What some people refuse to understand about the separation of church and state.

[mijan]

When it comes to religion, there are certain things upon which we can all agree.   We all agree that there's a God.  We all trust him.  No decent American taxpayer would be offended by a "non-sectarian" prayer.  And, of course, we all know that's why "in God we trust" and "one nation, under God" are in the Constitution.

And if you've been paying attention, you'll know that the first paragraph is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

I just read a little article in the LA Times.  Take a look.  Then, think about it again.  This is all based on the notion that monotheistic, Judeo-Christian religious views are the only ones acceptable in this nation.  It's also based on the idea that atheists, polytheists, and other non-Judeo-Christian groups are not worthy of the same consideration.  You may think I'm taking it a bit far, but consider this: 

When your leaders are spending their public time - on your tax dollars - promoting prayer and "non-denominational" activities, are they actually doing their jobs?  Is it possible to fairly represent all religions in government without causing unconstititional offense to those whose religions differ in their absolutely basic, fundamental premises? 

No, and no.

Look at this article's discussion of the Bible verse suggested for use with the National Day of Prayer (a government-sanctioned event): 
But the Scripture verse the group recommended to the governor is neither an open nor a veiled endorsement of right-wing politics -- or of Christianity, for that matter. The verse, from Psalm 28, says: "The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusted in Him, and I am helped." That passage is similar to the non- sectarian sentiments expressed in prayers offered before sessions of the U.S. Congress or the exclamation "God save the United States and this honorable court" with which the Supreme Court begins its sessions.
 

Does that seem offensive to you?  Well, if someone else wants to pray it on their own time, I wouldn't care either way, but when my elected officials are reciting it in the halls of Congress on MY time, then yes, I find it offensive.  I don't agree with the statement, nor the source.  The gender-association of God as a "man" is a concept I find offensive, so the use of the pronoun doesn't sit right with me.  I don't agree with that verse's use of the term "Lord."  More to the point, I find the attitude of the quote to be offensive - in my belief, we should not cling to deities as a shield and a source of help - deities manifest within and through the natural world, and WE are the ones responsible for our own fates within this world.  Anything less is offensive.  And then, naturally, the idea of relying on any god for shielding and strength would be considered ludicrous or offensive by an agnostic or atheist. 

What would the chance be that our government would EVER permit a Pagan to offer an opening prayer or benediction?  I mean, hell, there was ONE Hindu who offered a prayer, ONCE, in Congress last year, and his words were met with shouting from protesters and disrespect from our elected representatives... and having read the text of the Hindu's prayer, I'd say that was the closest thing to a true non-denominational prayer I'd ever heard from Washington DC.

So, why must this stuff be pushed into the public eye by our government officials?  That's the thing about Separation of Church and State:  It CAN'T be a wishy-washy sort of blurred line.  It's impossible to have it both ways.  Personally, I'd love to hear the Preamble to the Constitution recited before each session of Congress.  I'd love to hear the Declaration of Independence recited before important events.  I'd love for our elected officials to get down to business, instead of trying to placate their constitutents with the empty promise of "I prayed."  As the article later states:
"Pushed to its logical conclusion, such 1st Amendment fundamentalism would forbid presidents of the United States from invoking God in their speeches or participating in the National Prayer Breakfast,"
I couldn't agree more.

A prayer given in a "display" of faith seems to me to be empty and arrogant.  I see no sincerity in the prayers of Washington.  I see hypocrisy and vanity.  I see people putting on a display that exists in direct contradiction to their other oaths and actions.  I see a waste of time and effort.  I see people who pray to their God, and who invoke their God's name to denounce others and to push their version of morality on others, but who don't actually follow their God's alleged morality themselves.  Even if I were a Christian, I'd find their use (and yes, I mean USE) of God offensive.

Now, that's not to say that I don't believe in the power of prayer.  Truly sincere prayers, in my opinion, do have an effect.  They help to influence the state of mind of the person praying, and when you change the state of your mind, and when you focus your intentions, you can have a real impact on your reality.  I also believe in absolute religious freedom of free individuals in this country, and I would fight to the death to defend your right to practice your religion, insofar as you do not use your beliefs to bring harm to others.  I AM NOT DENOUNCING PRAYER.  I AM NOT DENOUNCING RELIGION.  I am denouncing the notion that government-sanctioned prayer belongs in the United States of America.  Until the day comes when people of every religion, and of no religion, are given equal time at the podium before Congress to offer a profession of belief or non-belief, then we are violating our Constitution.  And until Congress becomes SO efficient that it can get all of its work done, balance the budget, and have spare time left over, then I think our elected officials have more important things to do than to pass religious resolutions, endorse the National Day of Prayer, and bicker over prayer-time.

