Pilgrims is the name commonly applied to early settlers of the Plymouth Colony in present-day Massachusetts. Their leadership came from a religious congregation who had fled a volatile political environment in the East Midlands of England for the relative calm of Holland in the Netherlands. Concerned with losing their cultural identity, the group later arranged with English investors to establish a new colony in North America…Their story has become a central theme in United States cultural identity. [wiki]
This country was born because people desired the freedom to worship their God in their own way. To me, that is so American.
To have the freedom to be yourself, to be entitled to respect, to experience tolerance instead of persecution…these are the central themes with which I define my American identity.
What else is American? E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. One cultural identity, comprised of hundreds of influences, origins and traditions. If you take a step back and ponder it, America seems like a miraculous idea; you start to respect the safeguards put in place to protect people. One of the most significant? The separation between church and state. This is where things get complicated, but that’s not a bad thing. Everyone is complicated, why should we expect our nations not to be? Yes, there are religious words on money and everyone knows that there is a Judeo-Christian foundation to a lot of what is considered American…but there is also respect for other ideas. Or at least, there should be. At the very least, there should be the freedom for others to worship their God, in their own way, no matter what you or I think about it. There should be mutual respect. There should be.
A Hindu clergyman made history Thursday by offering the Senate’s morning prayer, but only after police officers removed three shouting protesters from the visitors’ gallery.
Rajan Zed, director of interfaith relations at a Hindu temple in Reno, Nev., gave the brief prayer that opens each day’s Senate session. As he stood at the chamber’s podium in a bright orange and burgundy robe, two women and a man began shouting ”this is an abomination” and other complaints from the gallery.
Police officers quickly arrested them and charged them disrupting Congress, a misdemeanor. The male protester told an AP reporter, ”we are Christians and patriots” before police handcuffed them and led them away. [NYT]
No, you are Christians and fools. Way to make Team Jesus look awful, as you misrepresent everything that the man stood for and preached.
For several days, the Mississippi-based American Family Association has urged its members to object to the prayer because Zed would be ”seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god.” [NYT]
Yes, because the prayer he offered was SO offensive to actual Christians, agnostics or those who have been touched by a noodly appendage:
Zed, the first Hindu to offer the Senate prayer, began: ”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.”
As the Senate prepared for another day of debate over the Iraq war, Zed closed with, ”Peace, peace, peace be unto all.” [NYT]
Let me tell you something about what that Uncle said– it was far kinder and more welcoming than a lot of what I heard in Catholic school, especially if the Pope was involved. For shame. Perhaps the most offensive aspect of his spiritual offering was its emphasis on peace?
Zed, who was born in India, was invited by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Speaking in the chamber shortly after the prayer, Reid defended the choice and linked it to the war debate.
”If people have any misunderstanding about Indians and Hindus,” Reid said, ”all they have to do is think of Gandhi,” a man ”who gave his life for peace.”
”I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing the faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our heavenly Father regarding peace,” said Reid, a Mormon and sharp critic of President Bush’s Iraq policies. [NYT]
As several of you pointed out via email, news tab and flaming arrow, THIS is the money quote:
Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the protest ”shows the intolerance of many religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it’s clear they mean only their religion.” [NYT]
What these Jesus-freaks are forgetting is that Christ was a man of peace. He didn’t surround himself with the pious and faux-righteous; he called those people out, as he deliberately and controversially chose to befriend the lowest of the low, tax collectors, prostitutes and the like. Was there ever a better example of tolerance in the Christian faith?
As I bitterly read the articles about this troubling, hurtful incident, I am reminded of those who persecuted Jesus, for what they perceived as his “blasphemy”. Two thousand years later, some of his so-called followers have become so drunk off of hate and fundamentalism, they cannot see straight, they cannot grasp that if this were two millenia ago, Jesus would be the man in the orange robe and they, they would be the hypocrites who attacked him and then cheered at his suffering.
