Reversing a policy in place since 2008, Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell restored the right of Christian chaplains serving the State Police to pray in the name of Jesus. And I, for one, think that he was right to do so.
As a rabbi and a member of a religious minority, I am likely to be largely on my own on this one. I am also fully aware that many of the Commonwealth's Jewish leaders have already voiced their opposition to the Governor's revised policy. But as a believer in maximal freedom for the greatest number of people, I cannot abide restricting people's right to pray as they see fit, even if those prayers do not reflect my faith.
To be sure, those who will celebrate their right to invoke Jesus should remain cognizant of Fredericksburg Rabbi Devorah Lynn's words regarding this issue. Quoted in the community leaders' letter to the Governor, Rabbi Lynn observed that "when you are asked to speak in public for a group of people of different religious practices, you need to think not of who you are praying to, but who you are praying for." She is 100 percent right -- about 50 percent of the story.
First, I wonder why worrying about those for whom one prays must exclude the One to whom one prays, as the rabbi's comment suggests. I also worry that her comment reflects a somewhat narrow understanding of Christian faith. Mentioning Jesus does not mean that Christians are not praying to God or failing to take into account those for whom they are praying. While invoking Jesus is certainly a different way of thinking about God as far as Jews and others are concerned, there are as many ways to think of God as their people who choose to do so, even within a given religion. Just ask a synagogue full of Jews at prayer!
It also bears remembering that many people cannot separate those for whom they pray from those to whom they pray. And why should they? Because their words will not resonate with their entire audience? That test would require that all public prayer be scrubbed of the diversity that makes this nation more religiously healthy than almost any place in the world. Not to mention that were we to fully implement that approach, we might need to pray without mentioning God at all, out of respect for the atheists and agnostics who might be present.
Personally, that doesn't bother me either, but I don't see religious and community leaders lobbying for that approach, so I don't think that's what they had in mind. It sounds to me like this all boils down to the amount of difference that people can tolerate. And ironically, what purports to be the more inclusive position here is anything but.
Genuine inclusiveness would embrace prayers in Jesus' name, humanist/secularist chaplains, pagan prayers, etc. It would invite anyone who could draw on their chosen tradition in order to serve people, including those who happen not to share their beliefs.
That doesn't mean that all of the words they use will reflect the views of each member of their audience/congregation. It means that the substance of their prayer will be toward values and ethics that all those gathered can share (e.g., peace, healing, love, etc.).
Of course, we need to assume that state-sponsored chaplains and their state-sponsored prayers are legal and appropriate to begin with. I know that is a big assumption for many people who would not concede either point. But since we are not going to solve that constitutional question here, we should focus instead on the governor's policy -- both the challenges and the opportunities that it presents.
Ironically, both Governor McDonnell's policy and the policy he reversed were based on claims of increasing religious freedom. Sadly, both sides imagined that freedom is increased by constraining individual expression. Talk about an oxymoron! But I guess limiting those who annoy us is easier than developing a real ethic of diversity that serves the left and the right, Christians and non-Christians, etc.
The central challenge for those who bring the full particularity of their faith to the public square will be to remain aware not only of how their prayers will hit the ears and hearts of those before whom they pray, but that for which they pray. The central challenge for the audience at any given moment is to open their hearts to the fact that there are many paths to that for which we all yearn, including prayer in the name of those in whom we may not believe.
In the end, real freedom of conscience and expression is not assured by how much of ourselves must be checked at the door before we come into a shared room. It is assured by making maximal space for all people to feel safe and secure in bringing as much of who they are, even, and perhaps especially, when it's not who we are.
For Jews and other minorities, that means becoming more comfortable with Jesus-talk. For Governor McDonnell and his Christian supporters, that means expanding the range of chaplains who are hired and the range of prayers which are offered in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
The clause is for the separation of church and state, it is an example of "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution of avoiding any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices. This is important as this clause represents the words of the original Framers, even prior to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
This is why public prayer is unconstitutional.
But when their prayer contains something you can't abide, then it excludes and that goes against the Constitution's point of inclusion. The public-sanctioned prayer should include everyone or not at all. Or perhaps, better, we shouldn't have public prayers.
To be clear: The Establishment Clause means we have no state religion of any kind. Therefore we have no state gods or goddesses of any kind. Which is the very meaning of "atheism": Without a god.
This is why so many Christians are so angry at the United States, because in legal terms, we are an atheist nation. People are free to worship whatever gods they wish, but the nation has no state gods, despite what an obscene Christian phrase on our money says and that unconstitutional Pledge of Treason that conservative Christians try to shove down everyone's throat.
So state-sponsored prayers, whether generic or highly specific, such as to God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost, of one substance (or whatever), are always illegal.
BTW: I never forget that Adolf Hitler, a lifelong Christian, hated atheism and promised to expel it from Germany. Although his phraseology included people like me, it was mainly directed at church-state separation, as that is atheism. Guess what ethnic/religion group Hitler routinely blamed for this "atheism" and all the immorality that supposedly proceeded from it?
Church (mosque, synagogue, temple, shrine)-state separation. It's not just the law. It's a really good idea.
Why are they so exclusive?
There is no question to resolve
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Your whole post is moot because such state sponsored prayers are not legal
It has been my findings that public prayers is only a showing to others. I recall praying concerning my mother pains and ability to walk when I said openly, "Father bless my mother, you know she has been on the battle field a long time," in my closet of my heart I said only, "heal her or kill her." Two weeks later when I visited her she had been walking 2 weeks with much less pain, although one of her hip joints was only 45% there and the other even less. Because of it, I pray openly only sometimes when asked, but the actual prayer I say in my heart and within.
I recall praying for my mother concerning her pains and walking ability. Her hip balls were only 45% in one and less in the other and in a wheel chair. Openly I prayed "father, bless my mother, you know she has been on the battlefield a long time" and in the closet of my heart I said "heal her or kill her". When I visited her 2 weeks later she had been walking ever since the day after the prayer.
That is why my findings are public prayers are only for how.
It has been my findings that public prayers is only a showing to others. I recall praying concerning my mother pains and ability to walk when I said openly, "Father bless my mother, you know she has been on the battle field a long time," in my closet of my heart I said only, "heal her or kill her." Two weeks later when I visited her she had been walking 2 weeks with much less pain, although one of her hip joints was only 45% there and the other even less. Because of it, I pray openly only sometimes when asked, but the actual prayer I say in my heart and within.
You ALL need to get over yourselves.
Ideally, you should be working to work yourself out of a job, correct?
"Knowledge is power" ~ how's that DeadSea Scroll translation going?
One god and three gods at the same time is confusing, but there is no rule against Christians calling god "god".
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,[26]
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
Religion is a private matter but a community activity. And persons religious, with hair-raising regularity, are ready to do battle to be the one and only believers who are right.
bottom line here is that no public organization, no city, county, state, or federal organization in the US (which is NOT a theocracy), should have chaplian's or religious representation on the payroll or on call. if the xtians want to pray, let them get together at the corner church; the same for jews and mohammadens.
the idea that there is a chaplain at my corner fire station really busts my chumps. and it leaves me worrying that if it were known that i don't believe, will they help me with as much urgency as a known believer?
And yes, a good chaplain would treat you no differently than a religious person. I can't speak for all religions, but in terms of charity and aid Christians are not supposed to differentiate between believers and non-believers. Obviously, some fall very short of this ideal, but most do not.
In both cases you're unfairly projecting the actions of a small but visible minority across the whole religious spectrum.