|
Go figure. While teachers and students are discouraged from public displays of prayer in government schools, the custom whereby legislative bodies open a legislative session with an invocation lives on.
 But as long-held traditions clash with the present culture, some states may want to re-think that practice.
Consider what happened in Oklahoma recently.
On February 11, Reverend Scott Jones, who pastors the Cathedral of Hope in Oklahoma City, was the designated “Chaplain of the Day.” He offered a boiler-plate prayer about ‘peace and unity’ before the state House of Representatives.
Before the prayer, however, things got a little dicey, when the young minister acknowledged members of his congregation, his parents, and his friends who had gathered in the state house gallery. These included his “loving partner and fiancé, Michael.”
Oops.
Jones deftly threw the legislators a Roger Clemens-style curve ball, and things went from cordial to contentious faster than one of those famous Oklahoma tornados whips through the plains.
Rep. Al McAffrey, a Democrat who is also known as the Sooner State’s only openly gay legislator, is the fella who invited Jones to give the blessing. McAffrey, in keeping with protocol, also made the motion to have the gay minister’s remarks become part of the official house record. A Tulsa-area Republican – Representative John Wright – said, “Thanks, but no thanks.” Wright not only objected, he also called for a vote on the issue.
In the end, the prayer was approved by a 64-20 vote.
Afterwards, Wright cryptically told the Daily Oklahoman that his actions were motivated “by the faith.”
Rep. Jason Murphey, a Republican who represents the rural community of Guthrie, was more specific in explaining why he voted “no.” Murphey stated: “To introduce his fiance and then have his fiance be a guy – and then pray – that was an attack on the beliefs of a lot of Oklahomans, and it was entirely inappropriate.”
Charlie Meadows, who lives in Murphey’s district and serves as the chair of the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC), emailed a take-no-prisoners missive to his PAC members about l’affaire Jones. Meadows opined, “This was just another cleverly planned skirmish by the homosexuals in the culture war.”
Meadows also added, “ … unless the content of Jones’ prayer was that of confession for his sinful behavior regarding homosexuality and an expression of repentance toward God for his rebellion and perversion, then his being there to give the prayer for the day was an abomination.”
A news conference was quickly organized at the state capitol in support of Rev. Jones. Those gathered decried the actions of the ‘Naysaying 20,’ and asked them to issue an apology for their act of censorship and discrimination.
"Refusing to record the words of a person who prayed for the well-being of all in the room simply because you don’t agree with who he loves is frankly ridiculous,” complained the Rev. Chris Moore, a United Church of Christ minister.
Reaction on the Internet was less measured. Posting at a gay-friendly site, “Cruiser” wrote that this proved that “Okies” were “still a bunch of redneck, beer guzzling, truck driving, rifle toting geeks.”
Can’t we all just get along?
This type of skirmish is hardly the first, and it won’t be the last. Those separation of church and state purists have a point to a degree when they challenge the notion of state-sponsored prayers. Everyone has a tipping point when it comes to prayer in the public square. What if the “Chaplain of the Day” was a divorced/remarried Christian minister who acknowledged his “lovely second (or third) wife” to the legislative body? (Mal 2:16) Would that have caused a ruckus among the conservative legislators? How ‘bout an imam petitioning Allah? Or a Native American shaman doing a ghost dance? Or a Wiccan high priestess calling on her goddess?
Whatever the balance, every legislative body needs all the real prayers it can muster. But personal and cultural agendas are nothing but disruptive and as such they have no place in the public prayer square.
Isabel Lyman holds a doctorate in social science and is the author of The Homeschooling Revolution (2000).
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
