The Providence (R.I.) Journal, May 8, 2014
Reasonable people can disagree vehemently on the meaning of the First Amendment, as demonstrated by the 5-to-4 margin of Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on prayer. The court ruled that the First Amendment permits even a Christian prayer at the start of a government board meeting, as long as there is no attempt to proselytize or pressure citizens to go along.
That seems a reasonable interpretation of what the First Amendment actually says. The amendment does not permit the federal government to prohibit the free exercise of religion by Americans, nor does it permit the government to establish a religion.
Does a voluntary prayer before a meeting - something with a long tradition in America - establish a state religion and force others to practice that religion? Only by the most extreme interpretation. In the real world, people are perfectly free to ignore the prayer, leave the room or petition their elected representatives to alter or drop the prayer. They may safely join any religious group they wish, or decline to believe altogether.
The First Amendment, in short, is a bulwark of liberty, protecting the right of people to express religious ideas even in public settings. But this guarantee of freedom does not preclude citizens from showing respect for diverse beliefs. Those who seek God’s blessings at the start of government meetings may do so in a non-sectarian manner, striving not to exclude or offend any believers. Or they may eschew any prayer at all. Those approaches would be our strong preference to a sectarian prayer, which can hurt people’s feelings and sow divisions.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan cited George Washington’s famous 1790 letter to Newport’s Touro Synagogue, in which he embraced America’s support for religious liberty. Quoting the Bible’s Old Testament, Washington wrote: “every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.” He added: “For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”
It seems clear, though, that neither Washington nor the other Founders regarded public prayers as giving sanction to bigotry and assistance to persecution. Indeed, in his role as president, Washington issued a proclamation calling for a national day of prayer and fasting in service to “that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be.” He stated: “it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” He did not believe that eradicating any public mention of God was the American way.
While America is markedly more diverse and secular than it was in Washington’s day, we should strive to emulate his support for religious liberty, and to give no sanction to bigotry. Surely, as free people of good will, we can do that without eradicating the freedom to express religious ideas and without banishing prayer from public life.
The Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph, May 8, 2014
There are some things about Scott Brown that we think might make him a good candidate for the U.S. Senate. He’s doesn’t appear to be a slave to party dogma and was one of the Senate’s most bipartisan, independent members when he represented Massachusetts following the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy.
He voted with the Republican Party position 80 percent of the time, which is on the low side for most members of the Senate. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the Democrat that Brown would like to unseat if he gets the nomination, votes with her party more than 90 percent of the time, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Some see her as a rubber stamp for Democratic party policies.
Brown, who served in the Massachusetts Senate before winning the special election to succeed Kennedy, has a reputation for being strong on veterans issues and for doing his homework.
He will, however, have to get past that “carpetbagger” label and the perception that he moved to the Granite State less than a year ago just so he could run for the Senate. To do that, it would be helpful for him to demonstrate that he understands what we expect of our candidates in New Hampshire. He didn’t fare so well on that front last week when he was asked if he supported legislation in Congress to raise the federal minimum wage.
“I haven’t read the bill,” Brown told the Concord Monitor.
We have no doubt that Brown’s response was entirely truthful, but we think it fell well short of being honest.
Brown, a lawyer, undoubtedly recognized that the question was an attempt to get him to take a position on whether minimum wage earners should get a raise from $7.25 to an eventual $10.10 per hour. He supported raising the minimum wage when he was in Massachusetts, but his answer last week was merely an attempt to evade the question. In that respect, it wasn’t much of a New Hampshire answer. Here, voters expect their candidates to be not only truthful, but honest as well.
For instance, while we think Sen. Kelly Ayotte made the wrong choice last week when she opposed bringing the minimum wage bill to a vote on the floor of the Senate, we think voters also can respect the fact that Ayotte didn’t dodge the issue. She took a stand and stood by it.
That’s pretty much a textbook example of how we do it up here. Anybody who needs a “what not to do” example need only watch the now-infamous “Benghazi” video of Rep. Ann McLane Kuster refusing to answer questions about the 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in that Libyan city. Sure, Kuster might have lost a few votes had she taken a forceful stand when she was asked about Benghazi, but at least that wouldn’t have become an Internet video sensation the way her weak attempt to avoid the issue did. Beyond costing her votes, her response also may have cost her a certain amount of respect with voters.
Brown’s non-answer on the minimum wage isn’t going to wash here, and if he thinks not answering will preserve his good standing with the red meat wing of the Republican Party, he’s probably wasting his time, given the competition he faces from challengers who lack his name recognition but possess far more conservative credentials.
We think Brown would be better off just answering questions honestly and letting the chips fall where they may, without pandering to the red-meat types who aren’t inclined to trust him anyway, no matter what he says or does.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.