President Obama, in his National Day of Prayer Proclamation, pointedly says:
“We are blessed to live in a Nation that counts freedom of conscience and free exercise of religion among its most fundamental principles, thereby ensuring that all people of goodwill may hold and practice their beliefs according to the dictates of their consciences. Prayer has been a sustaining way for many Americans of diverse faiths to express their most cherished beliefs, and thus we have long deemed it fitting and proper to publicly recognize the importance of prayer on this day across the Nation.”
In case it still wasn’t clear that it’s supposed to include everyone, he adds:
“…let us remember in our thoughts and prayers those people everywhere who join us in the aspiration for a world that is just, peaceful, free, and respectful of the dignity of every human being.”
In Loudoun, we are blessed with an astoundingly diverse community of faiths. For just a cursory sense of that diversity, take a look at Loudoun Interfaith BRIDGES, a relatively new organization that has brought together for dialogue and mutual service just a few of the communities that have made their home in Loudoun.
Why, then, was the local event claiming to represent the National Day of Prayer – which occurred on public property and with the participation of elected public officials – a sectarian Christian event? Called the “Loudoun Awakening,” it consisted of a six day Bible reading marathon, culminating in the Board of Supervisors Room at the Loudoun Government Center.My purpose here is not to get into the question of whether there can constitutionally be a National Day of Prayer; that is yet to be resolved by the courts, and as such the president obviously chose to issue a proclamation endorsing the event. And clearly, the congregations and individuals who organized and participated in Loudoun Awakening have every right to celebrate the National Day of Prayer “in accordance with their own faiths and consciences,” in the words of President Obama’s proclamation – in fact, they have every right to do so any day of the week with or without a National Day of Prayer. That right includes the right to reject other faiths; in no way are these folks required to participate in interfaith worship or to alter their beliefs.
I have no doubt that many of those who took part in Loudoun Awakening were very well-meaning and certainly had no thought of doing harm. The problem is that an event that was consciously designed to exclude most of the residents of Loudoun County was presented as the local National Day of Prayer celebration, and given the imprimatur of government. Not only were non-Christian faith communities not approached by the organizers, but only a very narrow segment of Loudoun’s Christian community was involved. Looking at the website of one of the major players, the Purcellville-based “Intercessors for America,” it’s hard not to notice that the list of “Crucial Prayer Topics” reads very much like a version of the Republican Party Platform. Where on that list, for example, is the topic of people without access to health care? (Although there’s quite a bit about “stopping Obamacare.”) Where’s the concern for the human rights of persecuted LGBT people in Uganda? What about caring for the poor, or better yet, addressing the root causes of poverty? Hello? Not there.
While it should come as no surprise that certain religious leaders with certain political ideologies would present themselves as speaking for “people of faith,” as if the rest of us don’t exist or matter, it is surprising and a little disappointing that the stewards of our public buildings and the people we’ve elected to represent ALL of us didn’t tell these organizers at the beginning that they could only get public endorsement for an inclusive event. My hope and request of these public stewards is that they will ensure that any future events celebrating a public National Day of Prayer will actually look like Loudoun.
Thomas Jefferson semi-famously predicted that eventually, everyone would be a Unitarian because that was the most rational of Christianities. Of course, that prediction was undone by the second great awakening and the advent of sects like he 7th Day Adventists and faiths like Mormonism.
There has always been an element of American culture that strives for a passionate experience of God. America goes in cycles of generations that swing from embracing to rejecting that impulse. There is no “stable end state” for religious belief or fervor in America, unlike (perhaps) Europe or some eastern nations.
I believe that members of more liberal/progressive faiths and churches are doing their best to make their message and beliefs known. (see, for example, the Street Prophets community on dKos.) It just so happens that our current media narrative and establishment is predicated on minimizing those voices of reason, in order to maximize the voices of unreason in pursuit of ratings.
The best thing people of faith and liberality can do is be a witness to faith and progress every day, and speak to it when the opportunity presents itself. I have faith that Loudoun, and America, will respond to that kind importuning over the shouting of the other side in time.
Here is an interesting perspective: http://blog.thehumanist.com/?p… It may be that by being exclusionary and political the right-of-center Christians are doing themselves more long-term harm than good.
This could have a significantly negative affect as all churches include a strong social component that has great value over and above any religious component. If the above premise is correct, then over the long-term, we could potentially envision a world in which only extremists go to church (of whatever denomination or religion), and others, in conjunction with the impact of Facebook, blogs, e-mail, etc., have far less physical social interaction.
If a large percentage of the non-extremists still hunger for true friends and God, what will they do? Where will they find what they need? I’m not sure, but it makes me nervous. It may be that, as a society, we need to find a way to lure people to religions/sects/denominations that are more liberal/progressive and less conservative/extremist? Unfortunately, right now, all religions & denominations seem to be painted with the same broad brush.
Thanks for clarifying – it wasn’t totally clear to me that it was supposed to be fully affiliated with the National Day Of Prayer.
Important, if somewhat subtle, point.
For someone who is not part of a faith community, I can see how the only issue would be potential coercion. Otherwise, if you don’t pray, what goes on during a day devoted to prayer wouldn’t matter much.
But for a person of a different faith, or a Christian of other than Dominionist theology, it’s downright threatening to have a narrow segment of one faith tradition seemingly recognized as speaking for the National Day of Prayer. The message that sends is that the adherents of one religion have more value, and have greater access to government than do others.
is not that it occurred, or even that it was on public property. It’s that it was simultaneously:
1) designed to be exclusionary, and
2) presented as the local celebration of the National Day of Prayer.
The organizers were essentially allowed to treat this official event intended to be inclusive of all faiths as the National Day of Christian Prayer. For local government to appear to endorse that is just plain wrong.
I think this is distinct from the issue of religious symbols on the courthouse lawn. It’s the people’s lawn, and those displays are not an event framed by an official proclamation.
as a godless secular humanist, I don’t have a problem with it, even with it appearing to be in the name of the county, so long as I’m not being forced to attend, or ostracized for not.
It is disappointing that the LoudounTimes coverage linked above is nothing more than a blog post from someone who clearly helped to organize the event. Some neutral coverage, noting that it wasn’t sanctioned by the County, but was rather allowed just like any other group with the right to public assembly, would be beneficial.
With the appearance of the authority of the County.
I may be in moderate disagreement with my friends on this one. I have no problem with what Loudoun Awakening did, even if I disagree with their principles (public evangelization) in doing so. (Full disclosure: I’m catholic.)
I think that a private citizen has the right to whatever speech they want to speak on public property, as long as it doesn’t cause another harm. And harm as in “Fire in a Crowded Theater” not “Hey, that offends me.” Even if that speech is, in fact, prayer.
Similarly, I believe in the right of a comedy troupe to perform a satire of religion on the steps of the courthouse. Heck, I’d probably pay to see that.
Yes, the event was designed to exclude members of other faiths. But other rallies at the courthouse may co-equally be “designed to exclude” by not inviting perceived opponents. I’d be willing to bet that no one reached out to members of the nascent Tea Party when planning the MoveOn healthcare rally at the Courthouse last year. That doesn’t make the healthcare rally illegitimate, it just reinforces three critical rights: 1. The right to free speech 2. The freedom to associate 3. The freedom to petition the government.
Issues arise, IMHO, when the government starts spending and favoring one religion over another. I don’t think that’s what happened with Loudoun Awakening, but that’s just my opinion.
That I didn’t know this was occurring. And I’m married to a Supervisor.
Many events happen in the Republican community which get talked about AFTERWARDS as if they were events involving the community as a whole but which, in reality, the Dems are not invited to or are discouraged from attending.