Marty Griffin, Beatrice Longo, and Public Prayer.
I've already made it clear that I dislike talk radio host Marty Griffin. If you don't remember why, feel free to check out my previous post. I'm not looking to rehash those issues. Suffice it to say, I consider him a douchebag. But yet I still listen to him every day during my lunch hour. "Keep you friends close, and your enemies closer"- or so they say. I like to know what these jerks are saying. So today I got a real blood rush as the subject of public prayer was brought up. No... this didn't concern prayer in school. That subject is tired. The conflict this time has to do with a local community city council meeting that is introduced with a spoken prayer.
Apparently Beatrice Longo is unhappy with having to listen to the sort of religious recitation that passes for non-sectarian in McKeesport, PA. Longo is an attorney, and identifies herself as a Christian- but she objects to the form of prayer practiced in the name of her local government. Apparently it is always performed by a group of Christian ministers who invoke the name of their Lord Jesus Christ. Her point is that a non-denominational prayer would be acceptable, but she finds mention of a specific God unacceptable. She believes that such publicly delivered prayers should be applicable to people of all religious faiths. As she so succinctly puts it- "I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to understand."
Obviously Ms. Longo doesn't listen to Marty Griffin's show. His callers had a field day excoriating her today. And Griffin was equally (or more) vehement about the issue. He simply doesn't understand how anyone could have a problem with public prayer. One brave listener called to voice the opposing viewpoint, making the very reasonable assertion that no one is truly limited by the separation of church and state. He pointed out that anybody is free to make their own private prayer before or after council meetings. Instead of addressing the caller's logic, Griffin simply shouted him down. He kept shouting, "What are you scared of?", as if making an implicit condemnation of the caller's state of grace.
Subsequent members of "Marty's Army" weighed in with their comments, none of which truly addressed the constitutionality of the issue. Someone voiced his contention that if only all gatherings were preceded by prayer, then society's problems would be solved. Another suggested that anyone that takes offense should just come into the meetings late, so as to avoid having to hear the offending words. One caller attempted to tie the situation into the First Amendment by asserting that the constitutional framers included "freedom of religion" to enable citizens to practice their worship when and wherever they so choose. But most legal scholars and supreme court decisions reinforce the accomodationist interpretation of the "Establishment Clause"- no particular religion is to be given preference by a government body. It only takes a bit of historical research to come to the conclusion that the founding fathers didn't want a repeat of the conflict between the Church of England and its dissentors. Certainly they didn't intend for certain adherents to be "more equal" in their rights to worship.
To me this is simply a matter of common sense and pragmatics. I have yet to hear a compelling reason why prayer should be included in governmental meetings. What purpose could it possibly serve? The moral authority of any particular governmental body rests in the respective Constitution(s) of the locality in which it resides. That should be enough legitimacy. Why add an extra layer of assumed authority that by its very nature is deeply personal? What does it add or subtract from the proceedings? The anwer to that specific question is determined by individual faith alone. It is essentially un-American and anti-democratic to govern according to faith. Sure you could try to be all-inclusive by using words that are so general that they apply to all philosophies. But what's the point?
In McKeesport, the city council meetings already get kicked off with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. Isn't the Pledge sufficient for setting a tone of adherence to shared values? We've already got the perfectly unnecessary mention of God in that oath. Must we construct an estimation of what some subjectively view as universally representative? I'm sure that within the confines of McKeesport there are atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, satanists, Buddhists, etc. Don't they deserve the right to feel equal under the law? The moment of silence is already going over the line. However, I'm willing to make that concession for the sake of the fundamentalists among us. But it's a slippery slope. I certainly don't want to empower those in society that would like to see Biblical law instituted across the nation. Make no mistake- there are many Americans that would like to see that happen.
