AmericanPapist Comments
Seems like a pretty innocuous prayer to me. My best friend is Hindu, and he's told me of some rather humiliating things he and his family have experienced. To protest a prayer delivered by any religious leader is quite sad. Our nation's great because it's diverse--anyone and everyone is welcome here. Let's embrace that fact.
I will check on this LifeSiteNews story, but in view of the fact that the U.S. Senate has had ALL 62 Senate Chaplains (since 1789) as Christians (with only one Roman Catholic, in the 1800s) and never a non-Christian appointed, it seems a bit weird to complain about a prejudice against Christians!
I do find that the prayer choice of a Hindu chaplain and a very Hindu-ish prayer is an inconsistent way to begin a session of the U.S. Senate. However, I am not so sure that the reason given here, or in many other such situations, is valid. It is often said that such prayers are an affront to the intention of the U.S. Founding Fathers, founding a Christian State. It is true that they founded "one nation under God," but did they ever say one nation under Christ? Who was the God of the Founding Fathers? For that matter, who was the Jesus of the Christian Founding Fathers? Shall we look to Jefferson's Bible, purged of the miracles (including the Resurrection, without which our faith is vain and we are the most to be pitied) for illumination?
The fact is that even if a few of the Fathers of our nation were strong Christians, it is not true of all of them, nor is rulership under Christ an explicit part of the founding of our nation. In human positive law, what is not explicit, is not.
This is not to say that I find the prayer appropriate. But I have other reasons. The fact is, God also has His rights, and states must recognize that. In our age of outcry over personal rights, we seem to forget the divine persons. Though it sounds weird to our secularized ears, it's simply part of the order of things. It is the bane of our times that we don't perceive the order already in things but think we make it ourselves. But don't listen to me, listen to Garrigou-Lagrange:
"Jesus…has the right to require not only that society should not be ruled by the atheistic principles of secularism, destructive of family and country alike, but also that it should be governed according to the principles of Christian law. He has the right to demand not only that national leaders should refrain from denying divine authority, the basis of their own, but also that they should recognize it publicly, and submit to it themselves. Christ Jesus, the incarnation of truth, goodness, and justice, has a right to be taught in schools, to be carried to the sick in hospitals, to be represented in courts of justice when oaths are taken. He has a right to public worship in our cities, and the heads of nations will be judged if they have violated the imprescriptible law of Christ the King, or if they have tried to stay neutral toward him…Secularism denies God’s rights over human society and commits the crime of 'lése divinité,' of high treason against the Author of society, the greatest evil of the modern world."
Isn't the God of this nation pretty much undefined? And in establishing the principle of freedom of religion did the founding fathers intend it to be directed only too monotheists? Certainly they were not unaware of the fact that many non-monotheists can and do speak of "god" in the singular.
I just offer this as an aside. I don't mean to detract from the main course of this thread.
I guess it's not as surprising that Reid would think so, however, because of the functional polytheism of Mormonism (?).
The "functional polytheism" of Mormonism doesn't really come into play, because it doesn't allow for any other deities besides "Heavenly Father" to be worshipped by us on this earth. The Hindu gods are just as false from a Mormon perspective as they are from a Catholic perspective.
Thanks, Jonah, I don't consider that off-topic at all. I left the question mark because while I have heard other folks accuse Mormonism of being "functionally polytheistic", I didn't want to directly claim as much without some research. Also, Zed is from northorn utah as well, so it's likely that him and Reid have interacted in the past.
I think this is shameful conduct. It shows a horrible lack of Christian charity and hospitality, not to mention compassion and patience for those who are different from us.
There is a proper place and time for inter-faith debate re: what is true and what is false. The Senate Floor is not the place since the Senate is the Senate of all the people and we have at least several millions of Hindus living in this country.
Further, I do not doubt for a moment that God hears the sincere prayers of all decent people no matter their system of belief. He loves them anyway. He is a good Father who wants to give his creatures good things. I can't imagine him refusing them good things because just they believe the wrong thing.
True, they do not know the fullness of relationship with God as non-Christians, but they are not cut off from him. I can't imagine the God who died for us turning a deaf ear to anyone.