First that, now this. How many cheeks can these good angels turn?
What about “Out of many, one.” don’t you understand. The one is Christianity. Unless it’s the Highlander.
“They say they want more religion in the public square, but it’s clear they mean only their religion.â€
Doh! what else. That’s like conservatives complaining about liberal activist judges, but not a peep when their own side does the same thing…
I was raised in a religious household. You just don’t do that to people who have dedicated their lives to God, no matter which God it might be. Everyone deserves respect, yes, but someone like a priest, pandit, rabbi, imam…I was raised to defer to them even more. This was humiliating– especially for Christians who don’t endorse how these fanboys/girl gone r3tarded think.
I can’t think of a way that so-called patriots could be LESS American. 🙁
A N N A, I am not a lick religious, but this modern evangelical movement in America bastardise Christianity, and I think getting upset over their behavior is the road to madness. In any case, take heart. Even the Pope believes you are all just separate Christian communities, not part of one church.
In my book, they deserve LESS respect. Not only are they delusional but they actively participate in involuntary indoctrination of immature children.
Are you sure about that? All middle eastern/abrahamic religions are pretty blunt about hating polythiesm. I am sure Jesus was not a big fan of idol worshippers either.
It’s really complicated and from what I can absorb at church, greyer than that. I wish I was brazen enough to take notes in church, because sometimes, the sermon is more like a fantastic, thought-provoking lecture by an erudite professor rather than a priest speaking from the pulpit…a few weeks ago, my priest said that he had a huge issue with other Christians who treated the bible as if it were a blunt object to bludgeon others with…in the same sermon, he answered the emailed question of a parishioner regarding whether non-Christians would go to heaven. I don’t know why he chose Hinduism to include in his answer, but he told the entire congregation that yes, for example, Hindus were going to heaven no matter what fundamentalists said, because goodness is goodness no matter how or whom one worships. I have never been more happy to be Greek Orthodox than I was in that moment. So as far as my priest and I go, the “not a big fan of idol worship” doesn’t apply…but then my church loves iconography, and that’s a whole other debate. 🙂
Thanks for blogging this, Anna.
There sure looks like there’s a lot of idiocy to go around here. I don’t think we need accept at face value the disrupters’ claim to being Christian. I wouldn’t call them ‘Christians and Idiots’, I’d just call them ‘Idiots’.
And I wouldn’t accept the facile conflation of Hindus with Indians, and then both with Gandhi, in the Senator’s statement either. There’s a bit of idiocy in that too.
On the non-ironic comedy side, I thought the interesting item was a Hindu priest with the last name ‘Zed’!
chachaji, I agree that Zed is a badass name. Especially for a priest. Although his ass was gone medieval on in Pulp Fiction.
Well now I better understand the context people keep hitting me with. It’s really hard for me to believe, since I’ve never lived anywhere Hinduism was reviled. And I’ve successfully avoided living near such religious nuts for a number of other reasons.
Those fools not only claim to represent Christians, they claim to represent Americans. As one of the latter category, I am appalled.
What I’m curious about is the text of the blessing. Is it a translation of something in Sanskrit ? It sure does sound like it.
Those fools not only claim to represent Christians, they claim to represent Americans. As one of the latter category, I am appalled.
Word Nina, they suck at both. I’m embarrassed for them.
Suresh, tne NYT translation sounds like the Gayatri mantra to me.
There are two components to seaparation of state and religion. The first is that the state should not abridge the freedom to practise any religion; and should not favor or engage with any particular religion.
The second is that the demoratic process should not be able to influence the state in religious terms. This is not just a reiteration of the first: India is a prime example of the diff. But it is also one of the rationales given by founding fathers for the separation of church and state: letting the democratic process and politicians loose on religion to milk it for votes devalues and desecrates religion. This has always happened in India. But it is happening in the US now as well.
The caveat is that with democracy and freedom to choose, it is impossible to go beyond the first component; or even institute checks and balances.
