A FEW THOUGHTS ON CIVIL RELIGION AND THE DANGERS THEREOF
Some folks may think that, because I'm a Christian, I would agree with and celebrate the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming a town board's practice of opening meetings with prayers, generally from Christian clergy. (See http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303647204579543572388368040?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303647204579543572388368040.html.) And many who share my faith certainly are celebrating it, as they have championed the practice in question in this and other towns
But as for me ... I'm not so sure. I'm leery about it for two reasons: the effect on non-believers, and the effect on believers.
I'm not making a constitutional argument: As I understand it, the ruling affirms previous rulings in favor of public-meeting invocations resting in part on their historicity, going back to the First Continental Congress (which, yes, was pre-Constitution) ... and sometimes it seems the No Religion In the Public Square Ever folks tend to think their modern understanding of the Constitution supersedes that of the folks who originally wrote, ratified and interpreted it, many of whom indeed opened their sessions with prayer. The Court's dissenting opinion has a point, though, that a municipality can go too far in having *one* religion represented. The establishment clause does not bar religion from the public sphere, but it does bar government from showing favoritism to one over the others.
So ... why am I skeptical?
1. Their exclusionary nature. A public, board-sanctioned prayer at a meeting of public business sends the message, implicitly (sometimes explicitly, depending on the people) to those citizens who are not believers that: "This is OUR town/village/county/school district -- we tolerate your presence because we have to, and we suppose you're technically citizens; but make no mistake: You are marginal. You are fringe. You are the Outsider." The more sectarian the particular prayer is, of course, the larger the group being marginalized is: A Christian prayer others those of non-Christian faiths or no faith; a trinitarian Christian prayer others Christians of a unitarian bent; a Protestant or Catholic prayer ... well, so on and so forth. But going the other way, as general and non-specific and watered-down as one might make a prayer (and you water it down enough, and one wonders what's the point), you're still telling the atheists and agnostics (EVEN IF THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY YOUR INTENT), "Hey -- this isn't really *your* town. Not as much as it's *our* town, anyway." This goes way beyond merely "offending" people -- it's about setting up a divide.
2. The effect on believers. I think, and I'm hardly alone in thinking so, that one of the most dangerous things for religious faith -- for any faith -- is to become identified with and intertwined with government, with the prevailing culture. No, I'm not advocating a separatist, isolationist approach to culture for believers (far from it, I believe in full engagement) -- but if (and I'm speaking from my own theological background here) faith is best understood as a personal commitment/relationship between an individual and his God (or gods, etc.) and how the implications of that commitment/relationship should compel her actions in society ... then it's very dangerous when that faith IS the dominant culture. One can just be carried along on the prevailing winds of their culture, thinking they're devout believers when they've never really asked the hard questions of faith -- never really wrestled with God. I tend to think that's where Christianity is in the U.S. these days, more or less. I've known people who have argued that the conversion of Constantine to Christianity (and yeah, there's plenty of debate as to how deeply that actually represented a commitment to Christ on the emperor's behalf) in the long run was a negative for Christianity -- sure, it stopped Roman-era imperial persecutions (though not entirely; there was a later wave), but it set Christianity up to be the Dominant Power, the political force, the empire -- and power is always a deadly, deadly temptation. (One of the recorded temptations Jesus faced in the wilderness, according to the New Testament account, involved taking temporal power.) Generally speaking, whenever people of faith aspire to power, the long-term effect on the faith is negative. And the power proves nebulous and temporary, anyway.
Now. I'm not saying that anything like a majority or even a sizable minority of those supporting public-meeting invocations are consciously or even unconsciously trying to be belligerent, or at least confrontational. (Though a certain percentage probably are -- those who tend to be in the "Say 'Merry Christmas' Or Else" camp.) I'm just saying that I think a number of my spiritual brethren have seen this as a my-team-vs-their-team issue and haven't really stopped to think about the impact: on the message sent to nonbelievers and the dangers of cultural religion (specifically of Christendom, which is *not* Christianity). I do think it's possible for a municipality to have invocations with a policy that provides for full inclusion -- but it seems like such a difficult task that it would take away valuable time from the other business facing the board in question. Most town board or city council members -- this isn't their job, they do it in their after-hours; their time is limited.
I have similar skepticism about school prayer, but this is a big enough text block.
