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.
given the pro-zed sentiment on this thread, rahul, i’m glad to see we’re all strict constructionists now.
.So in their minds, aren’t they just being consistent
no, selectively consistent. they aren’t following all 612 commandments. christians who go back to the hebrew bible have to be selective in how they quote things because they don’t follow most of the laws, and there is christian precedent in the views of st. paul which justifies their rejection of the law. jews who follow 612 commandments also have plenty of “work arounds” to get by in the modern world (please google how orthodox jews in israel manage to keep milking cows on saturday even though they’re not supposed too).
Tolerance, are you PG’s doppel-ganger?
49 Priya “But a technical question if church and state are well separated in America why are they having prayers in the senate ?”
My point exactly! See #42.
given the pro-zed sentiment on this thread, rahul, i’m glad to see we’re all strict constructionists now.
SFU dude. you’re such a pest sometimes.
Tolerance, are you PG’s doppelganger? Spot-the-PG is a fun game. I’m really enjoying it.
i think the rationale is that the chaplaincy is a service to the senators, who are generally religious, not to the state. the analogy would be with chaplains in the military.
Floridian and priya, it is because there is legal disagreement on what the establishment clause in the Constitution actually means. Does it mean no religion in the public sphere, or all religions in the public sphere?
also, “in god we trust” was added to the coinage in the 1950s during the anti-communist phase (it was godless remember). the court held that it was a patriotic statement or something. shrug i don’t get law.
@Rahul: thou shalt not taketh me by my secrets. Respect my authoritay!
Deuteronomy is in the Old Testament. Even if the OT was not explicitly repudiated, the New Testament is supposed to have superseded the Old, at least in my understanding. And if Christianity isn’t, at some level, an implicit, practical accomodation of the ‘pagan’ and ‘idolatrous’ traditions of the earliest converts – deifying, for example, not only the Christ figure but also Mary, and canonizing a whole bunch of others – then I don’t know what it is! Positing too much of a distance between ‘Christianity’ and ‘idolatry’ (note the quotes) is dishonest, both to the practice and the theology of Christianity (my opinion only!).
or all religions in the public sphere
of course that is not really possible. the operational accommodation between prominent religions and our government means that some religions will be favored over others. are we going to add friday as a day of rest to respect muslims? in practice many muslim masjids have added “sunday school” for religious instruction because most people in this country are christian and that is a practical day to instruct children. the fundamentalist christian protesters do have a good theological point even if it is no longer universal within christianity. islam sanctions animal sacrifice, how would jains feel if local politicians frequented these events in the spirit of communal harmony?
57 Razib “the analogy would be with chaplains in the military.”
But the military has always been equal opportunity in this regard. So are the Indian armed services, by the way. Chaplains in the military perform basic religious functions, the last rites being one of them. If they were used to launch wars, as in opening the senate session, I will have a problem.
This is not exactly the prayer-in-schools argument. What business do politicians have servicing their personal religious beliefs when they are on the public’s time, and the public includes a vast array of religious beliefs as well as atheists.
amen sister.
@ardy, you’ve lived too long in the bible belt(;) haven’t you heard it said, man shall not live by bread alone) . christians have been arguing about this from the 1st century on. feel free to make up your own mind after doing your research.
Positing too much of a distance between ‘Christianity’ and ‘idolatry’ (note the quotes) is dishonest, both to the practice and the theology of Christianity (my opinion only!).
i think a little psychological nuance is necessary here. christians will object when you point out that the baptismal ceremony has precedent in mithraism, that christmas is on the same day as the birthday of the solar deity (a common festival before christmas was established at that date) and that their theological formalisms tend to draw heavily from the neo-platonic system (to the point which many self-identified christians like isaac newton considered orthodox christianity utterly debased by pagan philosophy). but as non-christians one can look at these phenomenon and note the historical conditions under which the religion arose.
the same can be said for any religion. muslims will object when you point to the innovations in their faith vis-a-vis christian & judaism which seem to import pagan arab practices. pharisaeic jews will object when you point to the clear and obvious zoroastrian and hellenistic influences on their post-exilic religion. some hindus will deny that early indians who were within the indian tradition were beef eaters.
i think the best interpretation is that religion has equal standing to other systems of thought. to give it lower standing is to violate the free-excersise clause.
