A very nice lady of my acquaintance forwarded me (and some dozens of other people) an essay attributed to Andy Rooney on prayer and how awful it is that all those atheists are so sensitive about someone praying in public.
*sigh*
First (though it’s not all that important) the essay in question is not by Andy Rooney. Nor is it (as often also attributed) by Paul Harvey. It’s by a sports columnist in Texas, Nick Gholson, in 1999.
The essay’s points are, to sum up (you can read the whole thing in the link above):
- Somebody saying a simple prayer before a football game does not warrant a law suit.
- It’s okay if it’s a Christian prayer because this is a (predominately) Christian country, founded by (predominately) Christians.
- Christians are called to prayer, and stopping them from praying is simply wrong.
- [Added by subsequent writers] It’s time for the majority to get to do what the majority wants to do.
- [Added by subsequent writers] Nobody’s forcing anyone to pray, say the Pledge, etc. But for those who want to, they should be able to.
Where to begin. It’s late, and I should be asleep, but this is ticking me off mightily so I need to get my thoughts/concerns on “paper.”
Nobody, not even the most ardent, militant, in-your-face atheist, thinks that people should not be allowed to pray. Some may mock the practice, but the personal practice of spirituality is agreed upon as a fundamental right of humanity and of citizens in this country.
The problem comes not from others praying, but from public prayer as seemingly sanctioned, sponsored, and supported by the government. It’s ironic that many of the people the most appalled at government’s intrusion into our daily lives seem most willing to let the government impose religious proclamations on others … so long as it is, in fact, their own religion that is being touted.
When the government — whether we’re talking Congress or the local school district — provides a supported platform for religious expression, they are saying that religion is the “right” one (unless they provide a platform for all religions, but that’s probably not the case with these football games). They are saying that those who believe as the speaker are part of the “in” crowd, are “real” members of the citizenry — and those who don’t, are not.
Imagine, if you will, someone standing up at a high school football game, and saying, “Wow, it’s great to be white, and I’m so glad that white people are so nifty and that by being white we are, in fact, the coolest kids on the block.” Would it be adequate to say that (a) the majority of US citizens are white, (b) the Founders were all white, and (c) it’s only for 30 seconds, so where’s the harm?
The essay makes the comment that if the writer were in Jerusalem for a football game, he would expect a Jewish prayer; if in Baghdad for soccer, a Muslim prayer; if in China for ping-pong (!) a Buddhist prayer (I suspect Beijing might have objections, but let’s move along). That’s fine — as a visitor, one expects to comport to the local customs.
But religious freedom and freedom from government-imposed religious viewpoints, in the Constitution, isn’t about visitors, it’s about the locals. If you were born and raised in Israel, or in Iraq, and were a Christian, I expect you might feel a bit of an outsider in your own land if every public, government-sponsored event was preceded by a prayer that you could not, in good conscience, agree with.
Let us assume that the average football game in question is attended by folks who are religiously affiliated in parallel with the American public. That would mean that 78% of the folk in the stands were Christian (including Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, and Orthodox), 5% were of another religion (Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.), and 16% were non-religious (atheist, agnostic, unaffiliated believers in something).
To take the writer’s position, it’s okay for that 78% majority to get government sanction to pray at public events (so long, one imagines, as the actual expression of that prayer is generic enough to fit into the majority … appeals to the Virgin Mary, or references to Joseph Smith are, one would conclude, not acceptable).
No, nobody is asking in these prayers for “everyone to be baptized,” and nobody’s passing the plate. On the other hand, the days when it was assumed that everyone was, in fact, baptized (and, if not, were certainly suspicious hombres), or that people were expected to contribute financially to the local majority religious denomination (and, if they didn’t, were subject to social ostracism, if not legal harassment) are not that far behind us. and public, government-sponsored prayer is the nose under the camel’s tent for that.
The most disturbing element here is the claim that this kind of prayer is dictated by God.
Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
Except that,in fact, nobody is telling anyone to cease praying. If you want to pray before a football game for the safety of the players and the folks attending, have at it. If you want to pray in a classroom, or at a city council meeting, or in a park or in your home or in your car or at the bank or the store or the bar … do it. Nobody can and nobody really wants to stop you. You don’t need someone up on stage doing it for you — you can do it all by yourself.
But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about someone being given public time, in front of everyone, with the sanction and funding and tacit endorsement of the government, praying to and on behalf of everyone in attendance, whether they believe in it or not. Where the message is that all right-thinking, honest, contributing, important people in the community are believers in what’s being said (because it’s being said by the legal arm of society, the government), and if you disagree … well, there’s something wrong, suspicious, sinful, and likely evil about you.
