Albert Mohler examines an article in U.S. News & World Report that is quite troubling. It appears the Obama administration requires those who offer prayers before an Obama speech, to vet it with the White House first for their approval. This is quite clearly a government entanglement with religion. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think there is a need to even have someone offer a prayer prior to an Obama speech, but if you are going to have prayer be offered, it should not have to be reviewed and possibly edited by the White House. This goes beyond political correctness into theological arbitration. As Mohler wrote, “When a White House approves or edits prayers, it has entered theological territory and takes on a theological function. The President of the United States is our Commander in Chief, not our Theologian in Chief.”
February 27, 2009
White House Vetting Prayers
Posted by Jason Dulle under Political Incorrectness, Politics, Religions[16] Comments
Thinking to Believe 
February 27, 2009 at 10:58 am
Editing prayers??? Hmmmmm.
LikeLike
March 1, 2009 at 2:46 am
Just passing by.Btw, you website have great content!
_________________________________
Making Money $150 An Hour
LikeLike
March 1, 2009 at 2:49 am
Thanks for the compliment. I hope you’ll stop by again!
Jason
LikeLike
March 2, 2009 at 11:19 am
Hmmm. Interesting. I see it like this:
As we know, we live in a nation that is very diverse in religious and worldview beliefs. From the perspective of the White House Administration, it seems logical that they would want to moderate the prayers being offered. I am thinking that their goal is to have prayers offered which are universal to the majority of religions – universal in its language and concepts, not calling on the name of any god, nor giving reference to any specific religion. This way, all religions would seemingly feel included and not feel offended.
There could be more to it, but that is what first came to my mind. Do I agree with it? To be quite honest, I feel neutral about it. I dont feel connected to the issue in THIS sense: When prayers are offered in those environments, polical environments that is,to me, I don’t feel like that prayer was offered on my behalf. Or rather, I feel that it was “ignorantly” offered on my behalf. I know I was included in the prayer in THEIR MINDS in the sense that it was offered for the nation (and I am apart of the nation), but for the most part I am just not convinced that the God I serve and pray to received that prayer from the politicians (unless it was a case like Cornelius – if that be the situaton, then they should be receiving instructions very soon to lead them to salvation! LOL – you gotta read the story of Cornelius everyone to understand). Anyhow, I suppose I would have to go into many details why I currently hold this stance….but it entails motives and primarily the biblical guidelines of prayer…
Nevertheless, I will say this…IIII could not offer a prayer for the White House Administration. Because I already know that the first line or the second or third, somewhere, you would boldly hear, “LORD JESUS….” and I’m sure that would be their cue to cut the mic off right at that point….
*shrugs* – I would keep right on praying too…*chuckle*….
LikeLike
March 2, 2009 at 11:48 am
Michael,
I think you are right as to their motivations, but I think their motivations are bunk. If they invite a Christian minister to pray, they should expect him to offer a Christian prayer to the Christian God–not to a generic God. Since all religions differ from each other, there is no way to offer a prayer that will include all people. Someone will always feel excluded. But that’s to be expected. If a Hindu offers a prayer, I would expect it to be directed to the gods he believes in, and to sound Hindi. We are just way too politically correct in this country. I would rather they stop having ministers offer prayers altogether, than to put these kind of restrictions on them.
Jason
LikeLike
March 2, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Oh.
LOL!
Ok, NOW I recognize an aspect of essential importance that I did not think upon at first. You say, “If they invite a Christian minister to pray, they should expect him to offer a Christian prayer to the Christian God–not to a generic God.” -YES – ok, I definately agree with that. To invite a Christian minister yet not expect the minister to pray a Christian prayer is rather illogical. I KNOW, I know, I said in my first post that according to their motives, what they are doing IS logical, but that is just it – as you said, the motives are bunk and to me illogical, so therefore the decision is illogical. Conclusively, it all just turns out to be silly.