I think I garbled the object of my ire in the above post. Let me clarify. I mean that the protestors acted shamefully. That they are wrong for doing "battle" with the beliefs of a Hindu in the Senate instead of in a more proper and respectful forum. The Senate is the Senate of American Hindus as much as any other faith and rightly so.
BTW, it was a lovely and very general prayer. If one isnt nit-picky, I dont see much of anything to object to in its content.
Bless his heart. Such rudeness and bigotry towards him had to hurt.
"A Christian knows when it is time to speak of God and when it is better to say nothing and to let love alone speak. He knows that God is love (cf. 1 Jn 4:8 ) and that God's presence is felt at the very time when the only thing we do is to love." --Deus Caritas Est, 31c
I'm guessing that none of the disruptors were Catholic.
I wonder what the apostle Paul would have done. Or Ignatius. Or Augustine.
Considering the mess religious expression is in right now, the entire snarl up of Athiest-Christian-Jewish-Muslim-Pagan, maybe a Hindu made sense, ESP if no one in Congress is Hindi. At least no one is being singled out.
I was raised Uniterian, we're used to such things.
American Papist,
I wonder what the apostle Paul would have done. Or Ignatius. Or Augustine.
St Paul once climbed a hill dedicated to Ares, the Greek god of war and began a sermon with a quote from an inscription he saw on a pagan altar:
Paul stood in the middle of the Areopagus, and said, “You men of Athens, I perceive that you are very religious in all things. 17:23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I announce to you. 17:24 The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands, 17:25 neither is he served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things. 17:26 He made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the boundaries of their dwellings, 17:27 that they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 17:28 ‘For in him we live, and move, and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’ 17:29 Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, or silver, or stone, engraved by art and design of man. 17:30 The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent, 17:31 because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained; of which he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead.” (Act 17:22-31)
I doubt St Paul would have shouted the man down. I suspect he would have sought a conversation with him after the event. St Ignatius seems to have been much more concerned with aberrant Christian theology than paganism, so it's hard for me to consider what his response might have been. I suspect, in light of the early chapters of THE CONFESSIONS, that Augustine's approach would have been similar to what I assume would be Paul's.
I wonder what the apostle Paul would have done. Or Ignatius. Or Augustine.
Why so coy? What do YOU think they would have done?
Reveal your hand.
Or, what would John Paul the Great have done?
I'm sure he would have been both courteous while the guest was speaking and kind to him in any later discourse.
The term to be used for Mormons is henotheism. Henotheism allows for a multiplicity of gods, but permits the worship of only one.
Dim Bulb, it's worth mentioning that Paul's sermon was not too effective...
Kathy,
It's also worth noting that the sermons failure was do to the hearers, not the speaker or his message.
The reason why the idea of having a Hindu pray at the Senate is offensive is because the very gesture presupposes a frivilous attitude towards faith. Harry Reid is obviously trying trying to make a point regarding the validity of any religion by feigning to promote every religion.
In his The Everlasting Man, GK Chesterton makes quick work of the hidden agenda of "comparative religion".
"Comparative religion is very comparative indeed. ... When we come to look at it closely we find it comparing things that are really quite incomparable ... In truth the Church is too unique to prove herself unique. For the most popular and easy proof is by parallel; and here there is no parallel. It is not easy, therefore to expose the fallacy by which a false classification is created to swamp a unique thing, when it really is a unique thing."
The important fact to keep in mind here is that there are no Hindus in the Senate. It would help to substitute a natural devotion to for a supernatural one.
Imagine everyone in the Senate is a fan of Joss Whedon. They love Joss' work like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Serenity and they love his characters. They are fans of all the actors and actresses he employs.
Now imagine that instead of getting Sarah Michelle Gellar, Alison Hannigan, James Marsten, Nathon Fillion, or Summer Glau; they instead had Shannon Doherty (from the WB's Charmed) come over.
Well, you can imagine the ruckus this would cause.
We are not fans of any old crap that could remotely resemble what we really love. Devotion does not work that way.
For the sake of promoting his relativistic views, Harry Reid feigns a tolerant attitude towards all religion but is in fact attacking all devotion.