In other words, it’s one thing to vote Democrat and contribute to Democratic candidates. It’s another thing to get up in front of an audience and say, “We are all Democrats! And we all support the Democratic party and its ideals and platform!”
And, in fact, that’s precisely what Jesus had to say about prayer (Matthew 6:1-8):
1Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
The Bible may urge us to “pray without ceasing,” but Jesus makes it clear that such prayer is a personal thing, not to be shared with (let alone imposed upon) others.
Andy Rooney Paul Harvey Nick Gholson is wrong. This isn’t about telling the majority that they cannot pray. This is about telling the majority that they cannot impose their beliefs on others, just as they would not have others’ beliefs imposed on them. Almost Golden Rule-ish, that. This is about saying that the government supports no faction, no denomination, no religious creed, because any such support tells those on the outs (whether Buddhists or Baptists) that they are less than full citizens, that they are allowed exist only at the whim of the majority.
And that’s wrong. And even, dare I say, un-American.
In chatting about this with Margie this morning, it comes to mind that a big part of this (for some, at least) is the question of what is the unquestioned Norm, and being able to consider things from the perspective of someone else who might not fit that assumption. Which it is, an assumption, the idea that, of course, everyone will want to say a prayer to Jesus and Salvation from a taxpayer-funded podium, and that if you don’t, there’s something wrong with you.
The resentment that such theists feel over “atheists” imposing on something that seems so natural is, ironically, not dissimilar to that felt by those “atheists” having someone impose on them.
I’m trying to decide how to address this back to the very nice lady (and/or her CC list). Probably something simpler than the above.
There’s also a slippery slope here. A simple prayer for everyone’s safety? Probably nobody could/should object to that. But it’s rarely just that, and it rarely stays there. Next it’s giving thanks to Jesus (on the public’s nickel) for something or another, then it’s hoping (on the public’s nickel) that everyone turns to Him for salvation, then it’s …
And while it’s not a clear, inevitable series of steps from there to the auto-de-fe, it’s also not impossible to believe the chain between state endorsement of religion and the state imposition of religion.
Considering replying along the lines of:
Will ponder.
The Golden Rule comes to mind. Would a Christian want someone else to pray in the tradition of another religion, publicly, loudly, and supported by the state, in a way that tended to put social pressure on everyone to conform with that prayer and its tradition? If not, then the Golden Rule suggests that one should not do the same to others, and to the extent that the Golden Rule is endorsed by Christianity, then Christianity suggests that one should not do the same to others.
On the other hand, would a Christian want someone to prevent them from making a ghastly mistake, one which would result in much pain and grief? Yes of course, and I believe this is the root of the problem. Those who are arrogant in the correctness of their beliefs think that they are stepping in to save others from a terrible mistake, and they believe that it’s justified by the Golden Rule.
We might call this the Tyranny of the Arrogant, and I hope that Christians would recognize that they do not want to be told what is right by those who arrogantly believe that their religious beliefs are correct and that Christian beliefs are false. The arrogant will of course say “but We’re Right, and They’re Wrong!” Perhaps, in order to step in to stop someone from making a mistake, one must be justified in doing so, perhaps even justified in a way that those who are to be saved from their own mistakes will recognize and accept. This is unlikely in the context of modern religious society, and perhaps it is impossible.
I think this kind of reasoning arguably leads to the conclusion that the Golden Rule prohibits public prayer and proselytizing, though of course many Christians will disagree. If arrogance is a kind of pride, then trying to justify those activities using the Golden Rule could also be a sin in the Christian tradition. But of course, I’m an agnostic and a philosopher, so what do I know about morality.
There’s certainly some of that, for, I think some folks. I think some others, perhaps, that’s an excuse. “Well, I get to promote Christianity because, y’know, everyone needs to be saved. Plus, it makes me feel important.” (That such a feeling is the opposite of the servant ministry preached by Jesus is just part of the irony).
I do believe that much of Christianist sentiment is motivated less by religious fervor and Godly devotion than by simple social power exercises — particularly given the norm / majority status of Christianity.
I do feel that too much certainty is a form of arrogance — and, yes, thus a form of pride which the Medieval “seven deadly sins” would find a problem. The difference between faith and arrogance is a fairly gray line, though, possibly much in the eye of the beholder.