Public prayer fanatics borrow page from enemy's script (Ebert Alert)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | March 5, 2003 | ROGER EBERT

[Chi-townChief]

The Bush administration has been dealt a setback in its campaign to allow prayer in our public schools. The full 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has voted 15-9 to back the 2-1 vote by its earlier panel finding the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the words ''under God.''

The pledge, written in 1892, had those words added to it in 1954, during the Eisenhower administration, and I remember a nun in our Catholic school telling us we had to say it because it was the law--but it was wrong, because it violated the principle of separating church and state.

We started every day with classroom prayer at St. Mary's School, of course, but Sister Rosanne said there was a difference between voluntary prayer in a private religious school and prayer in a school paid for by every taxpayer--a distinction so obvious that Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft are forced to willfully ignore it.

Ashcroft said after the ruling that his Justice Department will ''spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag''--a misrepresentation so blatant that it functions as a lie. The pledge remains intact and unchallenged. The court said nothing about pledging allegiance to the flag. It spoke only of the words ''under God''--which amounted, the court said, to an endorsement of religion.

This is really an argument between two kinds of prayer--vertical and horizontal. I don't have the slightest problem with vertical prayer. It is horizontal prayer that frightens me. Vertical prayer is private, directed upward toward heaven. It need not be spoken aloud, because God is a spirit and has no ears. Horizontal prayer must always be audible, because its purpose is not to be heard by God, but to be heard by fellow men standing within earshot.

To choose an example from football, when my team needs a field goal to win and I think, ''Please, dear God, let them make it!''--that is vertical prayer. When, before the game, a group of fans joins hands and ''voluntarily'' recites the Lord's Prayer--that is horizontal prayer. It serves one of two purposes: to encourage me to join them, or to make me feel excluded.

Although some of the horizontal devout are sincere, others use this prayer as a device of recruitment or intimidation. If you are conspicuous in your refusal to go along, they may even turn and pray while holding you directly in their sights.

This simple insight about two kinds of prayer, which is beyond theological question, should bring a dead halt to the obsession with prayer in public places. It doesn't, because the purpose of its supporters is political, not spiritual. Their faith is like Dial soap: Now that they use it, they wish everyone would. I grew up in an America where people of good breeding did not impose their religious convictions upon those they did not know very well. Now those manners have been discarded.

Our attorney general, John Ashcroft, is theoretically responsible for enforcing the separation of church and state. He violates his oath of office daily by getting down on his knees in his government office every morning and welcoming federal employees to join him in ''voluntary'' prayer on carpets paid for by the taxpayers.

His brand of religion is specifically fundamentalist evangelical. As his eyes lift from beneath lowered lids to take informal attendance, would he be gladdened to see a Muslim, a Catholic, a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Baha'i, a Unitarian, a Scientologist, all accompanied by the chants of Hare Krishnas?

Under Bush we have had a great deal of horizontal prayer, in which we evoke the deity at political events to send the sideways message that our enemies had better look out, because God is on our side. This week's Newsweek cover story reports that the Bush presidency ''is the most resolutely 'faith-based' in modern times.''

Because our enemies are for the most part more enthusiastic about horizontal prayer than we are, and see absolutely no difference between church and state--indeed, want to make them the same--it is alarming to reflect that they may be having more success bringing us around to their point of view than we are at sticking to our own traditional American beliefs about freedom of religion. When Ashcroft and his enemies both begin their days with displays of their godliness, do we feel safer after they rise from their devotions?

E-mail Roger Ebert at answerman@suntimes.com

[Chi-townChief]

I wouldn't be surprised - maybe long lost grandsons of Fatty Arbuckle.

[tuckrdout]

LOL!

[GSWarrior]

Thumbs down on movie critics waxing political.

[RonF]

It was the Gospel reading as shown on here. Note we're talking about the Episcopal Church; I don't know what denomination you're taking your readings from.

I agree that no man knows what's truly in another man's heart; only God knows that. At least, that's what I thought. But judging by their posts, a number of FReepers have amazingly precient powers in this matter as well.

