Slate's Dahila Lithwick has a great piece up about to the Forsyth County ruling. Many seem to believe, she says, that religious freedom rights enable the majority to dictate what the minority must endure. They view those who would object to a sectarian prayer offered at an official government meeting as merely "hypersensitive" lone hecklers. That's not how constitutional protections work, she rightfully responds, and is a view completely opposite the purpose of the First Amendment.
It doesn't matter if only 4 percent of the community is expressly excluded by references to a certain deity. It also doesn't matter if only 1 percent of the community feels that way, or even if only two "hypersensitive" non-Christians object. The Bill of Rights is not subject to popular referendum. That's why it's called the Bill of Rights and not, say, American Idol.
…The whole point of the Establishment Clause doctrine is that majorities don't get to cram their preferred religion down the throats of nonbelievers—even if they vote to do so. The kinds of nonsectarian, ecumenical prayer Judge Niemeyer scorns as mere "civil niceties" are, in fact, the very delicate mechanism by which a society that is deeply religious has also managed to be deeply tolerant.
…
The Forsyth County Board of Commissioners can certainly keep trying to vote the dissenters, the hyper-sensitive, and the thin-skinned off the island. Happily, it's the dissenters, the hyper-sensitive, and the thin skinned whom the Constitution often most zealously seeks to protect.
The nonsectarian compromise may create discomfort for some, but its purpose is to protect the religious liberty of all. If that form of restraint proves too troubling, the answer is not to insist on sectarian prayer, or concoct policies that lead to them. The answer is to refrain from government-led prayer. After all, while nonsectarian legislative prayer is allowed under the Constitution, it is not required.
