Thursday, Rajan Zed said the United States Senate’s morning prayer. The Senate has had a long tradition of having a prayer before meeting, but this prayer is newsworthy for two reasons. It was the first Hindu prayer in Senate history, and a protest of the prayer by a few Christians present in the galley has not gone over well with many people.
Here’s a video of the prayer and protest:
I’ve thought for a while that this sort of event is the logical end of Christian attempts to keep or reintroduce religious practices in government and in the schools. The allowance of only Christian (or on occasion other “acceptable” faiths) prayers in the public forum is untenable in a pluralistic democracy. Are Christians willing to accept that if they get the right to have prayer in schools and before government meetings that other faiths will also have that right?
While in one way, that is indeed very sad that some Christians only want freedom of their religion, it actually fits in with the general ideology of American evangelicalism as a whole, particularly of the sort that is really public in these sorts of places (i.e. politics).
This kind of thing (non-Christian prayers sanctified by government) is much easier to accept once it is understood that government is not a Christian institution, never has been and never will be. Freedom of religion and state religion are completely incompatible. Christians in America desperately need to change their focus from evangelism through laws and public policy, to evangelizing the way Jesus and the early church did.
While I mostly agree, one should recall that almost every state originally had a state church and religion (always Christian). Jefferson himself (the “wall of separation” guy) attended church many Sundays at the House of Representives. What that means for today is debatable, but we shouldn’t pretend that the founders of this country thought that this was anything but a nation founded on Christian principles.
“Founded on Christian principles” just means that the people’s rights come from the Creator, not from the largesse of a monarch. Rights endowed by the Creator cannot be rightfully abridged by any form of government.
Just because one attends church doesn’t mean one wants the church setting the agenda for politics. That always ends horribly bad (do we need to list examples?). In other words, one’s religious life should not invade one’s nation’s politics. It has every right/privilege to permeate one’s own beliefs, but it doesn’t have any right/privilege to permeate others’ own beliefs. We here in America create laws for many different reasons (sometimes religious, sometimes not), but these laws are enacted because it appeals to the majority of people not on the basis of religion but on the basis of ethical behavior.
It’s all very Kantian (in that Kant wanted to create a moral-ethical system that was “Christian” while remaining divorced from the ecclesiopolitical environment of the church). I believe that is the exact thrust of Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” and it has been (in my opinion) adhered to very well. This is why abortion is legal: it is acceptable for a woman to do whatever she wants with her body (and the fetus living in her is considered, legally, part of her body).
The only valid reasons I can imagine for objecting to a “non-Christian” prayer would be tradition and proportion of the nation professing to the stated religion. If a community with a 75% Hindu population wants to have a Hindu prayer before their town hall meeting, they should definitely do so. Whether it makes sense for a nation with 82% of the population professing “Christian”, 1% Jewish, 1% Islam, and only 3% claiming either “something else” or “other not Christian” is definitely a reasonable debate.
Of course, it may make sense for a national government to also consider world religions, to expand exposure to other cultures. 33% worldwide profess Christianity, 20% Islam, 13% Hindu, 6% Buddhism. By this criteria, a Buddhist prayer would be perfectly reasonable. I definitely believe that all four religions should be presented by those professing belief in schools, with Judaism thrown in due to its size in the US and its position as the “origin” of the two largest worldwide religions.
“This is why abortion is legal: it is acceptable for a woman to do whatever she wants with her body (and the fetus living in her is considered, legally, part of her body).”
So as long as it is “part of her body,” she can do whatever she wants to it? Then the legal definition of “her body” needs to be redefined, cause that is bunk. Abortion is legal because some judges decided that the states must cede their authority to the fed in this matter. While I think that constitutionally, Roe v. Wade is horrible law, I think a federal amendment to protect the most innocent members of our society is needed. Life is not a matter for people or states to decide who deserves to enjoy it. We have done federal amendments to ensure other freedoms, why not the most basic of all? But, since we are a long way from that point, unfortunately, at the very least, leave it to the states (the people) to decide rather than some twisted judiciary.