What business do politicians have servicing their personal religious beliefs when they are on the public’s time, and the public includes a vast array of religious beliefs as well as atheists.
i think in practice the line between personal religious beliefs and public policy is rather blurry. as an example, abolitionism and civil rights were promoted by both religious and irreligious folk were religious and secular reasons respectively. just because the former use divine justification for their politics doesn’t make their cause any less legit than secularists.
I have met nuns and individual Catholic priests who would agree that Hindus and good atheists find heaven, but they all admitted to being in respectful disagreement with the Pope. I don’t know enough about the Orthodox church,but in Russia I do know that the priests have been working with the far right to discourage “Hindu” groups like ISKON.
I think the various churches have had to soften their responses in light of flagging lay participation. Imagine how many more Anglicans would flee if their Hindu/Sikh spouses were denied heaven? They have had to accept priests with more universalist outlooks given the huge shortage in seminary enrollments
i think the best interpretation is that religion has equal standing to other systems of thought.
that’s moot, operationally religious thought has a higher standing. if you say you can’t do something because your religion says you can’t people will engage you. if you say you can’t do it because your have a philosophical objection people will look at you like you are nuts. within religion there is a difference between those which are ‘respectable’ and those which aren’t. neutrality is a verbal facade, not reality.
are you telling me to go to canada? I’d say “go to hell” but your demand would still be harsher.
“I have met nuns and individual Catholic priests who would agree that Hindus and good atheists find heaven, but they all admitted to being in respectful disagreement with the Pope.”
here is a summation of a document approved by the current pope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_Iesus
i think it is a bit muddled and complex. when it comes to religion, usually it’s like economics. “on the one hand…and on the other.” even fundamentalist christians are like that. ask them why jesus did not return with the passing of the generation and they’ll give you gibberish about how generation really means the jewish people (right….).
are you telling me to go to canada?
low blow & touche. i’d never ask anyone to freeze in that gods forsaken land.
I don’t think they were fools for exercising their right of ‘Free Speech’, unlike some other countries where they burn people in their cars with their 6 year old kids for their religious beliefs…remember Graham Staines? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Staines
unlike some other countries where they burn people in their cars with their 6 year old kids for their religious beliefs…remember Graham Staines?
right, they’re better than savages. clap clap you sir hold christians to a high standard indeed!
also, “in god we trust” was added to the coinage in the 1950s during the anti-communist phase (it was godless remember). the court held that it was a patriotic statement or something. shrug i don’t get law.
Ceremonial Deism.
Of course, one might point out the logical inconsistency of fighting tooth and nail to retain words in, e.g. the Pledge of Allegiance, that, by the definition of CD are devoid of religious significance. But I don’t make the rules 😉
@63: “What business do politicians have servicing their personal religious beliefs when they are on the public’s time, and the public includes a vast array of religious beliefs as well as atheists.”
I am presuming that prayers are said during the initiation of proceedings in the senate so that senators ‘don’t be evil’, by reminding them of their Gods. In mainstream America, atheism is somehow synonymous with a lack of moral fabric. One believes that since an Atheist doesn’t believe in God, he/she will have no reason to NOT do ‘bad’ things.
Consequently, it is going to be very hard to remove God from either ‘in god we trust’ or in these Senate meetings. Taking away God, for them, is like unleashing the devil in us all. The Atheist movement has a long, long road to travel to convince America that we are as ‘good’ as any other, and till then, these references to God will continue, and we will have to make do with round-robin ‘equal opportunity’ prayer sessions like the one that was interrupted today.
There’s a way to speak freely which doesn’t involve being an asshole.
HMF on July 12, 2007 06:11 PM · Direct link It’s horrible claim for them to make no doubt, but not appalling in the least. How do you think Jesusland gets its reputation? If you are convinced America is Jesus land, why did you or your folks run away from Hindu land to Jesusland? Is life somehow better in Jesusland?
you have to distinguish between society and government. one strand of first amendment interpretation, which i agree with, is that the 1st amendment is value-neutral, giving equal protection to all philosophies. the privileged position religion enjoys in society, does not necessarily mean it should be reflected in law. in fact, if it is, you have a good argument for an establishment clause violation.
Interesting comment, given that has been a lot of debate and dispute about the related topic of what keeps people loyal to a religion. Some argue that increasing ceremony and requirements on believers actually is better for a religion in terms of encouraging people to commit to it.
