Taking religion to court

The head of an atheist group that has filed a lawsuit against prayer at Barack Obama's presidential inauguration says the government is picking a winner between “believers” and “those who don't believe” and subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs. …

“We're hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration,” Barker told FOX News Radio. …

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, said it's Obama's decision whether to include a prayer, not the government's. …

Barker argued that by allowing religious phrases to be used in the ceremony as well as inviting Revs. Rick Warren and Joe Lowery, who are named as defendants in the suit, to participate in the inaugural festivities, the government is picking a winner in the dispute over religion and atheism. …

Asked if prayer is excluded, wouldn't that mean government is choosing atheists as the winner, Barker replied, “There is a difference between neutrality and hostility. …”

(Mike Majchrowitz, “Atheist Group Files Lawsuit Against Prayer at Presidential Inauguration”, Fox News, 30 Dec 2008)

Once more the question is raised:

Is the First Amendment designed to prevent the expression of religious belief, or protect the expression of religious belief?

Barker obviously believes the former. While I want to respect his opinion, it is hard to take it seriously. Religious freedom is and always has been a cornerstone of American government and society (although not always observed, to society's detriment).

Barker and the “Freedom from Religion Foundation” have declared open war against this fundamental right. Surely, they cannot think they will win? Do they honestly expect the courts to establish atheism as the state religion after two centuries of pluralism? Do they really want to live in a world where religious expression is banned? If so, they're living in the wrong country.

One might reasonably ask, if Obama were a professing Muslim rather than a professing Christian, would he be permitted to have an imam of his choice pray for him at his inauguration? I'd like to think he would.

If Obama were a professing atheist, would he be forced to pray? I think not. Then why should he be denied the option?

The First Amendment specifies that the federal government may not establish a state religion, nor prohibit the “free exercise” of religion. Congress reaffirmed and strengthened this clause in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The courts, likewise, have consistently prevented the government from restricting religious freedom except when there is a compelling state interest to do so. (Gonzales 2008)

No one is trying to prevent Barker's free exercise of religion. However, Barker is asking the government to restrict Obama's free exercise of religion, by forbidding him to pray at his ordination. The legal and moral precedent is clear.

In one matter, at least, I agree with Barker: There is, indeed, a difference between neutrality and hostility.