Twenty-four years after the U.S. Supreme Court gave its blessing to America’s long tradition of opening government meetings with prayer, questions linger about just what kind of prayer is OK.
Those questions now hover over the Pennsylvania Senate, which has opened every session with prayer for years.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State complained last month that prayers in the Senate often use language only a Christian would use. They end, for example, “in Jesus’ name.”
The Washington-based group asked to stop the prayers “in order to make all feel equally welcome at sessions of the Senate.” If prayers continue, they must use no language specific to one religion.
Senate officials countered that their “interfaith opening prayer” has been offered not only by Christian clergy, but by rabbis, a Unitarian pastor and, recently, a Buddhist teacher.
The Senate doesn’t prescribe what belongs in the prayers and what doesn’t, said Drew Crompton, counsel to Senate President Pro Tempore Joseph Scarnati.
“The question becomes a broader interpretation of interfaith,” Crompton said. “You balance one prayer against the others.”
I noticed something similar walking through World Market the other day. They had “Buddha Calendars” and “Hannukah Dreidels.” But the ornaments they sold were referred to as “Holiday Ornaments,” not “Christmas Ornaments.” Why is it okay to mention other religions but not Christianity? I see that more and more these days. Shouldn’t we be free to give equal mention to all religions?
Pennsylvania has it exactly right. Whoever is offering the prayer should be able to give it in the context from which his/her faith is founded, whether Christianity, Judaism, etc. Several years ago my Rector was asked if he’d like to give the opening prayer in one of the Houses of the Florida Legislature (can’t remember which one) but was told he couldn’t mention Jesus. He countered that he is an ordained priest in Christ’s Church and politely declined their invitation. The other House immediately offered an invitation to him to offer the prayer in a Christian context. Naturally, he was too smart to insert himself into the middle of a Legislative game, so he declined their invitation also.
The words “separation of church and state” appear nowhere in the US Constitution. The founding fathers were very religious, and recognized the need for God’s providence over the new, fragile nation. It is a tragedy of our secular culture that anyone gets offended at a ceremonial opening prayer.
Isn’t this what is referred to as a tyranny of the minority?
These guys (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) are relentless. About a month and a half ago they threatened the city of Akron if City Council didn’t stop opening with the Lord’s Prayer. Akron dropped the prayer, vowing to find a new opening prayer that would pass a Court muster. The local president of Amer. United (etc) sent a letter to the editor of the local paper saying NO prayer would go unchallanged. Just to rub salt into the wound, the Akron Interfaith whatever sent a letter, printed today, saying they support the ban on an opening prayer. Council members were urged to pray before the meeting, in private, instead. I fully expect the next step is to ban prayer in Church outside of published service hours.
Lord, have mercy;
Jeffrey A. Roberts
Why do we need to have government meetings open with a public group prayer?
“And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
Personal prayer in private vs corporate prayer in public…
In the 70’s I worked for the Virginia Health Dept in TB control. I once attended a meeting of the local chapter of the Lung Association in a small city in northwest Va — and the chair opened the meeting with prayer — it was pretty specific, too. I was really surprised to have a secular organization ask for the presence and guidance of God.
But in those days, most of the people of the area would identify themselves as Christians, and many would recognize the need for God’s help not only in personal or spiritual matters, but in the decisions of groups and governments. They believed in the unity of life — that all of life is God’s concern, and so they asked his help in settings that were beyond the obvious places.
Our Founders would be amazed at the idea of public life that relegates the realm of the spirit to merely personal concerns and private observations. I suspect that they would tremble at the thought of a populace that was largely secular and agnostic or atheistic — or of Christians (or any other group) who had been trained to believe that “religion is what a man does with his solitude.” Faith that is merely personal piousness or rote ceremonies does nothing to instill the safeguards that are needed to prevent selfishness. It invites hypocrisy at a wholesale level.
Even Buddhist prayers would at least be a sign that we human beings are not merely thinking meat, and that we have a responsibility to what is larger than ourselves.
I can’t remember the exact words but the thing I remember about the US Constitution is that it guarantees freedom of religion FOR ALL, even for those who insist they are not interested. The FALSE doctrine that has been preached for many, many years by more than one anti-religion group is that this meant we could not testify of our Lord publicly and now it seems to want to enter our private life as well.