Let 'Em Pray          

 

Harry T. Cook
Harry T. Cook

By Harry T. Cook
5/9/14

 

As a civil libertarian who is also an aspirant scholar of texts proper to Judaism and Christianity and the ideas that have emerged from them, I find myself merely bemused and mildly annoyed by the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on prayer.

 

The high court in the usual 5-4 split declared that Christian prayers addressed to its imagined deity in the name of Jesus Christ given at town council meetings do not violate the First Amendment's prohibition of religious establishment. It's just a harmless, cultural thing, as the governing opinion put it.

 

Fine, I say. The secular humanist, even the professional atheist, who disagrees with that ruling might better wish to point out the imbecility of it all rather than break a sweat protesting.

 

I mean, would you want the court to decide whether or not a person could be constitutionally prohibited from talking to a lamppost or even to himself in a mirror as if he believed that the image looking back at him was another person altogether?

 

People who behave in such a fashion are not declared constitutional or unconstitutional, but, rather, delusional, bordering on the psychotic because they seem to be out of touch with reality.

 

It is true that encountering such people on the street or in a public place can be unnerving and make one edgy. Most of us are uncomfortable in the presence of an individual whom we see and hear speaking to thin air. But federal case material, it's not.

 

Prayer of the kind addressed in the recent Supreme Court ruling is a feature of theism, i.e. a philosophy of religion that posits a transcendent, invisible deity with whom real-time communication is possible through the medium of prayer -- "prayer" being, as the lexicon at my desk says, "an entreaty or petition to a deity in the existence of which the one praying believes."

 

Not being in possession of sufficient data to be one, I am not a theist. I do not, therefore, engage in prayer. I do go to church on a regular basis, though, and witness and mostly participate in a communal narrative that is called prayer but is actually a medium by and through which the gathered community reminds itself and is reminded of its identity and purpose.

 

The key is that the so-called communal prayer is part of a rite in which all present have come to participate. It is part of their story, and they love to hear it reiterated on a regular basis.

 

A town council meeting is not such a gathering, and when a prayer is offered in that context it is as if a mentally addled individual were allowed to talk merely to the air around him prior to the council's business is commenced. But cannot the mentally ill among us be entitled to speak their piece in the public square?

 

Perhaps the one praying has not his own his church, masjid, synagogue, basilica, or yurt in which to petition the deity he imagines.

 

It may be neither convenient nor efficient for the pray-er to take the valuable time of said council and, by extension, the constituencies on behalf of which it does its business, to have his conversation with the invisible deity he believes is listening. That is the real issue. However, free speech may be another. The court has said that money is free speech. Why not prayer? Just asking.

 

So I say to my fellow civil libertarians: Just put up with it. The majority of the Supreme Court in its present incarnation evidently will never understand the psychology of it all, much less the underlying questions of constitutionality.

 

Do remember that deity is resident in the human imagination. Moreover, in the everyday version of religion, everyone feels entitled to his or her own opinion, in which case it is not a question of objective data but largely of wishful yearning.

 

How can a prayer addressed to some imaginary deity make that much difference? A town council that allows such a thing to occur and then ties the various levels of the American judiciary in knots over its defense of the practice is not using its time and resources to good effect.

 

So, let 'em pray, and look away in embarrassment.

 


Copyright 2014 Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced without proper credit.
 

Readers Write 
Essay 5/2/14: Guns Galore   

 

Richard Howard, Independence, MO:

Any idiot politico offering me a gun for my vote will be surprised at my response: "'Jesus H. Christ,' to quote the father of my advocate, the Rev. Harry T. Cook!" I would then shoot him in the knee with my grandson's plastic toy rocket launcher -- the one that shoots those little suction cup thingies. In my state (Missouri) guns can be secretly or openly carried into all sorts of public places. This state of affairs makes ordinary, law-abiding citizens think twice before leaving their homes to go shopping, take a walk, see a movie, go to church, the post office, grocery store, drive their cars, or use public transit. The whole gun-toting world is going absolutely insane with guns. Some day the idiot leaders of the NRA (and the legislative assemblies they've bought) will rue the world they will have created. Until now I've felt safe when telling people that I don't own a gun and will not allow guns in my home. Now, in this gun-crazy society, to say this aloud may be inviting violence and bloodshed from alien gun-nuts who plague our nation's streets and other public places. 

