Guest post by Mark Silk, who is filling in for Steven Waldman.
Dan Gilgoff, who used to run the God-o-Meter hereabouts and now blogs at God and Country for U.S. News, reported last month that President Obama, in a departure from past presidential practice, was opening his town hall-type meetings around the country with, as Dan puts it, “White-House-commissioned and vetted prayers.” That is to say, the White House invites particular clergy to give the invocation, and then reviews the proposed invocations to make sure that they are sufficiently inclusive. Praying in the name of Jesus, as Rick Warren did in his inaugural invocation, is apparently a no-no. On the president’s current visit to California, this invocation arrangement applies.
The practice has drawn some criticism, less for the having of prayers than for the vetting of them. That, it seems to me, gets it backward.
In this day and age, when (as the president himself noted in his inaugural address) we recognize the substantial presence of Americans “of no faith,” invoking God at a government event cannot be fully inclusive. However, such invocation is a customary way of beginning public meetings, and, according to the Supreme Court’s decision 1983 decision in Marsh v. Chambers, is constitutional as well. The question is, why shouldn’t the government body arranging the prayer be able to make sure that it is sufficiently inclusive?
It impinges on no clergy’s religious freedom to be asked to pray inclusively or not at all. If an invitee feels she has to pray in Jesus’ name, she can simply decline the invitation. You’re free not to like exercises in what former Yale Law School dean Eugene Rostow termed “ceremonial deism,” but sacralizing a public event as we often do in America does not mean having to let people witness for whatever specific faith they wish. Obama is making a push for the old-time civil religion. It will be interesting to see how willing his evangelical friends are to go along.
|
Previous Posts
Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety.
But mostly deep, deep gratitude.
How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest money to make it a reality? How many people get to create
posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 |
read full post
»
"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE
FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, to lead an agency-wide initiative to assess the state o
posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 |
read full post
»
My Big News
Dear Readers,
This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999.
In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of the media for the Federal Communications Commission, the
posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 |
read full post
»
"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009
BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE
New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven Waldman, co-founder, president and editor-in-chief, will re
posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 |
read full post
»
Secularizing the Cross (Christian Activists: Be Careful What You Wish For)
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week, in Buono v. Salazar, about whether a white 6 1/2 foot cross can be displayed in a national park as a tribute to World War I soldiers. Though it's depicted as a classic clash of the secular and the religious, it actually illustrates why Christian act
posted 1:15:51pm Oct. 08, 2009 |
read full post
»
|
posted March 19, 2009 at 7:53 pm
I like the old time civil religon, be there done that, and it was good to stand together without side-looks and whining.
posted March 20, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I agree that the practice of praying before public meetings should be dropped. This is another example of this administration wanting to have it both ways.
posted March 21, 2009 at 11:31 am
Freedom of speech as an individual, freedom of religion, but when it comes to public we have to be careful not to offend anyone in what we say or do because there are thin lines/boundries. Unfortunetly there are ppl that do not beleive in God or Jesus Christ and we are here to keep the peace. A suggestion would be to continue to pray in secret before the address/invocation etc. with whoever would like to take part the president definetly has my prayers and many others as well. The word will get accross on way or another.
posted March 21, 2009 at 11:42 am
In addition, this is kind of like the issue of praying in school. PPL of different beliefs rarely accept the beliefs of others. It wouldnt be a bad idea to have a moment of silence before the address and after the prayers that you say before entering in sight of the television. I feel bad that this just cant happen because I would love to see that but there must be compromise.
posted March 21, 2009 at 11:49 am
In addition to compromise, maybe a simple thing like a note of silence before an address after praying together in secret would be something that could encourage energizing and positive uplift from all other christians accross America, Peace.