When elected leaders gather in Greece, New York, a town on the shores of Lake Ontario, they can begin their monthly meeting with a prayer. Doing so does not violate the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled this week, even if the invocations are often explicitly Christian. “Legislative prayer lends gravity to public business, reminds lawmakers to transcend petty differences in pursuit of a higher purpose, and expresses a common aspiration to a just and peaceful society,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The 5-4 ruling was welcomed by many who see a role for religious traditions in civic life. It upset Americans who favor a total, strict separation between the church and the state. In Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, she worries that the decision may hurt religious minorities. She asks us to imagine a woman going to court, a polling place, or a naturalization ceremony. As the first order of business, a government official asks everyone to join in prayer.

“Perhaps she feels sufficient pressure to go along – to rise, bow her head, and join in whatever others are saying: After all, she wants, very badly, what the judge or poll worker or immigration official has to offer,” Kagan reasoned. “Or perhaps she is made of stronger mettle, and she opts not to participate in what she does not believe – indeed, what would, for her, be something like blasphemy. She then must make known her dissent from the common religious view, and place herself apart from other citizens, as well as from the officials.” Is it appropriate to bring religious differences to the fore in such settings?

On the legal question, I defer to the court. When the founders ratified the 1st Amendment, I don’t think they intended to make it illegal for officials in small towns to pray together.

I nevertheless believe that America would be better served by elected officials who stopped praying together and focused exclusively on whatever public business is before them. Prayer can be a wonderful thing in church or at home. In politics, it is bound to be sullied.

Take the U.S. Congress.

They’ve been praying at the beginning of sessions for decades. Has it helped them to behave morally, to be respectful to one another, or to govern with unusual wisdom or circumspection?

I think not.

Praying together, in public, affords politicians an irresistible chance to portray themselves as people with traditional Judeo-Christian values by “talking the talk” rather than “walking the walk.” Some legislators pray earnestly. But most participate as a mere signaling exercise. At the local level, this tiny bit of political theater is often exploited in the same way, and while it doesn’t do much harm so long as most everyone in a community shares a religious and cultural background, it can quickly turn into a problem and often does.

Say Christian prayers make some Jews feel left out. They’re quickly included. Then a Muslim wants his turn. Perhaps he is met with anti-Muslim prejudice.

Hopefully not. But controversy inevitably comes. The proximate cause might be an atheist or a Scientologist or a passage from scripture that condemns homosexuality. There are a thousand different scenarios. All end in lengthy, divisive debates that consume the time of a body meant to govern.

Why consign ourselves to fight over symbols?

I prefer my politicians to send a different signal.

I want them to demonstrate restraint, focus and efficiency when discharging their public responsibilities. No public prayers. No flag lapel pins. No symbolic resolutions honoring or condemning Christopher Columbus. Nothing at all apart from policy. If politicians want to be known as religious, patriotic or moral, they should live those values. Talk is cheap.

Staff opinion columnist Conor Friedersdorf also is a staff writer for the Atlantic.

Contact the writer: