The U.S. Supreme Court took the coward's way out Monday in dismissing, for technical reasons, a suit over prayers at a public high school graduation ceremony.
But Americans can at least be thankful the court didn't escalate its dismantling of the First Amendment by outright banning student-led prayers at convocations. In recent decades, victories have been difficult to come by where religious freedom is concerned. This one may be worth a small celebration.By dismissing the suit, apparently only because the Idaho high school students who brought it now are graduated, the court let stand the practice of students praying publicly at graduations, at least in the states under the 9th Circuit court's jurisdiction.
This is consistent with a ruling two years ago that let a similar practice stand in three Southern states. But it remains oddly contradictory with a 5-4 decision three years ago against the practice of clergy-led prayers at graduation. Apparently, the court isn't as concerned about the damaging effects of religion when the people practicing it are mere amateurs.
But then, nothing defies logic to a court that makes up the rules as it goes, without any thought to history or tradition.
In the 1992 ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia issued an eloquent dissent in which he noted the court had invented a "boundless, and boundlessly manipulable, test of psychological coercion" to be applied to such cases. If people feel in any way coerced into participating in the prayer, even if that means they merely must suffer in respectful silence, the practice is un-con-stitutional.
Using this reasoning, the court may soon be expected to abolish the reciting of the pledge of allegiance at school functions, as well. After all, the Constitution certainly doesn't allow for political coercion any more than religious coercion. Justice Scalia called this reasoning "nothing short of ludicrous."
We agree.
Graduation prayers are a time-honored tradition in the United States, much as the prayers offered regularly before Congress and state legislatures. Certainly the nation's founders did not mean for such things to be eliminated when they wrote the establishment clause to the First Amend-ment.
Unfortunately, the ruling may not mean much in Utah. Not only is the state not under the 9th Circuit court's jurisdiction, the Legislature passed a law two years ago saying "public schools may not sponsor prayer or religious devotionals." A recent opinion by the state attorney general's office said that law also applies to student-sponsored prayers. Still, the high court has left some doubt as to how it feels.
The justices could have eliminated all confusion with a strong affirmation of the right to worship publicly. That would have been much more satisfying. But Monday's dismissal at least allows the God-fearing people of the United States some room to catch their breath after years of drowning in a whirlpool of court-invented sanctions against public piety.