*** Feel free to debate and discuss this issue.  The rules are as follows:
1. Do not insult anyone's personal beliefs.
2. Do not come into this discussion with the assumption that your religion should take legal precedence.  (You can certainly believe that your religion is RIGHT, but we're talking about legaltiy, not faith.)
3. No cussing at people.  You can cuss (I do all the time), but not AT people.  (You should know the difference.)
4. Make sure that you know the Constitution before you allude to it.
5. If you don't live in the United States, your opinion is still valid to the discussion.  In fact, I'd love to hear your opinion.
6. You are always entitled to disagree with me, but please debate with logic.

Comments

[halo4.livejournal.com]

Why must it be pushed into the public eye? Because Americans vote on that shit. It sickens me to no end but it's true. Want to get elected? Show (or pretend) that you're religious. If you're not...good luck. I am a staunch atheist and I harbor no ideas that I will EVER be elected to anything, especially here in the south, even if I had all the answers to every problem. I'd have to pay lip-service to the religious masses and that's something I couldn't do and look myself in the mirror every morning.

[slumber.livejournal.com]

Politics has always been self-serving. If there were a big enough population of pagans you can bet they'd adhere to that particular religion's practices right away.

I had more thoughts about how religion plays into this too, but realised at this time of the day when I accidentally picked decaf, it's probably best not to touch the topic with a fifty-foot pole. :|

[themadfish.livejournal.com]

It's like when Elizabeth Dole accused Bev Perdue of being an atheist or having ties to atheist groups and Perdue's defense was that she's completely offended by the outright lie and that she's been in whatever church for whatever years(or that she was a pastor, I don't really remember).

Instead of the obvious, "That's untrue, but even if it were, it shouldn't make a difference."

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Even the few politicians who are either agnostic or atheist secretly... have to pretend to belong to a congregation of some sort if they want ANY chance of being elected. I think it's rubbish. I don't care if my leader is Jewish, Morman, atheist, or Pastafarian... I just want to know if he or she is going to uphold the Constitution and make intelligent policy decisions. Every time the candidates play lip-service to the religious voters by simply talking about how Christian they are... it makes me ill. They should talk about the issues, or shut up.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Colin Powell had a brilliant piece of that in this year's elections, talking about people saying that Barack Obama was a Muslim. Powell was like, "Well, the factual answer is no, no he's not, he's always been a Christian. But the right answer is 'Why does that matter?'. Are you going to tell little Muslim boys and girls in this country that they can't grow up to be the President?"

This probably indicates, however, that Powell is never going to run for public office.

[zylch.livejournal.com]

A note -- the Psalm chosen is certainly exclusionary. It does not refer to a generic deity; "the Lord" is properly "the LORD" (meaning that the Hebrew has 'YHVH' there, not 'el' or 'elohim' -- the former being the proper name of the JCI deity, the latter being general words for 'god' or 'lord'). It's as specific as if I were to go in there and ask the blessings of Zeus of the Boule on those present.
-------

A prayer given in a "display" of faith seems to me to be empty and arrogant.

I figure the Christians' religion has already told them their god's opinion of those who pray so very publically:

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when 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." Matt 6:5-6.

[vampireanneke.livejournal.com]

It depends on the motivation for the 'prayer'. I remember in high school (senior year), they would have a prayer thing for the graduating seniors, but due to the whole church and state thing it couldn't be on school grounds, so it was next door at the 'auditorium' that was technically the JR. High's but they proclaimed it 'nuetral' so it could be used (the entire building's designation was changed and it's still that way). In the end the ceremony was dull and boring and rather have not gone with their baptist blessing and such. But the meaning behind it wasn't to push religion on me but simply to wish me and other seniors well so I just shrugged my shoulders and put up with it. Some people know nothing but religion and it saddens me. They proclaim to be doing the work of Jesus but are discriminatory and predujudest. Jesus walked among leepers and prostitutes, and yet those doing 'his work' will damn gays. (rolls eyes)

[zylch.livejournal.com]

I care whether my politician is Pastafarian (at least if they're running for the Kansas school board)! More Pastifarians in public office, I say!

[misscake]

I am a Christian and a federal government employee, and I am often uncomfortable with the strict Judeo-Christian religious influences. We aren't allowed to have "Christmas" parties (they have to be called holiday parties), yet nearly every office in my building has a Christmas tree up or other clearly Christmas decorations (Santas, etc.). There are no menorahs, no mentions of any other winter holiday. No one seems to see the blatant contradiction and I'm honestly surprised that no one has complained.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

NOOOOO!!! NOT DECAF!!! DEATH BEFORE DECAF!!!

