The Miami-Dade County Commission has reconsidered its ban on prayer before Commission meetings. The practice had been replaced by a less charged contemplative exercise known as a “moment of silence,” but some wanted back the more formal expression. They had proposed a diet of “non-denominational” prayers to open Commission meetings, a sort of better-than-nothing accommodation. As the issue was discussed, and debated, and fought, the standard effort on the parts of “prayer” advocates was to ask the equivalent of the question, why not? They challenged any seeming answer to this question, including cost, the risk of divisiveness, and other concerns.
But underlying, and most central to the struggle, is the other question: why? What is it “prayer” advocates want, and why do they want it? If we’re being honest, we will acknowledge that the United States was set up as a Christian country, and it largely still is. The “separation of church and state” theme never meant religion was not considered primary among people who live here. And anyone, or, in full disclosure, any of us, who want the “separation” clause to mean we should be free of having religion contaminate the air we breathe, are in some sense kidding ourselves. My wife used to send me to the store to buy something. I’d ask her which brand she wanted. “Any brand is fine,” she’d say. Quite often, I would return home with the item requested, she’d look at it, and say “well not that brand.” And worse yet if I had come home empty-handed, having concluded for myself that we didn't need the requested item after all. There was a bottom line, a fundamental reality, I somehow failed to get. So it is with religion, in this country no less than in many others, including the Muslim countries we now love to hate for their religious fanaticism and the battles they wage against those who don’t agree with them.
So in that sense, the answer to the “why” question is “because.” It’s just the way it is and always has been. But having said that, advocates and adherents don’t really articulate what their fundamental and emotional goal is. They seem to try to negotiate a compromise with non-believers, or people who for one reason or another don’t want “prayer,” or who think it has no place in public function, and they offer a round of “non-denominational” “prayers.” Any cleric is fine with them. These utterances do not, apparently, have to be about Jesus, or Mohammed. They presumably do have to be about “god.” And if they don’t, then what, exactly, is their point? But since the avowed source of the urge for reconsideration was the Christian Family Coalition, we probably have reason enough to suspect the “prayer” faction wants more than just a “non-denominational” nod.
Still, we’re left wondering “why,” and what these apparent religionists want. They don’t simply want a tribute to their source of religious inspiration. They can have that any time, and all the time. What they want is for the rest of us, all of us, especially those of us who don’t feel as they do, to pay tribute to them and their personal interests, and they want it on the record. It’s precisely the proselytizing, the intrusion, the coercion the “separation” clause did mean to confront, that they want to advance.
And what would satisfy? A “prayer” to open every meeting? Why is that enough? And who decided? What about a closing benediction? How about a little booster to introduce each agenda item? An “amen” after each speaker, perhaps?
The question is “why.” What, really, do those in favor of Commission meeting prayer, or school prayer, want? If it’s something missing, or unsettled, in their lives, why is that not a personal matter? What has this got to do with the rest of us, in our own lives, in our own work, and in our own public business? I have no quarrel at all with people who wouldn’t leave home, or start a meal, or go to sleep, without saying whatever prayer has meaning for them. If it helps, or they like it, or they need it, they should feel free to partake. If they sit through public meetings, like Commission meetings, and occasionally, or continually, think religious-based thoughts, good for them. If prayer works for anything, I assume it works if the prayer is personal, and silent. But why is this exercise something that, in their opinions, should contaminate secular public gatherings? That’s the question.
No comments:
Post a Comment