[RonF]

By the way, none of your Scripture quotes note where Jesus was when he offered these prayers. Was it a private gathering involving only himself and the people noted present, or was he out on the street in public?

[tuckrdout]

First of all, since you said you went to Ash Wednesday services...you know that these are not MY Scripture quotes, the Scripture belongs to all. Also, being a Christian, you should know the context in which the words were spoken. Why do you ask?!

Jesus Christ was obviously in a place where John heard what Jesus said, so that he could write it down. This indicates that he was not alone in a closet.

In the quotes which you stated were read on Ash Wednesday, interestingly, Jesus clearly stated that the motives of the "hypocrits" was self promotion; these who stood on street corners wished to gain public adoration...and when they did, that was their reward.

One who publically prays today, does not gain public adoration, he suffers from just the type of scorn which Mr. Ebert delivered in his column. The purpose of public prayer is to acknowledge our Creator...and to bring Him praise.

Christ looks at the motives, the heart of a person. Jesus Christ says to make sure that your heart is right with God, and acknowledge Him in all your ways.

The Bible is full of Public prayer of Thanksgiving and petitions of protection. So, by the way, is our history! The founding fathers of this country met for three hours of prayer, before they signed the Declaration of Independence. Every single signer was at the 3 hour prayer meeting. Our nation was built on a foundation of Prayer in the Name of Jesus Christ.

[RonF]

First of all, since you said you went to Ash Wednesday services...you know that these are not MY Scripture quotes, the Scripture belongs to all.

You are of course correct. I apologize for poor phrasing. What I should have asked is, "What readings did your denomination have at Ash Wednesday?" The gospel reading I quoted is the one used by the Episcopalian Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and a number of others for this last Ash Wednesday.

Also, being a Christian, you should know the context in which the words were spoken. Why do you ask?!

Because I don't have the Bible memorized, and while I've been going to church fairly regularly for the last year and a half, I admit that my attendance for some years prior to that was non-existent. I had hoped that you might shed some light on the matter.

I asked about the context because praying aloud in a group assembled for that purpose in a private facility is not equivalent to praying aloud amidst a group not assembled for that purpose in a public venue, and I was wondering which if either of these cases the Scripture readings you quoted fit.

[supercat]

Back when Roger Ebert limitted himself to writing movie reviews, I liked them. I didn't always agree with them, but I could generally tell based upon reading a review whether I would like a film.

Ebert's forays into political writing, however, have changed that; not only are they blathersome in their own right, but they also increase the extent to which politics are squeezed into reviews of non-political movies.

[Rocko]

I wonder if he'll respond; we had quite a time arguing during the Florida mess. I think facts tend to confuse him.

[Chi-townChief]

I'm probably on his no response list with my questions to him about his "expertise" on the 2000 election and the "Wag the Dog" movie. Roger's not too open-minded about people who disagree with him. He never did respond to my questions about "The Contender."

[Rocko]

He gave up on me, too, after about half a dozen exchanges....

[rwfromkansas]

What the heck, I will post my 'counter column' that is coming out in the college newspaper tomororrow (at least I don't resort to the same tired arguments):

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a decision by a panel that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional. The court’s ruling is ridiculous and the First Amendment has been greatly misinterpreted, but more than that, no person can justifiably claim harm by the Pledge.

First, in reading the original debates on the First Amendment, it becomes clear it was not intended to be as broad as currently thought. In the Annals of Congress, it is recorded that when James Madison, the father of the Bill of Rights, introduced the First Amendment, “Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.” Also, many different amendments were proposed to the original language of the establishment clause before legislators agreed upon the current form. A consistent form was developed in the proposals: they referred to an “establishing” of a national religion specifically. Thus, it seems to me that no valid reason exists for believing “respecting an establishment of religion” means just any law touching religion; it is narrower.

Also, Thomas Jefferson, supposed strict separationist, attended church in the capitol, a public building. In a letter to Elbridge Gerry, Jefferson said he simply opposed the “legal ascendancy” of one religion over another. The Deist Jefferson signed legislation multiple times giving federal funds for Christian missionary work with Indians.

