A former football coach is still trying to get his job back.
Why? Because he committed the unpardonable sin of wanting to pray openly, rather than in a duly designated closet where the school told him to go. Had he worn a dress or advocated gay sex or celebrated the extermination of tens of millions of pregnancies to sustain our porn culture through the AIDS pandemic, no doubt he would be athletic director by now. Had he embraced the new Jim Crow and told his white students to grovel for mercy and beg forgiveness for their skin color, as my wife has had to do in her workplace, perhaps even principal. If he had championed the a post-American global oligarchy driven by socialism and dreams of a communist paradise, I'm thinking superintendent, though that might be a bit much.
Alas for him, he thought to freely exercise his religion by praying openly, and that was his big mistake. Surely 1947 will go down in the history books as one of the most important years on the journey to America's death. Given so many other failures and losses, that's quite an achievement. Well done SCOTUS.
I almost completely agree with you, but public prayer is maybe not the best hill to defend, for several reasons. First of all, we are not talking simply about open prayer; I suppose he could have recited the rosary as he paced the sidelines without much reaction. Secondly, it is interesting that you mention a "prayer closet", since Jesus Himself said we should pray in our closets, not on street corners like the Pharisees; but it might make a difference if we expect to be attacked rather than admired. Thirdly, you know as well as I do that public prayers are more often than not at least borderline blasphemous. I'm thinking in particular of the "benedictions" offered by a local female rabbi at graduation ceremonies -- we are given a moment of silence ponder in gratitude God, our family, the universe, or whatever turns us on. I'm not sure that my atheist colleagues are less exasperated at that than I am. And let's not forget the "prayers of the faithful" at Mass, which are usually directed at the congregation, not at God. "That all politicians might support my stance on immigration, let us pray to the Lord."
ReplyDeleteI get what you’re saying, to a point. But here’s my take. First, I doubt the reason this coach, or anyone else who has had this happen, was so treated because of a desire to make public prayers more sincere. I doubt, likewise, that all who have been so marginalized were guilty of abusing public prayer, which can, in the right circumstances, be a powerful weapon in the believer’s arsenal.
DeleteI’m reminded of the big push a few years ago by media outlets more or less saying ‘screw your prayers and your God, it’s time for gun control policies.’ I have no doubt that sometimes the phrase ‘thoughts and prayers’ is trite, and tossed around like so many nickels and dimes. Nonetheless, I’m sure in other times it’s quite sincere, and appropriate. Plus I get the willies thinking about the premise that it’s the horses and chariots of the state, not prayers or God, that should be our first goto in the wake of a horrific tragedy.
In both cases, however, I think the main gist is to eliminate the faithful from the public square. While there is certainly room for believers to debate the nuances behind closed doors, I fear we concede the higher ground to the opposition too often when that debate spills over and becomes a tool with which the opposition can hamstring everyone.
I suspect there are already less ambiguous examples. Soon there will be far more.
DeleteThis seems a bit related to the ambiguity of the word "anti-Christian". It could refer to something or someone opposed to Christ, or to someone or something opposed to Christians. The former is really inexcusable, but the latter is far more excusable, insofar as we are all sinners and rather foolish.
There could be a third option in that, as in anti-Christianity, that is seeing Christianity as something in serious need of eradication. I would also find that inexcusable, but sadly, not at all uncommon in the minds of some today.
DeleteI'm not sure that is a distinct third option. People who want to eradicate Christianity usually do so because their Christian neighbor is a jerk, or because their Christian families are hypocrites, or because someone has used Christianity as a weapon against them -- or because they have a hatred of God Himself. Of course people may transition from one to the other; that happens quite a lot. But in the first case, they are opposed to the human failings of the merely human members of the Church, whereas in the second, they are opposed to Christ, and therefore to His body, which is the Church. The natural element of the Church may be hated, or the supernatural element may be hated, but there is really no other element which can be hated.
Delete