A
- Status
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I disagree that religious compromise on the part of government officials is necessary to good function of a free society. So long as other religions are not impeded in any meaningful way, I see no real problem with a state having an official religion that is the basis of public prayer. There are a number of countries that follow this approach to a greater or lesser degree today.
On the other hand, I see serious problems in pursuing non-denominational prayer. If your town only has Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish citizens, it may not be that tough to compose a non-denominational prayer. Once you start to get Hindus, pagans, etc it becomes difficult to come up with a single prayer addressed to the various preferred deities of the assembled citizenry.
A
antonivs
Guest
You could begin the prayer with “to Whom it may concern…”
(just kidding)!
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
I just see non-denominational prayer as an oxymoron. You can only really pray to one God, and by praying to one God, you will exclude yourself from praying to the others. Alternatively, by intending to use an inclusive prayer (you recognize other Gods) a big no-no to the one true God. The one true God will not appreciate sharing a prayer with false idols.
By recognizing false idols in the same prayer as you mention God, you are recognizing and almost worshipping demons.
By recognizing false idols in the same prayer as you mention God, you are recognizing and almost worshipping demons.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Non-denominational prayer doesn’t always recognize other gods. In fact, usually it doesn’t. So I don’t think we can say that non-denominational prayer is automatically offensive to God. The trouble in a diverse world is that such non-denominational prayer is a bit limited, and still excludes and offends adherents of some religions.
meltzerboy
New member
How about a compromise by alternating different kinds of prayers? On one occasion, a Protestant prayer, on another a Catholic, then a Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, and so on? In that way, everyone can have a taste of what it feels like to be an outsider. Seriously though, you’re right that it is difficult to satisfy everyone, especially if we live in a community that is multicultural. But I still believe that moving in a direction that is more inclusive is better than remaining exclusive. Do you really see no problem with a state having an official religion even if it is not your religion? Never mind what other countries may do (for they do all sorts of things we don’t approve of), I thought in the founding of the United States with its constitutional liberties, we were trying to get away from the establishment of an official government religion. But if you disagree, let’s make our official religion either Judaism or Hinduism, based on seniority. Am I being too sarcastic and uncharitable? If so, I apologize.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Perhaps so. Yet, empire requires that exploitation and to ignore that while pining for the good old days isn’t very thoughtful.
Similarly, those who want to use explicitly Christian prayer for government events may not intend to step on the religious beliefs of non-Christians. But to ignore that it will happen isn’t very thoughtful.
It can be difficult, I do not doubt. However, I think the Hindu priest who gave the 2007 invocation for the US Senate did pretty good. I don’t have the full text, but he opened with “We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.” And he closed with "“Peace, peace, peace be unto all.”
cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/12/national/main3051052.shtml
D
Digitonomy
Guest
That’s fine, but then you need a mechanism to determine who gets to offer the prayer each time. “Next week, for graduation, the Branch Davidians will offer our invocation. At the post graduation banquet, the Nation of Islam will be leading our prayer.”
Only if is also committed to freedom of religion, and does not impede other religions in any way. E.g. I believe Shintoism in Japan is officially sanctioned in some way, but adherents of Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, etc are not impeded in any way. Malaysia is officially Muslim, but has been very accommodating of other religions with a few notable recent exceptions. When freedom of religion is not respected, obviously there can be serious problems.
Yes, the US has no official religion, and no US state has an official religion (nor could it since the 14th Amendment, although I don’t think that was the understanding at the time, and it was another decade or two before the last US state disestablished its official church).
meltzerboy
New member
I hate to say it, but I don’t think we would be as tolerant with an officially established religion as Japan or Malaysia. Which religion would that be for us? I think there are still more Protestants in the US than Catholics, but I could be wrong. So Protestantism it is, and this would be based not only on the population but also our shared American history regarding the Pilgrims and Puritans. Perhaps we should also decide on a particular Protestant denomination. Now I wonder what might be the social and political ramifications of this, assuming there is no curtailment of religious freedom?
D
donsnow
Guest
Hi, meltzerboy,
A lot of the colonies in New England, and later at least one state there, had their own brand of religion. I think the Massachusetts Bay Colony was Puritan and the founders of Rhode Island were Catholics who fled Protestant persecution.
I think our founders as much meant religion running the state as well as no state running the religion, because the English Founders had seen it both ways. Consequently, I personally think that laws limiting religion are as unConstitutional as laws imposing religions: “…Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment” (also means institutional, already established)" of religion;…"
So, it’s the states and municipalities that can pass statutes concerning religion, not the Federal Government, imho.
I think that America became a Christian nation by the mid Nineteenth Century. I see no fault with in calling on one’s God by name.
Of course, antonivs post quoting Jesus Christ on public prayer I do accept as illuminating to our discussion.