But yeah, I see politicians using religion as a tool for their own popularity. I see these cases of mixing "church and state", and I think it's an insult to BOTH religion AND government. Remember how I said they "use" their God? I mean it in the most blatant sense of the word, and I find it painful. Religion is at its best when politics and power-grabs are not involved, and politics function better when religion is not involved. It's a shame people can't see that.

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

I love Matthew 6:5-6 with the fire of a thousand suns.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Oh, but remember, they don't like it when you remind them that their own book tells them to pray quietly in a closed room. In fact, they don't like it when you remind them about anything in the Bible that doesn't serve their purposes.

And thank you for the mention of the exclusiveness of the verse. I knew that, but in my sleepy state, I was having trouble chasing down all my specific thoughts.

[slumber.livejournal.com]

I SAW THAT INTERVIEW! Man, I loved him hardcore for it. That was-- I guess I also hadn't really been too keen on the news before it, but I think his was a point that really, no one in the ~liberal media elite~ had paused to consider at all, and it was the truest, best reply to that issue. It. Shouldn't. Matter.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

It's good to hear Christians who are aware of this. People like to say that Santa and "holiday" trees are secular, but "Santa" is a modern representation of Saint Nicholas (a Christian saint), and the decorated tree is actually pagan in origin... but don't tell them that!

But yeah, we need more Christians speaking up when they see public (taxpayer-funded) entities promoting a particular religion, even if it's Christianity. If I saw the government pushing my religious beliefs (which would never happen), I'd be offended. I don't want my government pulling the strings of my faith.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

The motivation for public prayer (outside of a church) has always seemed to me to be a wish to show off, make a spectacle, or push a perspective. I've seldom seen a pure motive, especially when government is behind it.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

MUAHAHA!! Okay, so I admit it, if a candidate ran for public office and identified himself as a Pastafarian, I think I'd vote for him/her on that platform alone.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

I wish people *could* make a rebuttal like that, but sadly, we know it can't happen. I'm still glad that Dole got flattened in the election, though.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

It's yet another reason why I will always respect Colin Powell. He's one of the few Republicans that I could have voted for. He's brilliant and courageous, and that's the proof.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

It's a great verse. It's also a shame that it seems to be the one most often ignored by Christians.

[slumber.livejournal.com]

I'm not the sort of person to need coffee to wake up in the morning, but today I kind of needed caffeine. *weeps*

Oh, absolutely. I come from a Catholic country (with the next-largest sector comprised of, uh, Muslims trying to liberate themselves from our government-- fun times, and no surprises, really, all things considered), and it's funny, because there's a blurb in our constitution about the separation of church and state, yet it's always been the endorsements of Catholic Cardinals and Christian pastors that have put people in office, and it's Christian values that keep the Philippines one of two countries in the world where divorce is not legal, and abstinence is taught for government-sponsored public health care services.

Okay. Getting that fifty-foot long pole in place now. For realz. :|

[slumber.livejournal.com]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I heard something about how Christmas has been turned into a federal holiday in the US (can't remember who mentioned it to me). What's the deal with that? :|

[mijan.livejournal.com]

*helps to put pole in place*

*offers hot coffee*

[mijan.livejournal.com]

They pretty much did it because otherwise, so many people would demand the day off that business would shut down anyway. It was a matter of being practical. I can accept that.

I gotta start using my chalice icon again

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

there was ONE Hindu who offered a prayer, ONCE, in Congress last year, and his words were met with boos and hisses by our distinguished representatives.

Holy shit, really? BOOS and HISSES? Which reps? If they were any of mine, I'm writing/calling/doing whatever it takes to let them know what I think about it. Maybe even if they're NOT any of mine. Grr.

"Pushed to its logical conclusion, such 1st Amendment fundamentalism would forbid presidents of the United States from invoking God in their speeches or participating in the National Prayer Breakfast,"

I say push it to its logical conclusion, then. I mean, if a Prez wants to go to a prayer breakfast, national or otherwise, fine. S/he just needs to not wear the offical hat, y'know? Go as Joe/Jane Smith, private citizen, not President Smith. And invoking "God" (or ANY religious figure/s) in anything remotely resembling an official capacity is just plain wrong.

I AM NOT DENOUNCING PRAYER. I AM NOT DENOUNCING RELIGION. I am denouncing the notion that government-sanctioned prayer belongs in the United States of America.

WORD WORD WORD. Me and my UU sensibilities HEART YOU SO MUCH.

The boos and hisses thing, though, gah. That bothers me more than anything. WAY TO GO, BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY.

[slumber.livejournal.com]

Ahh, that makes sense. I wasn't sure about the circumstances surrounding it, exactly, and since it came up in conversation, I figured I might as well ask now. :P