When it comes to life and basic morality, I don’t ignore God’s law for any law made by man. Speed limits are one thing, nothing in the Bible speaks to them. However, it does speak of the sanctity of life. And in Psalms 11:5, it says that God “hates” those who love violence. What is more violent than tearing an innocent baby from its mother’s womb? I tremble to think what kind of wrath He has in store for those who have enabled, much less promoted, the use of abortion in this country.
“I think a federal amendment to protect the most innocent members of our society is needed.”
That’s the crux of the issue, I think. When the Constitution was written, the average reasonable man would not have considered an unborn child to be a person, at least not in the early stages of pregnancy. The concept of life beginning at conception is new; it arose as a consequence of modern medical science. (The reinterpretation of scriptures to support that view is interesting, but it doesn’t make the belief the only biblical option.)
In any case, the point is, the Constitution as originally written does not provide protection to unborn children. They don’t fall under the definition of people, and therefore do not qualify for Constitutional protection as human beings. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change that–unless we adhere to a living document theory of the Constitution which permits us to reinterpret it as we see fit.
I would support a Constitutional amendment to explicitly define unborn children as human beings, thereby extending to them the same legal rights and privileges as newborns. But until we get such an amendment, we’re unlikely to see an substantive change in the law.
“But until we get such an amendment, we’re unlikely to see an substantive change in the law.”
True, so until that point, it would be nice to at least see the states given the chance to decide it for themselves, which is the more constitutional position. Roe V. Wade is very fragile, we just need the right case to get to the SCOTUS to overturn it.
Darius, the argument for abortion is grounded in the definitions of life and of person. There are problems with defining it as being at conception (this could outlaw many contraceptive pills), brain activity (what about people in vegetative states), 6 months (why such an arbitrary number), “survivability” (who gets to decide this and who gets to determine whether the unborn meets this criteria?), etc. This is a very tricky subject to tread. Further, since it strikes at the heart of the U.S. constitution, I don’t see it being easier if it is left to state governments (then we’ll see people “visiting” California for an abortion). This is one of those things that seems better to be done at the federal level, which seems to me to be what the constitution is about: federal government is necessary when (and only when) there would be problems if the states were divided on the issue.
But, more to the original topic: you are free to have your own opinion on the matter, but so does everyone else. A law should only be made in order to protect others (which is why most people agree to outlawing theft and murder but not to wearing seatbelts, smoking pot, or North Korea). My rule of thumb is that the more specific a law is, it is more likely to be wrongly motivated. This is why I’m against public displays of religion. These are fine and dandy, but they shouldn’t be partial to one religion. If we have the 10 Commandments on display because it is “part of our heritage,” then we should also see the Laws of Manu and the Code of Hammurabi.
I wouldn’t characterize the Code of Hammurabi as part of our heritage. It may be historically important, and may have helped shape modern legal systems. But at any time in our history, only a handful of Americans would say that the Code of Hammurabi is meaningful to them. It’s just not meaningful to us, and never has been. It’s interesting as a historical artifact, but it doesn’t inform our everyday lives as the Ten Commandments have for so many Americans.
cchrisr, I agree with your other points, though. And I wouldn’t be completely averse to having the Code of Hammurabi in a public display. It doesn’t threaten me.
Exactly, just because the Code played a role in the history of world law, it doesn’t mean it has served as a specific part of our heritage. On the other hand, The Ten Commandments have informed our rule of law since the beginning in this country. Historical pluralism doesn’t do justice to the facts.
My point with the Code was that it was a major influence in the creation of the U.S. Constitution, just like the 10 Commandments and the Laws of Manu. None of these can be used as evidence for the USA being “founded on Christian principles.” (There may be other evidence, but the genesis of the Constitution isn’t one).
Good rule of thumb, though a complete failure to apply it. Religion should not be regulated at all. Any “religion specific” rules are suspect. Whether the 10 Commandments are displayed or the Laws of Manu should be decided by the same people who decide if the carpet is brown or green. It is a decorating decision, and nothing more. NOBODY should be forced to bow their heads or participate in any religious ceremony of ANY kind, though it is merely polite to allow others silence when doing so. Banning religious expression in any format requires some form of “registration” of “recognized” religions which should be subject to the ruling. Doing so is a complete violation of the concept of separation of church and state.
