I think prayer is good. I think fasting is good. I could probably stand to do more of both of them. (Certainly, given the visual evidence, the latter would be helpful.)
But a House Resolution calling on the President to declare a national day of prayer and fasting for the war effort?
Yeesh. Not good.
H. RES. 153: Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home.
Not a good idea. Not unifying, but divisive. Not helpful, but distracting. Dumb, dumb, dumb-dumb-dumb.
28 view(s)
Cool Beans!
Pizza and Cheesecake day!
Ah, but that’s the hallmark of this administration.
Hmmm. I wonder.
It’s not being floated (so far as I’ve seen) as an Administration request. Indeed, it requests the Administration to do something. I don’t think Bush would mind doing it, mind you, though it seems more of a defeatist thing to do (one usually fasts and prays when one is in trouble than when one is succeeding). And, after all, it’s something he could just do if he wanted to.
It could be an Administration plot, I suppose, to have Congress ask for it (cf. Julius Caesar), but it’s equally likely that it’s some grandstanding by some House members who want to look good to certain constituencies.
The Library of Congress in their exhibit on Religion and the Founding of the Republic noted:
Here is a picture of the resolution.
In addition to my example above Presidents Washington and Lincoln sought and received such a resolution. The latter in 1863 was at the height of the Civil War.
Recent history had a resolution H. Con. Res. 94 (106th Congress) which failed to obtain the 2/3 majority needed to suspend the rules (275-140-11) on June 29, 1999. The historical incidents that caused this to occur included Columbine and the Matthew Shepard murder. Quoting from that bill:
Whereas we are compelled to remind the people of the United States of the events that currently burden the hearts of the people, including–
(1) the senseless murder of our young people in Jonesboro, Arkansas, West Paduca, Kentucky, Springfield, Oregon, Pearl, Mississippi, and Littleton, Colorado;
(2) the brutal deaths of individuals by dragging, beating, burning, and exposure in Texas, Alabama, and Wyoming; and
(3) the civil unrest, systematic genocide, and religious and political persecution in Yugoslavia, Tibet, Turkey, China, Rwanda, and Sudan;
Pardon my language, but that fucking infuriates me.
The resolution text details a number of historical precedents for this resolution. However, I think times have changed, Rich, and such a resolution, as a state-sponsored thing, is inappropriate, and would be divisive and distracting. As Seki demonstrates.
If individuals want to pray and fast, more power to them, and, indeed, I think it would be a fine thing to be preached from the pulpit. But not from the Rose Garden.
Interesting. Note I had no commentary. Rather, you said that you thought people were motivated by grandstanding. I showed that maybe there was historical precedent. That being said, I don’t disagree with you on whether it is prudent or not.
Whenever the state dabbles in religion it has been bad for religion and there also seems to be a lot of sudden and violent death that occurs, also. The reason for this as far as I can tell is the state is looking for moral justification for things which cannot stand morally on their own. Thus they use religion as a crutch.
Most people see the threat of religion on the state while I see the danger in the other direction. Further, if I need the civil magistrate to remind me to pray, then I have some deep problems myself. I don’t disagree with you but I did feel a need to question your questioning of people’s motives.
Good point, Rich. I was being cynical in assuming that politicians were playing to their constituencies, despite (or in keeping with, to be more cynical) historic precedent.
I have some rose-colored glasses I can loan you. 🙂
The so-called separation of church and state has been characterized by some as a plot by the evil secularists. However, there is a quote attributed to Martin Luther saying,
“I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a Christian donkey.” (Luther wasn’t talking about Democrats here) 🙂
Rich
good point on the State using Religion as a crutch. Using it as a sense of moral justification.
But…
Not all of us live in the Church, but all of us do live in the State.
What Boulder Dude said is correct. If a leader happens to be a Christian, he or she has a Christian duty to protect the well-being of all for whom he leads. Even though Sadam Hussein has given a somewhat protected status to Chaldean Christians and paid for a church organ in Detroit and Teriq Aziz is a Christian, does not make the current Iraqi regime any less evil. George Bush has a duty — as a Christian — to protect all Americans whether they share his faith or not from all threats, foreign and domestic. Further, again as a Christian, George Bush is to show charity to his neighbor and thus he should be concerned about the Iraqis who suffer under oppression.
If a leader truly is a Christian statesman he is not a threat but is an active protector of all who do not share his beliefs. The same holds for Christian citizens, they should be no threat to the legitimate concerns of government, namely the peace and order of the society.
I have one postscript on my previous comment. The Bible speaks far more extensively on the duties of citizens than on the duties of leaders. For example, Romans 13 tells how the Christians were to be good citizens to the pagan Roman Emporer! Much of the Second Century apologetic was an appeal on how good the Christians were as citizens. This simple fact has seemed to escape both the Christian Left and the Christian Right. This is not a new phenomenon, however, dating as far back as Constantine. This speaks to wisdom of separated powers of our own govenment. We should not have too much power concentrated in any one person or group. The temptations are simply too great.