The First Amendment was only intended to prohibit a national religion or situation with such an unbalanced scale of governmental fairness that non-favored religions were hurt by the federal government. Indeed, this was the interpretation of state supreme courts and the Supreme Court until the twentieth century, when legislating from the bench began (largely due to FDR’s attempts at destroying the judicial branch by court packing).

While the establishment clause has been misconstrued horribly, the other part of the First Amendment’s religion section, the free exercise clause, rightly has received great emphasis by the judiciary. The Supreme Court made it clear in Minersville School District v. Gobitis that no person can be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, for that violates freedom of conscience and in some cases, the religious conviction that it is idolatry to say it. No question exists in my mind about Minersville being true to the founders, for Washington, Madison, and Jefferson all talked extensively of the right people have to worship God according to their own consciences.

However, since this right is settled law, it is quite humorous to see people suing over the Pledge and alleging harm from a voluntary rite. In the case brought to the Ninth Circuit, a father sued on behalf of his daughter, who, we later found out, actually likes the Pledge. She is a strong Christian and did not agree with her father. In any event, people offended by the Pledge have the option to simply not say any objectionable parts. Yet, the First Amendment does not prohibit people from saying the same words around an offended person. If it did, majority rule would be replaced by the tyranny of the minority.

[rwfromkansas]

Note that Jesus does not say public prayer is wrong, only if the INTENT IS TO BE SEEN AND APPROVED BY MEN.

[rwfromkansas]

Again, looks like you need another lesson in reading Scripture. Jesus does not condemn public prayer, only if you do it with the intent of having people see you to admire you.

[rwfromkansas]

Re-read the passage...this time, real slowly, reading every word. Tell me if you reach the same conclusion.

[Chi-townChief]

Somehow, I get the impression that if we were pledging allegiance to let's say, Martin Sheen, we wouldn't hear a word out of knuckle-draggers like Ebert about it.

[El Cid]

Your comment on my post #7, please. Hi Ron,

Your post #10 wasn't addressed my way, but my take on the passages you referenced was that it wasn't the public display of prayer that was at fault but it was the hypocritical heart involved. The Pharisees aparently liked to be seen making their public displays of 'reverence'. It was the 'pretend piety' that was the problem. Obviously one praying in in one's closet doesn't have the temptation of trying to impress one another.

Nonetheless, read the Psalms - particularly Psalms 145 through 150 - clearly we are to make a joyful noise to the Lord.

And, lest we still feel to 'shy' about giving reverence to our Lord - given the scorn we will recieve from society - let's recall the Lord's words from Mark 8:38

38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

As a nation America has a choice whether to remain cowed by the atheistic influences - that put worhip of the Trice Holy God on the same footing as worshiping a tree, the animal kingdom, the moon, or whatever pagan substitute exists out there - or to remember the promise in II Chronicles 7:14

14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

There's nothing wrong with praying in the closet - but lets not be shy either.

And as a secular aside - as pointed out by previous posters, there is nothing in the Constitution about a 'Seperation of Church and State'. There is to be no Federal Religion established (like the Church of England) -- although I'd bet the Founders of this Country never dreamed that 'Christianity' would be an issue. They probabably were more concerned about a specific denomination getting pre-eminence.
This 'Seperation of Church and State' canard is used to beat down any God honoring activity in our country.

[Kerberos]

"Jesus does not condemn public prayer, only if you do it with the intent of having people see you to admire you."

Which generally appears to be the underlying intent in the majority of instances. At least in today's religious climate.

[Chi-townChief]

'"Jesus does not condemn public prayer, only if you do it with the intent of having people see you to admire you."

Which generally appears to be the underlying intent in the majority of instances. At least in today's religious climate.'

Here in Chicago, we've seen that recently with "Rev." Jackson, Flaky Father Phleger, Archbishop Griswald, Louis Farrakhan, etc. It's remarkable that Roger Ebert was able to contain his outrage at such "horizontal" public religious displays. Just remarkable.