 

Tom Hall, Foster, RI:

Right on! The absolute phrase that begins the Second Amendment doe not confer an absolute right, but rather imposes a limiting condition on the freedom named. As you correctly observe, we have a large enough militia already -- one that does need help from paranoiacs.


Donna Belinda, Milwaukee, WI:

Send me one of those squirt guns NOW. I did not read the article that mentioned "Second Amendmentists," but I laughed out loud when I read that word. These people are crazy. Your Dad sounds like he was a real hero.

 

Jill Crane, St. Clair Shores, MI:

Love all of your essays. 

 

Euni Rose, Southfield, MI:

How I wish I had known your father!Just the other day I was at our Oakland County Clerk's office, waiting in line to register my business. A very large man in line said to me, "Ma'am, do you own a gun?" I was flabbergasted, till I realized he was concerned for this 4'10" woman's safety. We engaged in conversation (the line was lo-o-ng) in which I told him that I absolutely do not believe in guns, although I had friends in Albuquerque who "packed" everywhere they went, and who tried unsuccessfully to buy me one sweet little silver "woman's" gun that would fit into my purse. Yikes. He went on and on (remember, the line was lo-o-ng) about the bad people out there who could hurt me, that he has a huge selection of guns, that he is a hunter, etc., etc., etc. Poor guy: he was so earnest, I almost felt sorry for him. Thanks to whoever was looking out for me, the line moved swiftly, and I was free! Thanks for bringing us your wisdom and wit.

Gus Nussdorfer, Dennison, OH:

Thank you for the words of your father in this political "Theater of the Absurd" in American politics!  My father from the hills of eastern Ohio would have joined in that sentiment.  He admired Will Rogers and his satires of American politicians. Thanks for the good word for the week!

Dana Brothers, Seattle, WA:

I passed on your column "Guns Galore" to a guy in my office who is gaga over guns. He about blew a gasket. You may hear from him. Tell him you'll be sending him a squirt gun, except that he's all wet already.

 

John Bennison, Walnut Creek, CA:

The solution is as simple as it is unlikely. Amend the second amendment so it is impossible for any numbskull to misinterpret, including the highest court in the land.  


Jeanette Bishop, Bryn Mawr, PA:

Thank you for being an organ of sense and commonsense on the issue of guns and their proliferation. I have forwarded your article to several friends and neighbors, including the daughter of one of our Congressmen. What effect that will have is probably nil, but if I don't do or say something about this issue my head will fall off. Thanks again. Keep writing.


Fred Fenton, Concord, CA:

Thank you for "Guns Galore" and denouncing the National Rifle Association and the craven politicians that follow its philosophy of the more guns the better. We live in a time when the basic institutions of American government are failing to govern according to the Constitution. A supreme example of this is the highest court in the land misinterpreting the Second Amendment. A 94-year-old retired Justice has set the record straight by denouncing the majority opinion that the amendment applies to individual gun ownership rather than state militias. Your father and mine, and their generation of people dedicated to serving the common good, would have seen this nonsense for what it is, a failure to apply common sense to governance.

 

Nicholas S. Molinari, Brick, NJ:

Death by guns is America's Black Plague. The annual toll amounts to tens of thousands of deaths and uncounted thousands of maimed and wounded. I propose that all parties who have aided and abetted the ongoing process of converting every American into a militiaman or militiawoman participate equally in the terror and bloodletting they have facilitated. First, the U.S. Supreme Court should admit any and all spectators permitting them to carry a variety of loaded weapons, covertly and overtly. Second, the US Senate and the House of Representatives should permit fully armed Americans to watch their irrational deliberations. Third, all state legislatures, agencies and offices will henceforth admit armed Americans to watch and perhaps "participate" in state-level debates. Fourth, all municipal offices and judicial chambers will encourage local carry, posting "Guns Welcome" signs at the entrance doors. There you have it: The full democratization of death by gun in America!

What do you think?
I'd like to hear from you. E-mail your comments to me at revharrytcook@aol.com.