It’s horrible claim for them to make no doubt, but not appalling in the least. How do you think Jesusland gets its reputation?
“Who’s Zed?”
“Zed’s dead baby, Zed’s dead.”
His closing ‘Peace, peace, peace be unto all’ sounds like it is a translation of the traditional ‘Om shanti, shanti, shanti:hi’. I might be able to recall where the rest is from with some thought. Should watch the video first.
The issue here is not one of belief but decorum…I don’t feel that any mainstream church would disagree with what these wing nuts said. Exclusive truth claims are central to all major denominations. The backlash will be over the embarassing delivery of the message. One of the things that I admire the most about this country is how well it functions despite the certainty that most people have that their neighbor is going to be tandoori roasted in the hereafter.
But why did he die, HMF?
I think Floridian will agree with me that Zed pulled the closing quote from Eliot’s The Wasteland.
Judeo-Christian foundation
let’s get more precise than this. though the first half a dozen presidents were arguably not particular christian in a sense that the protesters above would recognize (e.g., john adams considered himself a christian, was a theist, but he was also theologically a unitarian), by the 19th century this nation’s identity was fundamentally protestant (even non-christian presidents who espoused unitarianism adhered to a sect which derived from congregationalist culture). in catholicism and freedom catholic historian john mcgreevy highlights exactly how hostile american was toward the “romish religion” until rather deep into the 20th century. anti-catholic sentiment was the cornerstone of several cultural and political movements in the 19th century. so when you say things like “judeo-christian,” you’re actually pointing to even a later assimilation of another religiou identity toward the american mainstream, that of judaism. the term judeo-christian didn’t come into vogue until after the 1950s, a generation after the high tide of anti-catholicism abated (the 1930s klan, etc.). today we are seeing an assimilation of muslims and hindus into the civil culture, and no doubt buddhists and sikhs. the “growing pains” are nothing new and nothing unexpected. the billy graham who was making anti-catholic sounds during the run of j.f.k. is now a force for relative ecumenicalism.
Jeez, how awful must it have felt to be protested at in such a manner in front of an entire senate ? I think the pic says it all.
razib, I was wondering when you’d make your divine appearance on this thread. Now it’s gettin’ real!
I applaud the sentiment of your post. However I respectfully disagree that this country was started by people who were peaceloving people who simply wanted to practice their religion in peace. From what I understand through my studies and though visiting that fine educational institution “Plimoth Plantation” a couple of years ago, the people who came over here did so partly for the opportunities to “own land” (tell it to the native americans who were here before..eye roll..) and in part to be able to practice their fundamentalist interpretation on the Bible in a new place and to foist it on both the natives that were there as well at as the new boatloads of later people arriving from europe. Many of them felt that europe was getting too loosey goosey for them with too many liberal factions that they couldn’t bear to witness. Sacrilage, you see. So the original settlers were quite rigid and intolerant imo. The natives who were here eventually got killed off or tricked into submission all because they didnt understand the Christian concept of God or the concept of land ownership; and in sharing the beautiful land that had existed for generations before the arrival of these settlers, teaching them how to plant food and survive, and also to some degree eventually buying into the notion that Christianity was the ultimate religion ( especially this extra rigid version), spelled their own doom. The early history of America, as we know it, is filled with appalling brutal stories such as the one in which native children who the missionaries so “kindly” agreed to school, were chained to each other with barbed wire as punishment for breaking one or more of the rules of “laws” laid down by these fundamentalist settlers and their progeny. So I would never say that this country was founded on peace and tolerance. Far from it.
For more comments in this vein check out the comments following the article linked below.
Historian Barton says Hindu prayer before Senate raises concerns.
Rahul, calling an atheist a real divine presence is to insult him…
New Orleanians found out today that there hasn’t been fluoride in New Orleans drinking water since August 29, 2005. Given incidents such as this one and another in a neighboring parish (and the creatures here who think that the establishment clause does not imply separation of church and state), I suggest the introduction of valium in the country’s water supply. Everyone will calm down, stop hating and be the gentler, kinder creatures of god that they purport to be.
