Church, state and deities
Contemporary courts and councils consistently prohibit specificity in
prayers at government meetings. Those of us offering invocations at
Newport Beach City Council meetings receive three pages in advance
detailing decisions made by courts and councils and telling us what
we can and cannot pray. I respect those who decline to offer public
prayers given these restrictions, although I have chosen to continue
to give such invocations.
On July 13, during Major League Baseball’s All-Star Game, I
offered this invocation at the City Council meeting: “Wondrous God,
almighty maker of all that is, earth and sky and All-Stars and
gracious giver of all we have, send to those who lead in the mutual
regard, which forms our civic life the spirit of peace, justice,
charity, humor and wisdom that we may find with one another the
fulfillment of our common humanity; for you are gracious, great lover
of souls, and to you we give glory and honor, now and forever.” (When
offering the same prayer during the 2002 World Series, after “maker
of all that is,” I added “sky and sea and earth, plants and animals,
mortals and Angels ...”)
These words are adapted from great prayers in my
Christian/Anglican (Episcopal) heritage, but they meet the
restrictions I was sent before I was to give these invocations.
Several years ago, before the current restrictions imposed by
courts and councils, I and senior pastors of neighboring churches
sent a letter to our City Council members saying that we were
uncomfortable being the designated pray-ers at their meetings,
suggesting that members of the council and/or their staffs offer
their prayers. The public has a right to know what the religious
beliefs of our representatives and officials are. I know that one
leader on our City Council is a faithful Episcopalian and suspect
that his words of prayer would be much like mine above. I would be
eager to learn how our other council members pray and who their God
(or god) is. I believe such diversity enriches us. Who others
perceive God to be enlightens me.
This is why I think religious leaders of many faiths should be
invited to lead public prayers and allowed to refer to the specifics
of their beliefs.
I believe there is one God who some call “Yahweh” and others call
“Allah” and still others call “Father” or “Mother.” And I believe
that Jesus is the human life of our one God.
THE VERY REV’D CANON
PETER D. HAYNES
St. Michael & All Angels
Episcopal Church
Corona del Mar
I think it’s reasonable that only “generic prayers” be permitted
at government meetings, given that the purpose is to invite all
members to participate in both blessing their mutual endeavors and
creating a time of reflection. Even this may not be enough because
agnostics and atheists also serve in local, state and federal
government but may be hesitant to make prayer an issue.
As a Zen Buddhist, I feel very comfortable with a liturgy
consisting of chanting the Heart Sutra followed by a silent period of
meditation, but I don’t feel it would be right to insist that those
with different feelings either participate in, or witness, such a
liturgy. The purpose of government meetings is not to make people
feel uncomfortable or to evangelize but to bring people together so
the group can better function in accomplishing its task, namely that
of governing.
It’s true that the majority of Americans at this time are
Christian. This doesn’t mean that this majority should take advantage
of a captive audience to underscore their faith. There is much that
is needed from government. What is not needed is promoting prayers,
whether they be to Jesus or Buddha or Allah or the Sun God. I believe
the Supreme Court ruling makes a good compromise in not outlawing
prayer but insisting on a generic prayer that is more widely
acceptable.
The continuing debate on the meaning of the separation of church
and state is central to defining the path of our society. It’s a
slippery slope from religious advocacy, to intimidation, to
persecution. We should protect our government spaces so that all
those who gather there can best do their jobs.
REV. CAROL AGUILAR
Zen Center of Orange County
Costa Mesa
At the inauguration of President Bush, the Rev. Franklin Graham
offered an eloquent invocation praying for national reconciliation
and the healing of political wounds. He quoted Lincoln, revered by
all Americans, praying that calmness, wisdom, humility and
encouragement be bestowed on the new president, and he envisioned a
new dawn for our country. As he prayed, I nodded in fervent assent.