Stop having ministers offer prayers altogether rather than place restrictions on them? Sounds like a good idea to me…
Michael
ps – and if they really wanted to be THAT universal, why not just hire an actor (but don’t call him/her that, give them a title that sounds legit), and then have them pray a universal pray to all who do and dont believe. It could go something like this:
*clearing throat*
“Too all the gods that do and do not exist and who are and are not listening! We the people of the United States, well not really but “we” call upon you now and ask that you help us in all things, as we purposely continue to consider your identity as ambigous as we can, so that none of us are offended concerning who you are, or rather who you are not.
In the name of all things that are but yet are not,
Thanks.”
🙂
pss. Jason I am going to nominate you for the “Clarity” and “Making it Plain” of the year awards! You do it quite well dude!
LikeLike
March 2, 2009 at 12:24 pm
typo in my last post – I meant to say,
*pray a universal pray FOR all who do and dont believe….* in other words, on the behalf of all who do and don’t believe…I think you got it though, lol
LikeLike
March 2, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Now that is quite the politically correct prayer!
Jason
LikeLike
March 2, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Jason,
Would you consider it governmental endorsement of religion if they just allowed the Christian minister to say a “Christian” prayer?
Provided the vetted prayer is “non-sectarian” I think the “Christian” prayer would be more of an entanglement with religion that a non-sectarian prayer. However, i think the White House would have more problems with a violation of the free speech clause if it is going to vet prayers for content.
Either way, I think it best not to have a prayer said at all.
LikeLike
March 3, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Paco,
No, I would not consider it a government endorsement of religion, and neither would our Founders. They offered such prayers themselves at government functions!
Personally, I am not opposed to doing away with the prayers, not because I think they are unconstitutional, but because the whole practice has become a farce. Consider how the Senate had a Hindu open a session of Congress with prayer. There wasn’t a Hindu in the room other than the man offering the prayer, so it’s not as if his presence was needed to satisfy the spiritual needs of members of the Senate. He was only there to demonstrate the Senate’s openness to religious diversity. Furthermore, the prayers prayed always seem like they are being recited to the people, for the people’s sake; not to God (some preachers do this too!). Sometimes I wonder if God is even listening to the show. We ask God to bless the nation, and then we turn our backs on him and do whatever we want.
But if we are going to continue with the practice of having ministers offer prayers at government functions, the government should not be editing those prayers in advance to make sure they approve of the message. That is an entanglement with religion.
Jason
LikeLike
March 3, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Hmm. . . It’s interesting that you mentioned the founders. In order to understand what the founders intended with the establishment clause I think it is important to understand the nature of religion in the US at that time. In contrast to our society today, there were not as many religions, but really different versions of Christianity and non-Christians.
With that in mind, the establishment clause was to prevent the government from declaring a particular sect as the official sect of the nation. Therefore a general “Christian” prayer without reference to any particular sect would be representative not of those within the chamber (if in the Senate) but of the constituents they represented.
The problem we have today is that as a nation there are so many religions represented in our population. Almost by definition, a prayer by one religion is going to be exclusive of others. That is why Michael’s prayer comes across so ridiculously. This is also why I think that we should do away with prayers before our governmental functions. Finally, in contrast to your comments regarding the Hindu prayer before the Senate, I don’t view the prayer as a way to “demonstrate the Senate’s openness to religious diversity” in general. I view it as the Senate way of trying to avoid a sect preference because some, if not most, Senators represent constituents with those beliefs.
LikeLike
March 4, 2009 at 9:59 am
Paco,
There was religious diversity back then as well, even if it pales in comparison to today. Consider the Deists. They didn’t believe in prayer, and yet that didn’t stop the others present from praying to God. There was no thought that prayers should not be offered because deists might feel excluded. No, they expected deists to exercise tolerance, and they did. Why should anything be different today? Nearly 80% of Americans are still Christian. When Christians offer prayers, those who are not Christians should exercise tolerance, not complain that they feel excluded. The same goes when a non-Christian offers a prayer. Christians should exercise tolerance as well. The idea that we need to stop offering prayers because not everyone present will be able to agree with the theology of the prayer doesn’t make sense.
Unless you can show me otherwise, the prayers offered in the Senate chamber are for the benefit of the senators present, not their constituents. And if so, then there is no reason to invite a Hindu to offer the prayer.
