Invocations at Meetings Reflect Nation’s Tolerance

The U.S. Congress and Senate have, for more than two centuries, been inspired by a worthwhile succession of ministers, priests and rabbis such as Chaplain Peter Marshall, Bishop Fulton Sheen and Rabbi Edgar Magnin. Most of our state legislatures enjoy and benefit from a diversity of invocations.

In this modern day and age, it is not inimical to our cherished Constitution and Bill of Rights for ordained representatives of lawfully established religions to briefly address a prayerful invocation at governmental meetings, provided that the cleric does not attempt to “convert” the listeners upon that occasion!

After all, we are not so irresolute in the tenets of our respective faiths--or in our lack of faith--as to become instantly persuaded by reason of a passing reference to “Hail Mary, full of grace,” “In Jesus’ Name,” “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” or whatever.

Such openness neither advances nor inhibits religion. However, it accomplishes much: It reflects our goodwill, tolerance and mutual respect for one another, even though we may differ.

As for those desolate souls who contemptuously characterize the deeply held religious convictions of others as “myth,” “superstition” and/or “trivial displays of God-begging” (“Mayor’s Note on Prayers Inspires Varied Reaction,” March 11), I say pity them. They suffer poverty of the spirit, and they reveal their intolerance!

When Tustin’s city attorney, Jim Rourke, advised the mayor of recent Supreme Court rulings concerning invocations, and Tustin’s mayor, Dick Edgar, subsequently addressed various clergy regarding proselytizing while giving an invocation, those city officials were merely doing their jobs in a responsible manner.

Now, certain people want to crucify them both by clamoring for the mayor’s resignation and demanding that the city attorney be fired! That’s like killing the messenger because he brought bad news (from the highest court in the land)!

NORMAN E. BOWLES

North Tustin