Then, in conclusion, he affirmed that all of the above was sent
heavenward in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. At
that moment, the prayer recited at the ceremony inaugurating the
president of all Americans was transformed into one that not all
citizens could utter. Graham followed his father’s model at President
Clinton’s inauguration and continued a tradition of Christian prayer
at such occasions dating back to Roosevelt’s Second Inaugural.
I do not believe that a high level of specificity is appropriate
while rendering prayers in the public square. Whether on a national
platform or in the chambers of a local council, a cleric should be
constrained by the awareness that he is not speaking within his own
faith community. In a communal setting, his charge is to uphold and
respect the religious heritage of the community; address the common
interests, concerns and values of that community; and express the
generalized faith of that community. He is to respect diversity,
strive for inclusion rather than exclusion and accept the fact that
the forum presented him is for the purpose of solemnizing, not
proselytizing.
The city council is not a Christian body or a body representing
any faith, whatsoever. Its meetings are nondenominational gatherings
in which civic responsibilities are discharged. It should not allow
advocacy of one faith as more valid than others. The council should
not assume its constituency shares the same beliefs, or offer a
platform for advancing a sectarian and religious agenda to the
exclusion and implicit disparagement of others. It should rather
adopt a strict neutrality concerning religious faiths. The invocation
should not go beyond what has been termed “American civil religion.”
It rightly should be a time of reflection, invoking a Higher
Power, asking for wisdom, offering strength, calling for spiritual
assistance as the council attends to its deliberations on behalf of
all residents of the community.
All would agree that the President of the United States, as well
as the mayor of any city, town or village, should be guided by high
morals. One might well hope that every elected official could harness
the power of his faith for the public good. But though a president
rests his hand on a Bible, though he beseeches God’s help, his
entering into office does not depend on his swearing fealty to the
God of scripture. The only requirement is that he will, to the best
of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. So it
is for our elected representatives at all levels of government. To
refer to God when gathering for the people’s business has been
justified as “ceremonial deism.” To refer to the God of a specific
faith-tradition and, thereby, to marginalize segments of the
population, is just plain un-civic.
RABBI MARK MILLER
Temple Bat Yam
Newport Beach
The key is between what is “allowed” and what is “required.”
To eliminate the prayer of a people seeking God’s wisdom in
leadership from the American political process would be the most
un-American idea I have ever heard of.
To require, however, that the prayer be offered in a particular or
even a generic name would be just as un-American and wrong. The
balance would be to allow those who wish to pray, to come and pray in
the form that they are accustomed to.
To require someone to pray generically is to force them to
compromise their religious beliefs. Very few people worship a generic
god, and they should not be required to make their faith generic to
make it socially acceptable. I have to admit, hearing a cultist pray
makes me uncomfortable. We live in America, however, and from our
beginning, we have created a covenant to “agree to disagree” in
matters of faith.
A subtle turn has happened in America in recent years. Tolerance
used to mean that I can respect the dignity of another faith system
and yet disagree with its claims to truth. Tolerance used to mean
“agreeing to disagree.” Today, tolerance means I have to agree that
you are right, even though what you believe is in violation of my
core beliefs. We can disagree in the substance of truth, but not in
its validity. All truth is relative. The post-modern shift to
relative truth from absolute truth means we can all hold separate
truths as long as we accept all truths at equal validity. To be
intolerant is to reject the validity of someone else’s truth.
In this environment, Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive way to the
Father, forces Christians to choose between being politically correct
and believing what Jesus claimed. To force me to be generic in my
prayer would violate this claim of Jesus. I might as well quit my
job. Early Christians in the ancient Roman Empire did not accept the
plurality of gods that was being forced on them and were called
atheists for their stand.
I am grown up and American enough to be able to hear and respect
the sectarian prayers of my colleagues in this column or in any
public context. I honor their devotion and piety. I trust that as a
Christian, I would be allowed that same respect by allowing me to
pray specifically to the God I know and in his name. Generic gods
don’t exist, so generic prayers become empty pious words ... Why
waste the time?
SENIOR ASSOCIATE PASTOR
RIC OLSEN
Harbor Trinity
Costa Mesa
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.