Parading a Hindu priest around the Senate like some sort of circus sideshow of religion is demeaning to both Christians and Hindus.
No Hindu government would start a day of work with a Catholic priest's prayer or summon a Shintoist to bless a construction project.
Shame on that Hindu priest for allowing himself to be exhibitted that way.
3:33: Gimme a break. You imply that the American governmen is a christian government. Wrong. Shame on you for posting,
I guess there are really two different issues here:
1. Should a Hindu be invited to offer the opening prayer of one of the Houses of Congress, and
2. If a Hindu is invited, should he be subjected heckling because of his religion?
The answer to question one may be debatable.
The answer to question two, in my opinion, is not.
Verbal assaults upon this person -- an invited guest -- are indefensible.
In the dining hall where I attended college, the words inscribed over the front door were "hospice venit, Christus venit" [hope I got that right!], which I understood to mean that when a guest comes, Christ comes.
One can question whether the invitation should have been extended; one simply cannot justify unkind treatment of the invited person.
This country's gone to hell in a handbasket. Period.
Any fool who knows anything about 18th century verbiage knows that the word "religion" as used in political speech was simply a euphemism for "denomination." This country was indeed founded as a Christian, though Protestant, nation. The writings of the Founding Fathers over and over confirm it. States maintained established churches well into the 19th century. The Capitol contained an Episcopal parish that worshiped weekly on the premises until the 20th century. That infidel Thomas Jefferson, who himself coined the false phrase "separation of church and state, "appropriated public funds for the purchase and public distribution of New Testaments.
In a worthier age Harry Reid would've been tarred and feathered and dumped in the Potomac.
As a Catholic, I have to say that I find it absurd for any objection to be raised against this Hindu prayer. As for those who think it "relativistic," what about the relativism in promiscuously having Christian ministers of any and all denomination (or none) give the invocation? It is a supreme insult to the Catholic Church to insolently equate Her to the common rabble of schismatics and heretics.
Quite simply, unless the Catholic Church is to be specifically established, I see no benefit in our government endorsing a vague ill-defined "Christianity." That seems far more the government making use of religion than the government recognizing the Sovereign Lord from whom their authority comes.
Additionally, considering that paganism is objectively a lesser sin than schism and heresy (for precisely the same reason fornication is a lesser sin than adultery), the idolatry of the Hindus, considered in itself, is less of an insult to God than the rebellious assemblies of Protestants. So it is entirely possible that that Hindu's prayer was the most fruitful ever to arise from the undistinguished halls of our nation's government.
@Kevin: I've read a lot of G-L, but never came across that one. Which of his works is it in?
Belloc,
And any person knows that in the "verbiage" of the 18th century the word person, in its full meaning meant "white man." This country was founded on the principle that "all men are created equal," and that, "they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable right," including, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In spite of this fact, how long did it take for those words to become a reality?
You are right in asserting that "states maintained established churches well into the 19th century," but are you aware that this was often done in hostility to Catholics? Many states, in order to keep Catholics out of politics, composed oaths of office which specifically denigrated the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary, and the Papacy. As late as the early 1980's prisoners in Florida who were Catholic (and others, also) were being forbidden reading material related to their faith. Would this be OK with you as long as catholics were not forbidden?
It is an affront to our culture!
The Senate isn't a church and the senators are not often religious, i.e. taking their Christian faith seriously and trying to live it. But it is an embodiment of our culture and Hindu culture and religion is foreign and not native. We have too much of a tendency to promote the bad aspects of our culture-commercialism and bad music, but then we denigrate those elements of our culture which are good such as the Christian basis. This is an example of that. Sure, we have freedom of religion, but Hindu religion is not reflected in any of our cultural attitudes and beliefs and is not a part of popular American culture. So it is an affront to our American traditions to have a Hindu lead the prayer.
Other countries have traditions, why can't we?
To "No One Important:"
The quote is from the "The Love of God and the Cross of Jesus," I believe from the second volume. It's in the Chapter on Christ the King. I'm sorry, but I no longer have access to the book, and only had the exact quote written down.
Commenting by HaloScan