Great comment, Atanamis! The same thing applies to racial preferences; the Constitution is color blind. Likewise, we shall “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Saying that a public establishment cannot put up a Christmas tree without also showing a menorah or the Ten Commandments without Hammurabi’s Laws is grossly violating the First Amendment. In other words, whether Hammurabi had more influence than the Mosaic Law over our Constitution is beside the point; if the person(s) choosing the “decorations” for the courtroom think the former reigns supreme, fine. Or, instead, the latter, that’s dandy.
Atanamis, you’re not disagreeing with me. If the display of the 10 Commandments is a decorative decision (and one likely based on the fact that it was used by the founding fathers to form the constitution), hanging anything else should be just as acceptable. Nowhere in my post did I advocate regulating any religion. Again, my point is that if something is displayed for religious reasons, then anything else that is similar in another religion should also be displayed.
The flipside to this, however, is that those who want the 10 Commandments displayed want that because of religious reasons, not decorative ones.
cchrisr, I don’t see how the person(s) motives should be considered. If a courthouse wants to show the Ten Commandments and the person behind the idea is a devout Christian who wants to display an artifact of his faith AND of this nation’s history, the 1st Amendment explicitly forbids any interference in that endeavor. We must consider the perspective that the founders had regarding state sponsorship of religion. They came out of the “Church of England” setting, where the church and the state were, for all practical purposes, one entity. The last thing the founding fathers wanted was a replica of that system in this country. An individual putting up a Mosaic tablet in court does not count as an “establishment” of religion, and no one is forced to ascribe to any particular religion by doing so.
And perhaps I want the color orange painted on the walls for religious reasons (we regard orange as a holy color). It is not the responsibility of government to catalog religious beliefs. The “reasons” why it is wanted are irrelevant. It is ONLY a decorating decision, and I should be able to oppose putting a 20 foot Buddha in front on the courthouse only through the same channels I could oppose painting the courthouse orange. My “freedom of religion” doesn’t protect me from having a Buddha in my courthouse, though if I find it undesirable I can lobby against and vote against whoever hired the decorator whose taste I dislike. Government should NEVER regulate religion, and lawsuits should NEVER get involved in decorating decisions. To do so is to “make a law concerning religion”.
Above is the statement with which I strongly disagree. Public displays of religion should not be regulated in any way, particularly in the form of requiring “equal” representation. Just as there is no law requiring equal representation of “favorite decorative color”, there should be no law regarding “favorite religious symbols”. Every community should have full legal right to decorate their public places however they see fit, using whatever architectural and decorative styles they choose. To do otherwise is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. (Note that some people will question whether this principle is found in US law, but that I believe it is a good principle.)
A couple late comments:
Did anyone react to the Christians who were disrupting the Hindu prayer? That is the sort of thing I’d personally never do in the name of being polite and respectful, but secretly I’m kind of glad to see a bit of public protest, just to remind us it is an issue that needs to be discussed in the public square. For instance, would this event have gone virtually unnoticed if there hadn’t been protesters?
Quoting Jew: “When the Constitution was written, the average reasonable man would not have considered an unborn child to be a person, at least not in the early stages of pregnancy. The concept of life beginning at conception is new; it arose as a consequence of modern medical science.”
I don’t know enough about history to know if this statement is correct or not, but even without the tools of science which have taught us a lot about the beginnings of life, from a logical point of view we know there is a definite starting point. We know this from looking at it from the negative: before conception there was no “problem”; after conception there is. The abortion debate is all about if we can choose a point after conception to say it is OK to end the growth process, but there can be no doubt that biologic life begins at conception, because before conception there was nothing there to grow.
And back to the original post. I have to agree that the logical outcome of the type of freedom we have in this country demands that all religions have opportunity to pray in the Senate if any do. I also believe that a light shines more brightly the darker it is.
Atanamis, some (if not many) may construe the appearance of a religiously-tied image as government supporting that particular religion. Government isn’t regulating religion when it is removing all possible ties to it within the government. When I say public, I do mean state, federal, etc public buildings, not the general public. Communities should not be free to “decorate” a public building with religious elements (or at least elements that could be strongly argued as such) because our government (at least) protects the rights of both the majority and the minority.