If you are convinced America is Jesus land, why did you or your folks run away from Hindu land to Jesusland? Is life somehow better in Jesusland?
well, as a point of fact most american hindus probably don’t live in jesusland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map
Warning. Not only is conflating “Hindu” with “India” as wrong as your misunderstanding of what or where “Jesusland is”, so is your tone.
the privileged position religion enjoys in society, does not necessarily mean it should be reflected in law.
doesn’t necessarily, but you know it is. christian scientists have passed laws which prevent them from being prosecuted from several states, catholic priests confessions are inviolate, and religious prisoners can get special meals (i have even heard that some prisoners convert to islam or hinduism because the food is better!).
re: jesusland. in one true god sociologist of religion rodney stark argues that in the states we would term ‘jesusland’ there is a difference from the rest of the united states insofar as the ‘civic religion’ is still explicitly christian. one of the issues that americans from the south and non-south have when talking is that this variant assumption cause clashes.
razib, I was just going to pull up the prisoners example for Manju’s point.
also, though i’m an atheist, as a pragmatic matter i can see why religion should be treated differently. as a matter of psychology people really give a lot more shit about being christian or muslim or hindu than they do about being pragmatists or positivists or existentialists. that’s just how the gods made the world and made people’s psychologies.
razib, you are much less of an atheist than an earlier guy who used to comment. His handle used to be razib the atheist.
What is the alleged normative superiority of monotheism anyway…. Originators of “Western Civ” were all poly–Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Vikings, etc.
I think ritual is important, everyone loves a parade. It’s dogma that turns many people off. I think people also want an emotional experience which is why Pentecostalism and charismatic Christianity are succeeding far beyond what you would expect if you were to compare them on a $/heathen soul basis with Catholicism etc.
Tolerance on July 12, 2007 06:37 PM · Direct link Let\’s not forget Deuteronomy 13:6-10:
While quoting Deutronomy might seem incredibly clever,Deutronomy does not apply to anyone unless you are with a band of jews fleeing the pharoah’s army in the middle of Sinai surrounded by cultures which practiced sexual orgies and baby sacrifices to demons. The old deteronomy is superceed by the New Testament which can be encapsulated by ‘love your God’, and ‘love thy neighbor’
i am razib “the atheist.” i dropped the handle when enough people didn’t assume i was muslim, but i will switch back to be clear.
I know you are, razib. God, do I need to put a smiley after every comment? GOD? 🙂
Let’s face it, Fundamentalist [fill in the blank… Christians, Muslims, Hindus, &c.] are all idiots, and rarely really respresent any of the values that their respective religions espouse. This gets tiresome.
All the more reason such disrespect infuriated me.
kusala, that’s true. But my god can beat up your god.
SM Intern on July 12, 2007 07:19 PM · Direct link Warning. Not only is conflating “Hindu” with “India” as wrong as your misunderstanding of what or where “Jesusland is”, so is your tone.
Well, I don’t think you are being diligent enough in censuring people making ridiculous statements calling America as ‘Jesusland’…I think you should be careful of statements which descibe India as Hinduland or America as Jesusland.
Or is it that Fundamentalists, by their definition, are fully religious, which is at odds with values of contemporary society? Perhaps “problems” of fundamentalism are nothing more than a conflict between religion and secular humanism. Moderates walk the line, fundamentalists and atheists don’t.
Razib?
34: Razib, as I understand it, Mormons are monotheists. Their notion of the Godhead is the same Trinity as that of say, the Catholics; so unless we’re now considering Catholics to be polytheists, I don’t think any conspiracy theory would hold water.
59: I believe the phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance at the same time and for the very same reason (the anti-Communist scare).
never heard of this. has scotus ruled on the constitutionality of such laws?
probably squeaks by the establishment clause because some secular forms of communication are privileged by the states (attorney-client, spousal in some states, physician patient, etc.) in other words, if the states/people are allowed to privileged communications, they should be allowed to privileged religious ones too, if they choose.
but as far as constitutional law goes, religion is equal. the states may choose to accommodate religion if they want, as long as such accommodation does not constitute an establishment of religion, but the constitution does not require them to do so and they may accommodate prisoners based on secular preferences as well. i understand that religion is being privileged here but the leeway given to states works both ways, there are examples of secular speech (say subsidized art) being privileged.
Their notion of the Godhead is the same Trinity as that of say, the Catholics
that’s false. mormons believe that the father, son and holy ghost are separate entities. they also believe that there maybe a multiplicity of gods and that righteous mormon males may become gods of their own universes.