Meeting, of listening closely, of not judging others by their appearance, of resolving to better understand and appreciate the views and thoughts of others?

Original post:

The Right Call On The Invocation - Editorial | Editorials - CapeNews.net