Apparently Beatrice Longo is unhappy with having to listen to the sort of religious recitation that passes for non-sectarian in McKeesport, PA. Longo is an attorney, and identifies herself as a Christian- but she objects to the form of prayer practiced in the name of her local government. Apparently it is always performed by a group of Christian ministers who invoke the name of their Lord Jesus Christ. Her point is that a non-denominational prayer would be acceptable, but she finds mention of a specific God unacceptable. She believes that such publicly delivered prayers should be applicable to people of all religious faiths. As she so succinctly puts it- "I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to understand."
Obviously Ms. Longo doesn't listen to Marty Griffin's show. His callers had a field day excoriating her today. And Griffin was equally (or more) vehement about the issue. He simply doesn't understand how anyone could have a problem with public prayer. One brave listener called to voice the opposing viewpoint, making the very reasonable assertion that no one is truly limited by the separation of church and state. He pointed out that anybody is free to make their own private prayer before or after council meetings. Instead of addressing the caller's logic, Griffin simply shouted him down. He kept shouting, "What are you scared of?", as if making an implicit condemnation of the caller's state of grace.
Subsequent members of "Marty's Army" weighed in with their comments, none of which truly addressed the constitutionality of the issue. Someone voiced his contention that if only all gatherings were preceded by prayer, then society's problems would be solved. Another suggested that anyone that takes offense should just come into the meetings late, so as to avoid having to hear the offending words. One caller attempted to tie the situation into the First Amendment by asserting that the constitutional framers included "freedom of religion" to enable citizens to practice their worship when and wherever they so choose. But most legal scholars and supreme court decisions reinforce the accomodationist interpretation of the "Establishment Clause"- no particular religion is to be given preference by a government body. It only takes a bit of historical research to come to the conclusion that the founding fathers didn't want a repeat of the conflict between the Church of England and its dissentors. Certainly they didn't intend for certain adherents to be "more equal" in their rights to worship.
To me this is simply a matter of common sense and pragmatics. I have yet to hear a compelling reason why prayer should be included in governmental meetings. What purpose could it possibly serve? The moral authority of any particular governmental body rests in the respective Constitution(s) of the locality in which it resides. That should be enough legitimacy. Why add an extra layer of assumed authority that by its very nature is deeply personal? What does it add or subtract from the proceedings? The anwer to that specific question is determined by individual faith alone. It is essentially un-American and anti-democratic to govern according to faith. Sure you could try to be all-inclusive by using words that are so general that they apply to all philosophies. But what's the point?
In McKeesport, the city council meetings already get kicked off with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. Isn't the Pledge sufficient for setting a tone of adherence to shared values? We've already got the perfectly unnecessary mention of God in that oath. Must we construct an estimation of what some subjectively view as universally representative? I'm sure that within the confines of McKeesport there are atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, satanists, Buddhists, etc. Don't they deserve the right to feel equal under the law? The moment of silence is already going over the line. However, I'm willing to make that concession for the sake of the fundamentalists among us. But it's a slippery slope. I certainly don't want to empower those in society that would like to see Biblical law instituted across the nation. Make no mistake- there are many Americans that would like to see that happen.
posted by Merge Divide at 4:11 PM
2 Comments:
Only recently, in the last five years or so, have the use of words "Jesus Christ" in an invocation before a public body or public gathering caused me to think about the effect on "others". To some degree, I think any reference to God in such settings is inappropriate, but to a lesser degree. Whether one is a (true) believer or not, I think there should be more sensitivity to those who either believe in another God, don't view Christ as the same as God, or don't believe in God at all. Sometimes I wonder if the speaker is using the words to make a point that doesn't belong in the setting used, to instill their beliefs on others (and the bigger picture of certain segments of our society imposing our will on the rest of society, i.e.; the world). I can't say I'd call it offensive so much as inappropriate, but yet I do notice it. It's just one of those topics that is difficult to broach with the people I'm normally talking with. Once again, thanks for the Internet, where one is free to speak their thoughts.
Yeah, my main objection is that it is simply inappropriate for the context and/or purpose. It's become a tool for political leverage.
Post a Comment
<< Home