Concentration of power is often effective. Unfortunately, it can be effective for good or for ill. Concentrating power too much leads to tyranny. Diffusing power too much leads to paralysis at best, anarchy at worst. It’s a tough balancing act.
Wow…
I am really enjoying Rich’s logic paths. I do not come from the same point of view, but I do enjoy them. Just like W.F. Buckley, I don’t agree with him most of the time either, but I like how he thoughtfully lines up why he has the opinion that he does.
Thanks Rich, for doing a good job, and doing it in a thoughtful, logical way.
He’s on my blogroll for a reason, even if he doesn’t post often enough.
I just served one up on my site. I hope you enjoy it.
http://www.blinne.org/archives/000073.php
I did. Which is why I posted about it back on the 21st. 🙂
Oh well.
One of the reasons for the pause in my posting was I got carpal tunnel shovelling snow. I have been resting my hands. 🙁
Ah. Hope they are feeling better, and continue to improve.
Well, it passed the House.
Stupid, stupid rat creatures …
Here’s the Colorado delegation voting in district order:
1. DeGette – No
2. Udall – Present
3. McInnis – Yes
4. Musgrave – Yes
5. Hefley – Yes
6. Tancredo – Yes
7. Beauprez – Yes
Since this required a suspension of the rules, there was a 2/3 vote. Another note that this is a sense of the House so it is not at all binding on the President. There is already a national day of prayer. This was signed into law (unlike this sense of the House resolution which does not have the force of law) in 1952 by President Truman. In 1988, the law was amended to specifiy the first Thursday in May be the annual day of Prayer. Last year, the President and the governors of all 50 states signed proclamations concerning the national day of prayer. So, the President could just designate the prayer on May 1 to include those issues discussed in this resolution.
Interesting. That would probably be the best way to finesse this, from my perspective. Though it takes a chance with how things will look on 1 May. We’ll see.
Sounds like I’m going to have to email Udall’s office tomorrow and tell him how disappointed I am in him for not voting no.
Also does anybody else find using the rest of the world’s Labor day, and a big Pagen holiday for this a bit odd?
Sounds like I’m going to have to email Udall’s office tomorrow and tell him how disappointed I am in him for not voting no.
Also does anybody else find using the rest of the world’s Labor day, and a big Pagen holiday for this a bit odd?
It just happens to be the first Thursday of the month.
First off, anyone who believes that the U.S. truly is an institution where Church and State are separate is severely deluded… It’s bad enough that I couldn’t buy a bottle of wine last Sunday when some friends stopped by, but now the House thinks that the President needs to tell us all to pray and fast for victory (but this ISN’T a crusade).
As a citizen of a nation that claims separation of church and state, I am embarrassed and frustrated by the hypocrisy my country displays to the rest of the world. While I am a spiritual person, my spirituality (like many others), is a very personal thing. Even if I shared the same concept of God as our illustrious representatives, I’m pretty sure I’d be pretty offended to have the government tell me when to pray and fast. And finally, why the hell would that God want to hear the prayers of a sheepish population, and evoked by a government that so flagrantly defies God’s laws in the worst possible ways.
How did the republican party so successfully co-opt the Christian faith? I don’t claim to have a theology doctorate on Christianity, but I do remember a few things from Catholic school. Namely that Jesus hung out mostly with the poor, and the sick. To put that into context, if Jesus were alive right now, you’d find him in downtown Detroit chatting it up with homeless people, prostitutes, drug addicts and anyone else who will listen. All the while, most of the republican-voting business elite who pass by Jesus as he speaks to the crowds will rush back to work, anxious to tell the rest of the office about the smelly hippie talking to all the street trash.
Not that the dem’s are any more worthy enough to get the big J’s endorsement either. But that’s my whole point. I don’t believe in the separation of Church and State because I fear or hate religion, but the exact opposite: because I cherish my beliefs and hate to see them being used and abused by those in power.
God just has no place in government, government has no right to speak for God, and nobody has any place telling people what God wants from them or how to practice their beliefs.
A commentator on NPT today mentioned that many Europeans, both government officials and citizens, are turned off by this administrations frequent use of god for jusification of their policies. The French especially consider it gauche (if I’m still allowed to use that word).
The resolution, as such, isn’t a prayer for victory, though that doesn’t make it that much better.
The GOP co-opted the God and Christianity thing largely when the Left threw God (rightly and wrongly) out of the public debate. I agree that Jesus would have little truck with the unfeeling rich (or, based on Scripture, with the rich at all, aside from suggesting they give up their wealth).
I agree that the government has no right to speak for God (the resolution doesn’t do that, in fact, though it implies a certain view of God that could be considered speaking for the Deity).
I would say that God has a place in government, but more in what the individuals in government bring with them to their job, rather than how those individuals try to get others to act.