George Will is a theologian now. He will explain Deism for you. It’s watery. It’s atheism. George Will is an adeist.
There are elements of Mr. Will’s argument about public prayer with which I am sympathetic. Mainly, I agree that it’s generally a small burden to have to sit through a brief solemnization of some public proceeding, and that generous souls ought to be able endure such niceties without taking offense.
But he deliberately misses the point, or neglects to mention, that there are a not inconsiderable number of people in this country who are pushing public prayer explicitly to assert that this country is a Christian nation based on biblical principles. The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court recently implied that the First Amendment only applies to Christians. This can obviously become a problem. Solemnizing a public proceeding is a kind of benign ritual. Using the solemnization process as a political weapon or statement, is neither benign nor routine.
What the Supreme Court has done here in another 5-4 conservative/liberal decision is to weaponize public prayer for the religious right.
This is how the Right gets things done, and we have to recognize their tactics. They can’t outright make prayer mandatory, but they can push little challenges all the way through the courts until they get to a sympathetic Supreme Court.
They’re doing the same thing with abortion; taking state-by-state laws and chipping away at Roe v Wade until it comes up again and the Supremes have to revisit it.
This is their way. They can be patient and they can maneuver their way through the system and eventually get exactly what they want. This sounds creepily paranoid of me, but I believe they will continue to get these small victories and build on them. It’s a scary thought.
George Will can go to the Hell he believes in. The people who are excluded by an explicitly Christian invocation (and, let’s face it, they ARE excluded, they don’t just FEEL excluded) described as “flimsy people” by this snotty twit- infuriating.
Hey, George, thought experiment: you are at your local City Council meeting, wishing to speak before the body on an issue of importance and controversy.
The City Council asks a leader from a mosque in town to begin the meeting by leading the room in prayer. They mirror the standard monotheistic presentation made by Reverends, Pastors, Priests, Bishops and other leaders by invoking their prayer on behalf of the One True God, Mohammed. The Councilmembers and Mayor all look very serious, devout and sincere in their belief in Mohammed’s blessings.
The meeting begins. The agenda item you are planning to speak to is coming up. You see that there are City residents at the meeting who take an opposing view to yours on the issue. You see that they have filled out cards and are preparing to speak. You see that they are followers of Mohammed, just like the Mayor and Councilmembers. They may even be dressed in ways that display their faith, perhaps mirroring the clear intent of, say, a cross hanging from a chain around a neck.
Will your point of view get an absolutely equal and fair hearing by this Council against this opposition?
Yeah- now you see a big problem here, perhaps?
It should be clarified, because a follower of Islam would be very upset with what you wrote. Allah is God. Mohammed was the greatest of His prophets.
My deep apologies for this error. I hope my mistake doesn’t blunt the point I attempted to make.
If prayer stopped at ‘a moment of silence’ rather than a prayer LED by someone I’d just grit my teeth, but as soon as any individual steps up to lead a meeting, an agenda or at the least a format is set. A hierarchy is established and leveling of the participants set.
Roughly 2000 years ago, the worship of “traditional gods” was considered part of a Roman citizen’s public duty.
You didn’t have to believe, just go through the motions. Stand quietly and observe the sacrifices to Jupiter and Apollo.
It was considered a civic duty, because it “protected the city and people” from divine wrath, skipping out was tantamount to treason.
Needless to say, the “stick-up-the-butt” Christians of the time strongly objected to even the most passive participation in such public rituals.
The big problem here is that this burg was not merely using prayer to “solemnize” their public proceedings, as was the subject of the public invocation prayer case of 20 some years ago. Here the prayer was usually explicitly Christian, with heaps of “Jeebus bein’ YOUR savior who died for YOUR sins, and wowsa!” And frankly this sort of shit can be offensive to non-believers (I’ll let other non-Christian believers express their own level of concern with having to endure sectarian Christian prayer at town council meetings…)
It does not appear that the Five conservative male activists masquerading as justices understand that non-believers are the fastest growing category in “religion”, and that they already constitute a large class of citizens. Or that these 5 conservative male “justices” would care if they did know, because for them the law always miraculously turns out to be whatever a conservative activist would wish it to be! Very convenient.
But IMO you (and Donnah) are correct, the Christian Right will certainly use this decision to maximum advantage and begin to build on it. They would be fools not to. Basically you can now expect every rural municipality (and throughout the true Bible belt basically every town and city) to open public business with explicitly Christian prayer. Yippee. Another step in the Talibanization of America.
Our country is going to start looking a lot different than it used to. The next step for the Right will to try to enact some kind of “respect” being mandated by all for the public prayer, especially if non-believers attempt to object to the purported “solemnization” of the public proceedings via “prayer”. Then we can have litigation over exactly what “coercion” means in this prayer context.
FWIW, a lot of believers, such as myself, would also be offended by that type of prayer opening a public meeting. Many of us believe that prayers should only be communal within the actual setting of a church (or other religious edifice) and otherwise should be private, as Christ instructed us to do.
Got to say, I have never encountered that point of view before in as much as the “only” and “otherwise” though of course I’m familiar with the pray in the closet command (and indeed, science has validated it because we know that if sick people know you are praying for them it backfires).
