Censoring Prayer

Early this year, pastors throughout the state were sent guidelines for public prayer (in the state senate). Here is my letter of response. (Coincidentally, I used to get regular letters from the state senator. I cannot recall any since my response. What does this mean?)

Friday, January 23, 2004

State Senator Ulysses Currie
3 West Miller Senate Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Senator Currie,

First order of business, please note that Rev. Pollard has not been at Holy Spirit Church for many years and I have been pastor since replacing Rev. Michael Murray four years ago. Please have the mailing list corrected.

Second, I received and read with great interest your letter of January 23 about the “Freedom of Worship in the Senate of Maryland.” I can well understand the desire to preserve a “comfort level for the entire Senate membership,” but would submit that such a task is probably next to impossible.

As a Catholic priest, ecumenism is a hallmark of our approach to other religions; however, joint services usually consist of each religious group offering the prayer that is consistent with their doctrinal beliefs. Ecumenical prayer, as you suggest, which is really generic prayer, may be inconsistent with the theology of many religions. Christianity presents a particular problem because all prayer and saving importance is placed in a particular person, Jesus Christ. A Jew might avoid calling God Yahweh and a Moslem might be reserved in speaking of Allah, but Christian prayer loses all its punch when the saving name is omitted. Given that the Incarnation is denied, Judaism and even Islam might fare better under the stated policy than a Christianity forced by reductionism to deny the saving history of the New Testament. Further, while Catholics and many Protestant groups feel that Islam’s Allah is the same one God as revealed in the Scriptures, a number of Fundamentalists believe that it is a demon in disguise. Some religions are polytheists (multiple gods), like the Mormons and Hindus. Others do not believe in a personal God or even deny his existence all together. There is no way to make everyone happy, so why make everyone unhappy?

I suspect if you look at the history of prayer in your chambers, you will find that Christian prayer has predominated going back to the colonial period. It is somewhat ironic that what was deemed appropriate by the founders is no longer considered acceptable in our revisionist interpretation of the clause regarding the separation of Church and State.

There is much talk these days about toleration, but when push comes to shove— its proponents can be quite intolerant. My personal feeling is that in a multicultural society, we should be generous enough to make room for our religious differences. While not going out of our way to be offensive, a proper prayer in Arabic where God is called Allah and “Mohammed is his prophet” should not trouble us. Jewish prayers, often based on the Psalms, and sometimes said in Hebrew are an important part of the Judeo-Christian inheritance. Jews and Moslems who argue for their own observances in dress and symbols, find no problem with crosses or Christians calling upon the name of Jesus. We may disagree about profound matters, but our love for one another should transcend such differences. The policy that you stated erases something of our religious variety and wealth, and ultimately denies by imposed silence something basic about our sense of identity and values.

Given that this matter involves clergy, did any ministers, rabbis, priests, Moslem leaders, and others have input in how prayer might be handled in the State Senate? There might have been other alternatives. As the policy stands, some will still not be satisfied and many clergymen might have to wave the honor of presiding because it violates their religious conscience. Speaking for myself, when I have been the single clergyman to offer a prayer in a mixed setting, I often conclude my prayer in a softer voice, discernable only to myself and maybe a couple of people around me: “We offer this prayer in Jesus’ name.” And then for all to hear, I say, “Amen.” I am not happy with this compromise but it respects the audience and my own religious sensitivities. Obviously, the State Senate is not a place to belittle the faith (or lack thereof) of others; neither is it an occasion to proselytize. It is, however, a place to nurture freedom, not only of religion, but also of speech.

Know that you and Senator Miller will remain in my prayers. Your responsibilities are great and, as believers, I know that you always welcome divine assistance and guidance.

May the good Lord bless and keep you,

Father Joseph Jenkins
Pastor