Words: Various science-fiction short-story compilations I've amassed over the years. Favorite of the stories read in the past week or so: Tanith Lee's "All the Birds of Hell."
Sounds & Images: Songs of the Maniacs by Worm Quartet
State O'Mind: Tired
But as for me ... I'm not so sure. I'm leery about it for two reasons: the effect on non-believers, and the effect on believers.
I'm not making a constitutional argument: As I understand it, the ruling affirms previous rulings in favor of public-meeting invocations resting in part on their historicity, going back to the First Continental Congress (which, yes, was pre-Constitution) ... and sometimes it seems the No Religion In the Public Square Ever folks tend to think their modern understanding of the Constitution supersedes that of the folks who originally wrote, ratified and interpreted it, many of whom indeed opened their sessions with prayer. The Court's dissenting opinion has a point, though, that a municipality can go too far in having *one* religion represented. The establishment clause does not bar religion from the public sphere, but it does bar government from showing favoritism to one over the others.
So ... why am I skeptical?
1. Their exclusionary nature. A public, board-sanctioned prayer at a meeting of public business sends the message, implicitly (sometimes explicitly, depending on the people) to those citizens who are not believers that: "This is OUR town/village/county/school district -- we tolerate your presence because we have to, and we suppose you're technically citizens; but make no mistake: You are marginal. You are fringe. You are the Outsider." The more sectarian the particular prayer is, of course, the larger the group being marginalized is: A Christian prayer others those of non-Christian faiths or no faith; a trinitarian Christian prayer others Christians of a unitarian bent; a Protestant or Catholic prayer ... well, so on and so forth. But going the other way, as general and non-specific and watered-down as one might make a prayer (and you water it down enough, and one wonders what's the point), you're still telling the atheists and agnostics (EVEN IF THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY YOUR INTENT), "Hey -- this isn't really *your* town. Not as much as it's *our* town, anyway." This goes way beyond merely "offending" people -- it's about setting up a divide.
2. The effect on believers. I think, and I'm hardly alone in thinking so, that one of the most dangerous things for religious faith -- for any faith -- is to become identified with and intertwined with government, with the prevailing culture. No, I'm not advocating a separatist, isolationist approach to culture for believers (far from it, I believe in full engagement) -- but if (and I'm speaking from my own theological background here) faith is best understood as a personal commitment/relationship between an individual and his God (or gods, etc.) and how the implications of that commitment/relationship should compel her actions in society ... then it's very dangerous when that faith IS the dominant culture. One can just be carried along on the prevailing winds of their culture, thinking they're devout believers when they've never really asked the hard questions of faith -- never really wrestled with God. I tend to think that's where Christianity is in the U.S. these days, more or less. I've known people who have argued that the conversion of Constantine to Christianity (and yeah, there's plenty of debate as to how deeply that actually represented a commitment to Christ on the emperor's behalf) in the long run was a negative for Christianity -- sure, it stopped Roman-era imperial persecutions (though not entirely; there was a later wave), but it set Christianity up to be the Dominant Power, the political force, the empire -- and power is always a deadly, deadly temptation. (One of the recorded temptations Jesus faced in the wilderness, according to the New Testament account, involved taking temporal power.) Generally speaking, whenever people of faith aspire to power, the long-term effect on the faith is negative. And the power proves nebulous and temporary, anyway.
Now. I'm not saying that anything like a majority or even a sizable minority of those supporting public-meeting invocations are consciously or even unconsciously trying to be belligerent, or at least confrontational. (Though a certain percentage probably are -- those who tend to be in the "Say 'Merry Christmas' Or Else" camp.) I'm just saying that I think a number of my spiritual brethren have seen this as a my-team-vs-their-team issue and haven't really stopped to think about the impact: on the message sent to nonbelievers and the dangers of cultural religion (specifically of Christendom, which is *not* Christianity). I do think it's possible for a municipality to have invocations with a policy that provides for full inclusion -- but it seems like such a difficult task that it would take away valuable time from the other business facing the board in question. Most town board or city council members -- this isn't their job, they do it in their after-hours; their time is limited.
I have similar skepticism about school prayer, but this is a big enough text block.
Words: Various science-fiction short-story compilations I've amassed over the years. Favorite of the stories read in the past week or so: Tanith Lee's "All the Birds of Hell."
Sounds & Images: Songs of the Maniacs by Worm Quartet
State O'Mind: Tired