God loves all of you,
Don
D
donsnow
Guest
Hi, meltzerboy,
I once saw things from a New England perspective, which was spread throughout the USofA.
However, once I converted to Catholic, I could see things in a larger perspective.
For example, a century before Puritans and Pilgrims were settling New England, Catholic priests were building Catholic missions throughout our South West, including Texas and California. As a Texan, my American heritage is not English, but Spanish.
Alaska and the NW states’ coastal areas also had a strong Russian Orthodox Catholic influence, before we bought Alaska from the Russians, who had also settled along the coast down through the NW.
So, religion in America does have it’s respective political sphere, re which European nation originated settlers in different regions of this huge continent. Spain held all of the Americas, until the religious revolt of England’s King Henry VIII, against the Papal Bull giving the New World to Catholic Spain.
Anyway, I’m wandering. I’ve lived in the Bible Belt and their Reformation superstition that Catholics aren’t Christian was one thing that soured me on the Southern Baptist faith.
I personally was once acquainted with a Methodist man here in Fort Worth who was so anti-Catholic that he was almost anti-Christ. He would not soften his view. We aren’t friends, anymore.
God loves all of you,
Don
meltzerboy
New member
Don, so you think religion should be state-sponsored rather than run by the federal government? I’m not so sure whether I would trust ANY government with religion whether it be federal, state, or even local, particularly for the sake of religion. We all know that once government gets involved in things, there are always strings attached. (And I’m a Liberal Democrat!) In certain areas of the country where there are, for instance, only Christians (let’s say 99%) attending a public school and there is a prayer service in the school (I don’t know if that is currently legal but I’m sure it takes place anyway), one would expect the prayer to invoke Jesus’ name since there are no Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or other religions in the community. Nonetheless, I think it sets a potentially dangerous precedent for a PUBLIC school. IMO prayer is wonderful but it should be confined to PRIVATE religious institutions such as Churches and parochial schools, as well as the privacy of one’s own home. Now I’m not saying there is anything wrong with calling G-d by His name based on your Christian faith, but at the same time I believe there is a time and place for everything, including formal prayer meetings, and I don’t think a public school in the US is the right place.
D
donsnow
Guest
Hi, meltzerboy,
I can appreciate your sentiments.
My opinion on how a multi religion nation can get along pretty well reflects your closing sentence. Which, puts me sort of contradicting myself.
I’m just saying, I have joined other Christians in public prayer, on different occasions. I don’t see anything wrong with that. If the Muslims can pray in public, so can we. I have seen Hari Krishna priests at airports, doing their thing. Fine. I didn’t agree with them, but that’s ok, they’re still free to engage in public worship.
I just see an anti-religion and sometimes anti-Christ attitude growing in this country. And, that’s as wrong as forcing religion on somebody … forcing people of one or another religion to limit themselves is just as wrong as forcing a religion on the people, imho. I’m saying that the media, academia and government should keep a “no comment” attitude toward bonafide non-violent religions.
It’s so complex, it’s difficult to accurately express myself in 6,000 characters or less.
God loves you,
Don
meltzerboy
New member
Don, as you say, the issue is complex and I don’t have all the answers to it. And I too see an anti-religious (including an anti-Christian) sentiment growing in the US, partly due to the religious scandals that the media broadcasts, partly due to the emphasis on new-age spirituality as more authentically religious, and partly as a result of the materialistic greed which has infiltrated our society. Nonetheless, I don’t see the solution to this growing anti-religious epidemic as curtailing the liberties of minorities by restricting the expression of their religious beliefs, or limiting the free speech (insensitive and irresponsible as it may sometimes be) of those who are anti-religion. (By the way, agnostics and atheists also have a right to their beliefs, and most of them are probably not vociferously anti-religious; we only notice the ones who are.) Like it or not, we are a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-political, multi-religious society and we must accommodate to all as much as possible. That’s the nature of living in a democracy where the free exchange of ideas is possible. I don’t think either of us would want it any other way. I live in NYC, which is about as multi-cultural as one can get. The majority of people here are liberally-minded, but there are conservatives as well, and religion is far from dead. It’s just that people who live here realize they are living in a city with many different religious beliefs so they are more careful about what they say and do than they might be in some other parts of the country. Just to give you a little example of the differences: several years ago, I lived in a small town in PA. One day I went for a haircut the day after Easter and the barber, with the best of intentions I’m sure, asked me how my Easter holiday was. I didn’t want to make an issue out of the question by telling him I was Jewish (the town had a minuscule Jewish population) so I simply said very well. But I couldn’t help thinking why should I have to conceal my being Jewish, and also the fact this would probably not have happened in New York.Hi, meltzerboy,
I can appreciate your sentiments.
My opinion on how a multi religion nation can get along pretty well reflects your closing sentence. Which, puts me sort of contradicting myself.