I don’t feel that any mainstream church would disagree with what these wing nuts said. Exclusive truth claims are central to all major denominations.
here is what the presiding bishop of the episcopal church in the united states said re: salvation: Q. Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven? Bishop Jefferts Schori: We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.
NPR: Robin Young: So you’re saying there are other ways to God.
Bishop Jefferts Schori: Human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them…with the ultimate… with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. That doesn’t mean that a Hindu doesn’t experience God except through Jesus. It says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships http://www.azdiocese.org/bishop/epistle.html?id=44&page=1
i’m not a christian myself, but can we make a good faith effort to characterize the real variation in a religion of 2 billion??? reducing all of christianity to something like john 14:6 is like reducing hinduism to “worship” of cows.
Is that the Gimp next to him with his mask off ?
The NYT article fails to mention that the protesters, whose throats were hoarse from all the shouting, then went and refreshed themselves with a squishee at a neighboring Kwik-e-mart.
in the bible didn’t jesus go to some game booths in a carnival (like the duck shoot, or the glass-and-ping pong balls one), win all these idols and then smash them to pieces? or he found them in some cereal boxes and then smashed them? like little league trophies? he did something like that to attack the polytheists, like Beige Seige said.
zed is an awesome name. though i have many others, one of the reasons i would keep my name in the event of marriage is because it’s actually quite a cool one. if i came across a mr. zed, i would seriously have to reconsider.
i think the hindu priest in congress is both a good and a bad sign. i hate the idea of any religion-based prayer in legislature, but at least it’s not being limited to one. i also like the fact that it was a non-hindu senator who initiated this event.
hypertree, I was going with meaning 2. But I do like to stir the cauldron a little bit.
I’m not saying the pilgrims were angels…I had a feeling a comment like yours would come and I addressed it in the first draft of this post before erasing it, since it felt a little OT.
My poorly-elaborated point is, no matter what the reality of their actions were, the idea of escaping religious intolerance is what many associate with pilgrims/early America. At least that’s what I absorbed at whatever points in school when we touched on American history. Sometimes, the myth is more prevalent than the truth. The myth I was taught was that the pilgrims were religious outcasts seeking refuge in a new land, after being persecuted for how they worshipped. That’s why I’m so offended by this stupidity. All of us poorly-taught ex-students of American history know this shit is hypocritical.
Many of them felt that europe was getting too loosey goosey for them with too many liberal factions that they couldn’t bear to witness.
let’s be specific: in the puritan colonies of new england religious intolerance was normative. quakers were sometimes hanged. they wanted to create a calvinist city on the hill, and this is the last area of the USA which had established churches (finally abolished in the early 19th cent).
rhode island & pennsylvania were characterized by religious freedom in part for ideological reasons. rhode island was founded by roger williams who wanted to plant the soil of dissent. pennsylvania by a quaker gentlemen (william penn). the middle atlantic colonies like new york and new jersey were more commercial enterprise and religious freedom was a matter of pragmatism and principle (i believe that the largest colonial jewish settlements were in new york and providence, two cities which represented the victory of religious freedom in the interests of practical tolerance and principled tolerance). the southern colonies were dominated by a nominal anglican establishment, which remained onerous enough that baptists welcomed the efforts of madison and jefferson in revoking the privileges and rights of the established church. maryland was originally a haven for catholic nobility but quickly became a typical southern colony. so the original character of the united states as diverse and variegated. that is a strength insofar as different groups can draw upon different aspects in their creative a founding narrative to inspire them today.
i also like the fact that it was a non-hindu senator who initiated this event.
a point for conspiracy theorists: the non-hindu senator is a mormon. arguably not a monotheist (mormons believe in a multiplicity of gods).