Jason
LikeLike
March 12, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Two thoughts, Jason:
1. The very choice of who will do the praying is itself “theological arbitration.” The obvious contrast, for example, between Gene Robinson and Rick Warren (who both prayed during Inaugural activities) surely was a theological point.
2. I wonder if part of your hesitation is about the prayers being “edited” and not offered spontaneously? As you are aware, some of the richest sources of Christian thought – the Book of Common Prayer, for example – are “edited” prayers. Scripture itself is a “vetted” text. And so, if editing itself isn’t wrong, why couldn’t the White House engage in this process of theological reflection? Must theology be limited to churches and seminaries?
LikeLike
March 14, 2009 at 10:02 am
Aaron,
You are right. Choosing who will offer the prayer can be “theological arbitration.” I say can be, however, because I don’t necessarily think it is. Choosing someone to offer a prayer does not necessarily mean you endorse their religious point of view. Think of the Senate’s action of inviting a Hindu to offer prayer. No one in the Senate is a Hindu, and inviting the Hindu was not a statement by the Senate as to which religion they think is true.
If we are going to have people offer prayers, how should they be chosen? I think they should be chosen by their ability to represent the beliefs of the people present, or the speaker. Indeed, I think it would be insane to require presidents to have Hindus offer prayers at their inauguration, if the president is not Hindu himself. If he were Hindu, however, I think it would be appropriate for him to do so. I think Christians are usually asked to offer prayers because most politicians are Christians, and so are most of those in attendance.
No, my concern is not that prayers are being written and edited, rather than being given spontaneously. While I am not a fan of scripted prayers myself, that is not my concern here. My concern is over who is doing the editing: the government. If they were only editing grammar I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but they’re not looking for grammatical mistakes. They are looking for theological statements that they are not comfortable with—statements, I imagine, that are politically incorrect because they are exclusivistic rather than pluralistic.
You asked, “Must theology be limited to churches and seminaries?” Under our Constitution, yes. The federal government is not to interfere with religion. If they are in the business of editing prayers, then they are involving themselves in the business of theology. While individuals within government can believe and say whatever they want about religion, they cannot involve themselves in theological disputes with the public. To tell a citizen they cannot pray X, is to involve themselves in theology.
Jason
LikeLike
March 15, 2009 at 3:47 am
1. “most politicians are Christians” — Okay, you should apply for John Stewart’s job!
2. In your last paragraph, you answer my question legally rather than theologically. An interesting book on the role of faith and the public sphere is Jeff Stout’s ‘Democracy and Tradition.’ It’s brilliant — and not just because he takes Hauerwas and Milbank apart like only a Deweyan can. In short: Stout’s argument leaves a lot of space for the civil use of religion.
LikeLike
March 16, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Aaron,
I’m not just generalizing. Most politicians are Christians, as we would expect given the fact that nearly 8 in 10 Americans are Christian. In fact, a little over a month ago I posted an entry on the actual religious make-up of the U.S. House and Senate: https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/religious-makeup-of-congress/. 86% of congressman, and 79% of senators are Christian.
Yes, I did answer your last question legally rather than theologically. Theologically speaking, there is nothing to say the church and state have to be separate. Israel was a theocracy after all! But likewise, there is nothing saying they have to be one either. The goal of the church was never said to involve christening the government. Personally, I think it is best that they are separate (particularly since, unlike Israel, we would not be enjoying a theocratic form of government in which God is our “President”). And by separate I do not mean “never shall the twain meet.” I am radically opposed to that. I mean separate the way the people who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights understood the first amendment. The government’s job is to govern, not to involve itself in religious matters. Doing so only serves to diminish religious freedom. They wanted it to prosper. And indeed, it has (unlike those nations who have national/state religions). And they did not eschew religion, or its ability to influence civic life. Most of them believed religion was an indispensible, and invaluable component to a productive democracy. I believe the same.
Maybe I would change my mind if I read Democracy and Tradition, but that’s how I see it at this point in time.
Jason
LikeLike