"U.S. Hindu organizations are urging presidential candidates to denounce the protesters who disrupted the Senate as the first-ever Hindu opening prayer was being delivered this month." Here's a bit more from the story:
Although there were only three protesters, said Ishani Chowdhury, executive director of the Hindu American Foundation, "if you look at it as a reflection of a larger number of people . . . we need people to condemn what happened and highlight the need for dialogue."
It should be obvious, and our leaders should say, that common decency dictates that we shouldn't hurl insults at people as they try to pray. (And, by the way, here's a shocker that we Christians need to bear in mind -- people don't feel the love of Jesus when we are shouting them down.)
Let me also say that the presidential candidates should address this issue for reasons that go beyond the notion of common decency. They should address this situation because it gets at a fundamental constitutional and ethical matter -- whether we believe that the government must treat all religions equally.
If we are going to have official legislative prayers as per the Marsh v. Chambers decision, then the government cannot prefer some faiths over others in the prayer process. Do the presidential candidates support that constitutional obligation in this context? And do they support it in all others? These questions are particularly important at this point in our nation's history. Let me explain.
Some are calling on the Supreme Court to change constitutional interpretation so as to allow the government wide latitude to sponsor religious expression and endorse sacred symbols. That's not new. But what is new is the prospect that the Court may move in that direction. (I think such a move would a serious mistake, by the way. But that's another post.)
If the Court does move in this direction, then the constitutional obligation of the government to treat all religions equally will take on new meaning and new prominence. At the moment, we don't think about this obligation very much in this context because the constitutional rules generally prohibit governmental sponsorship and endorsements for religion, save for narrow exceptions like official legislative prayer. Put simply, at present the government basically treats all religions the same in these situations by refusing to sponsor or endorse any of them.
But if we chip away at that constitutional prohibition, then we will face many situations in which faiths of all kinds will want an equal opportunity to participate in government-sponsored religious practices. Thus, the crucial obligation of the state to treat all faiths the same will loom large here, in part because government officials and bodies will frequently be heavily pressured to favor majority faiths over minority ones.
In such cases, would the presidential candidates not only ensure that their own actions respect the constitutional and ethical principle that the government must treat all faiths equally, but will they also use the bully pulpit to advance that principle? It's an important question.
Comments