I’m just saying, I have joined other Christians in public prayer, on different occasions. I don’t see anything wrong with that. If the Muslims can pray in public, so can we. I have seen Hari Krishna priests at airports, doing their thing. Fine. I didn’t agree with them, but that’s ok, they’re still free to engage in public worship.
I just see an anti-religion and sometimes anti-Christ attitude growing in this country. And, that’s as wrong as forcing religion on somebody … forcing people of one or another religion to limit themselves is just as wrong as forcing a religion on the people, imho. I’m saying that the media, academia and government should keep a “no comment” attitude toward bonafide non-violent religions.
It’s so complex, it’s difficult to accurately express myself in 6,000 characters or less.
God loves you,
Don
D
donsnow
Guest
Good morning, meltzerboy,
First, no, the Federal government should not sponsor any religion. But, I think that our Constitution allows states and municipalities more leeway. Or, original practice in the early states allowed different states to have different religions. I don’t know as the state governments actually sponsored the predominant religion, but the citizenry certainly choose to have one religion in some states.
Your, “…we must accommodate to all as much as possible.” rings a warning bell to me. One thing is, I don’t see why smaller cities should have the same behavior as big cities like NYC. Another thing is, we can’t give up our individual faith to accommodate other religions.
Although, you and I are on the same page as far as rights and liberties of a democracy.
Why couldn’t you tell the barber you had a nice Passover? Unless, there was anit-Semeticism rife in that little town?
I live in the Bible Belt and have contended with anti-Catholic propaganda before and after my conversion to the Catholic Church. I’m learn to stand for my faith and not offend in doing so. That’s not easy.
God loves you,
Don
First, no, the Federal government should not sponsor any religion. But, I think that our Constitution allows states and municipalities more leeway. Or, original practice in the early states allowed different states to have different religions. I don’t know as the state governments actually sponsored the predominant religion, but the citizenry certainly choose to have one religion in some states.
Your, “…we must accommodate to all as much as possible.” rings a warning bell to me. One thing is, I don’t see why smaller cities should have the same behavior as big cities like NYC. Another thing is, we can’t give up our individual faith to accommodate other religions.
Although, you and I are on the same page as far as rights and liberties of a democracy.
Why couldn’t you tell the barber you had a nice Passover? Unless, there was anit-Semeticism rife in that little town?
I live in the Bible Belt and have contended with anti-Catholic propaganda before and after my conversion to the Catholic Church. I’m learn to stand for my faith and not offend in doing so. That’s not easy.
God loves you,
Don
meltzerboy
New member
Good morning, Don! You’re probably right that smaller cities need not have the same behavior as larger ones such as New York. My only concern is that once a small town sets up an “official” religion, that may lead to more intolerance toward other religions, depending on how it’s done. And what if a person of a different religion moves in: how will that person be treated? Still, I agree with you that no one should have to give up their own faith to accommodate others.
This whole religion scenario involving accommodation also reminds me of the plight of the disabled. As you know, office buildings are required to make accommodations for physically disabled people. And, in NYC, it is required of buses as well. Sometimes, however, business owners and bus passengers get annoyed that all this accommodation interferes with their own rights since the extra provisions are a business expense or, in the case of bus riders, there are delays in transportation. Also, In my own teaching profession, the disabilities act requires the disabled to have special accommodations for testing purposes and in the classroom. For example, if a student is deaf, one must have, at the student’s request, a signer in the classroom who stands in the front of the room. This is somewhat distracting for the teacher as well as the other students, but it’s the law and we must accommodate to the needs of every student.
If I did it over, I would have told the barber just what you said instead of lying, which I felt bad about afterward. I’m older and wiser now. The town, by the way, I heard was a center of the KKK in the North. I moved there because of a new job at the time. I can imagine that you’ve had your share of anti-Catholicism living in the Bible Belt. In some ways, I think there is less antisemitism in these areas of the country than there is anti-Catholic sentiment. Some of the Fundamentalist Christians have great respect for Judaism. I’ve heard as much from my Jewish friend who moved to Louisiana a few months ago. His neighbors are very friendly toward him and have admiration for his being Jewish. It wasn’t always that way of course, back in the 1960s, for example.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Some states appropriated money toward churches, schools, courthouses, etc in new or growing areas. There was no question of which denomination the church would be. While this was probably more common prior to 1776, some of the buildings continued to be paid for by the state. (There was a case a couple years ago where this was a factor, when the congregation tried to split from the Episcopal Church.) Meanwhile, some states required state officeholders to be members of the established church.
Along came the 14th Amendment, which extended the rights and freedoms we have under federal law to apply to state law as well. Meaning we now have freedom from an established state religion, both at the federal and state level. All local government entities are simply branches of the state, since the state can establish or abolish or reconfigure them at will. As a result, local schools can no longer mandate Protestant prayer and scripture reading. Such mandates were a significant factor behind the establishment of a separate Catholic school system.
- Status