I get very uncomfortable when religious faith, generally “Christian,” gets mixed in with government processes or events. It appears to me that requests for prayer at public civic ceremonies or legislative sessions are either something of a superstitious ritual or an attempt to co-opt the faith, reassuring those with political position and influence that God is a cooperative or even manageable entity.
In some ways, it seems as if such prayer really has no meaning, except to appease …someone. I’m not sure whom. By the time the prayer is parsed and neutered so as not to offend anyone, it doesn’t fully reflect the convictions of the person praying. It’s almost an apology, really. My question is, “What’s the point?”
I turned down a request to offer such a prayer at a building dedication sponsored by the city government, and I was especially glad I did so when I saw that, at the event, the prayer was combined with the Pledge of Allegiance. Someone made sure all the bases were covered, I guess.
The City Council of Akron, Ohio recently dropped its long-standing practice of opening its business sessions with the Lord’s Prayer. An advocacy group specializing in the separation of church and state threatened legal action. Rather than defend their practice, and, in the process, define its meaning, the council rolled over.
The president of the council made a telling comment. He said the tradition “most likely” was begun to assure the local citizens that outside guidance was sought by the city leaders. Most likely. He wasn’t sure why they recited the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of their meetings. It apparently really didn’t mean anything, and it certainly was not worth fighting for.
Doesn’t one of the Ten Commandments say something about taking the Lord’s name in vain?
Updated: Thursday, 25 October 2007 4:50 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