When people talk about “founding” and founding fathers, don’t they mean post-independence anyway? It was post-independence after all that separation of church and state was put in place. One shouldn’t expect Puritans to do that 🙂
good point by lynn. i’m also glad to see he didn’t argue that such morning prayers violate the establishment clause, as the phrase “wll of seperation between church and state” appears nowhere in the constitution.
Rahul, that’s like what Wiccan? Our Judeo-christian heritage would be mad at you now.
People have spent 200 years splitting hairs and heads on the establishment clause, and what it implies. Don’t fall into this constructionist excuse.
Funny you mention it. Mr. Rajan, after his speech, circulated the biodata of his son to the senators asking if their friends and family knew any “homely” Indian girls.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savn.htm
Can non-Christians be saved? What about those who have never heard of Jesus, or the Gospel
thanks, razib. do you know anything about the approval of this sort of thing? i.e. i assume that even if sen. reid invited him, there had to have been some approval from other senators? does the fact that he is the majority leader make a difference?
Let\’s not forget Deuteronomy 13:6-10:
13:6 If thy brother … entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers …
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God
So in their minds, aren\’t they just being consistent — even mild, when you get down to it.
I could be wrong but I don’t believe a Hindu pundit has ever opened the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha session by offering a Hindu prayer. I don’t think the two Sabha’s even have an opening prayer, Hindu or otherwise. No value judgment. Just an observation.
Anna ~ I LOVE the way you wrote this post, you (as usual!) stated very articulately everything that was fuming inside of me when I read this article. 🙂
Sigh…not deuteronomy.
Are you sure he was a priest? He sounds too closely resonating the philosophy that a Hindu would give and which a muslim or a christian would find blasphemous. Plus while Hinduism is widely regarded as a monotheistic religion, I wish people realized that at least in Vedantic philosophy the belief is that there is but one Bhraman – the supreme entity and the various Gods are but manifestations just like we are. The difference between Hinduism and Abrahamic religions is more in terms of the path to salvation I zink.
Also no offense – I am just trying to understand/learn, but I do happen to live in the glorious Bible belt (am almost tempted to talk about the wonderful BBQ for lunch but thats for another time) and I have had discussions with some colleagues of mine who are of the firm opinion that the whole thing of ‘accepting Jesus into your heart’ is the only way for going to heaven and they are pretty sure thats what the Bible says. Thus if this priest is giving us another interpretation, is he really interpreting the Bible in a more general sense or is he giving his own philosophy (admirable though it is, his views of tolerance).
Erm. We really need to develop a consistent logical approach to issues of religious extremism around here. If mainstream Muslims should not be “humiliated” when some self-identified Islamist commits a terrorist act (a sentiment I think Mutineers would agree with), then why should mainstream Christians be “humiliated” when some Jesus-freak fundies decide to disrupt a Hindu priest’s prayer?
IMO, this was the act of fringe fundies — upsetting, sure; but not indicative of any broadly significant attitudes.
.Sigh…not deuteronomy.
well, which is why we quote the code of manu about untouchables every time we talk about hinduism.
The Vatican “abolished” limbo recently, and said that unbaptized infants could jump into EB-1 category and there were “theological and liturgical grounds for hope” that they would be in heaven. Since limbo vanished, and that were pre-Jesus christians used to hang out, the belief is that they are also most likely in heaven. As for conservative Protestants, they have no limbo, whereas Lutherans, episcopals etc. put everybody in a waiting room till the day of judgment.
Mormons have some saving ceremonies and can retroactively dispatch people to heaven. I remember there were many controversies about this, because they performed some such rituals for Jews who died during the holocaust.
Don’t know about scientologists.
I think this is a fringe incident and not to worry too much about. Atleast America is way better off than most countries on issues of religious freedom. It doesn’t figure in the state department’s countries of concern as far as I know But a technical question if church and state are well separated in America why are they having prayers in the senate ?
Deuteronomy is also specific about groin attacks:
25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:
25:12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
That settles it. The author was a man.