I wouldn’t consider it a majority view, but I know of many of my fellow christians who believe it. BTW, I should state we do consider, say, a grace before dinner at a wedding reception, where the wedding was a religious one, also acceptable.
Do you mean if you’re giving a speech at the reception or just sitting down to dinner as a guest?
It’s offensive to you?
Heck, I’m a born again Christian, and it’s offensive to me. It’s profoundly disrespectful. It’s a blatant violation of my Lord and Saviour’s rule # 1: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
And BTW this decision also demonstrates the error of arguments that the Christian Right never really “gets” anything out of their decades of support for Repubs.
They have gotten the complete dismantling of Roe v Wade across huge stretches of the country and now they are advancing with victories on the public prayer front, an area that long has rankled them.
I’m not up on the latest school prayer cases, but I cannot see why the reasoning of this case would not apply to an edifying (i.e. Christian) school prayer to start the kiddies’ day on an, um, appropriately “solemn” note. And this case says that gub’mint of course can’t police what the pastors decide to pray about, so Divine Savior Jeebus in the public schools can’t be too far off…so get out yer prayer mats, kids, and start practicin’, ha-ha!
Oh, hey, quote mining. What do you know. Ayatollah Moore cites Madison’s reference to “the duties we owe to the creator and the manner of discharging it” as evidence for his idiotic position. Here’s the whole thing:
The wingnuts can make me have to hear it, but they can’t stop me from booing loudly while I do. Which I will.
Or you could do the Hare Krishna chant, with plenty of drums and bells. Or better yet, “Hail Satan!”
Isn’t that disrespectful both to the Hare Krishnas and Satanists?
Mainly, I agree that it’s generally a small burden to keep your prayer to yourself…you know…like god wanted.
I’m not sure whether most progressives know on which fine point this ruling was about. Adam B. had a good diary at DK a couple of days ago on it.
Welcome back to the 15th-17th centuries.
That is, unless most government bodies have enough common sense to take the ruling as allowing them to have the prayer of the day. Bet you in a year or two even atheists will have something “spiritual” to say in order to occupy their spot in the prayer round-robin at government events.
If they don’t have common sense, we are evolving into segregated sectarian communities with religious takeover of governments. It’s fairly clear where that leads.
Watch for what happens with the NY Satanists give their statue for the Oklahoma state capitol grounds.
Then what will the Supreme Court hide behind–majority rule?
It’s the content of their prayers and their idols that are the most objectionable:
“I agree that it’s generally a small burden to have to sit through a brief solemnization of some public proceeding, and that generous souls ought to be able endure such niceties without taking offense.”
Yes, I very much agree with that as well, as long as they’re not in your face with specifically sectarian aspects.
But I think we need to realize that “we” (by which I mean Democrats, or liberals, or progressives) have our own clown cars. Just for one example (and we’ve all seen these):
http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/22/atheist-family-sues-to-keep-new-jersey-students-from-saying-under-
god-in-pledge-of-allegiance/
The point is not that there aren’t serious philosophical issues behind such complaints. But in such cases the serious philosophical issues are WAY behind, if you see what I mean. It’s more a question of picking your fights.
I also agree with the reader who wrote in a letter to the Philadelphia Enquirer in 2002:
“I remember when Congress inserted that awkward phrase ‘under God’ in the pledge. For me, a nominal Christian who started a 21-year U.S. Navy career during the Eisenhower administration, it ruined what had been a pleasurable school-day ritual. The rhythm was destroyed; no insight was added. For the Christian believer, it is a trite statement of the obvious. For others, it is another reminder that their views, their faiths, just don’t count.”
http://articles.philly.com/2002-07-13/news/25357325_1_pledge-founding-fathers-god
Nevertheless, it just ain’t worth the fight.
You note, correctly, that “there are a not inconsiderable number of people in this country who are pushing public prayer explicitly to assert that this country is a Christian nation based on biblical principles.”
My point is that it is the divas and blowhards of the left that put the wind in the sails of the Christian (or Christianoid) fascists. If everybody would just calm down, we might all have a better life. I’m not holding my breath, though, because both sides have their clowns.
Whenever I see an article like that..’atheist family sues..’ I have to laugh. And that is because that is what I feel a true atheist does whenever someone mentions ‘god’ (in the sense of an over seeing mighty being). My wife and I are true blue, pure atheists. Things like prayer, god on the dollar, a cross on a hill, don’t bother us in the least…that is because they are just gibberish to us. Laughable gibberish. If someone says ‘god bless’ to me? Hey, whatever ‘God bless right back at you!’ It’s as meaningful as ‘have a nice day’, just another polite gesture.
So let them have what they need to feel better.
However, when they use it to coerce, that is when a line is crossed (ah!, did you see what I did there?). Some of these places are not friendly to people who are not the right kind of christian, let alone not a christian at all. In the same way that gun nuts open carry, not to express their ‘right’, but only to intimidate and make themselves feel important, some use their religion to intimidate, and force people to silence. That is where the SCOTUS is off the tracks, because those 5 LIKE that type of silence.
And that is why all talk of whether Clinton is a ‘true’ progressive, and whether Warren would be better, is a waste. It’s the SCOTUS, stupid. Not the damn economy, not foreign affairs, not the spying, not even SSS. Because if we don’t get a majority on the SCOTUS, they will ruin us all.
.