This ignorant brouhaha over the opening of the Senate by a Hindu prayer is worth discussing only because it shows how many Americans know nothing about their Constitution and its separation of church and state.
Nothing in the Constitution provides for government chaplains or ceremonial prayers of any kind. These are merely extra-constitutional customs, and the idea that anyone would object to any sort of prayer (except, perhaps, a plea to Satan) merely shows what a bad idea it is to have introduced Christian prayers into government proceedings in the first place.
As the Hindu Rajan Zed gave his opening remarks, two protesters interrupted, asking for Jesus to forgive the "abomination" of failing to pray to the "one true God." Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, put it succinctly:
"This shows the intolerance of many Religious Right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it's clear they mean only their religion."
Like Lynn, I think the Senate should dispense with chaplains and prayers altogether. But if they are going to have opening prayers (and they are), then the celebrants should reflect the religious diversity of the American people.
And by the way, the principle of "One Nation Under God" is not enshrined in our Constitution, which does not mention God at all.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, the phrase "under God" was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance (which also has nothing to do with the Constitution) in 1954. At the height of the Cold War, the purpose of having schoolchildren parrot the words "under God" was to distinguish America from the godless Soviets.
The Hindu prayer flap follows the equally ignorant debate in January over whether Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to Congress, should be allowed to take his oath of
office on the Koran rather than the Bible. Guess what? Swearing on the Bible is also only a custom. The Constitution explicitly states that federal officeholders may "swear or affirm" their allegiance to the United States. This provision allowed for nonbelievers and members of religious denominations who objected to all oaths on sacred books.
Ellison neatly skirted the issue by taking his oath on a copy of the Koran, supplied by the National Archives and believed to have been owned by Thomas Jefferson. He could, however, have chosen to take his oath on a rock, a toad, or a large Hershey bar--and he would still be a member of Congress.
The war in Iraq rages on. The Bushies are trying to veto any plan to extend more health insurance coverage to poor children. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the influence of militant Islamists grows. People are still dying and starving in Darfur. The U.S. housing market is tanking. The Supreme Court, since the addition of two far-right judicial conservatives (oh, excuse me, "originalists") is trying to turn back the clock to some indeterminate point in American history. Where it stops, nobody knows.
That a Hindu prayer in the Senate is worth a story, much less a front-page story, attests only to our level of national stupidity at this grave juncture in American and world history.
(Join Susan Jacoby's discussion group, the Secularist's Corner, at On Faith.)
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook


