CSotD: Pious platitudes
Skip to comments
Clay Bennett fights against the current of cartoons about the Supreme Court's ruling that prayer before public meetings is okay.
Most other commentary involves officials praying because they can't solve various problems, which is a retreat into Will Rogers-style gov-bashing, a familiar take that will get you picked up by editors but that doesn't advance the conversation in any meaningful way.
I almost prefer the work of cartoonists who recycle discredited partisan talking points over that of ones who decline to make any point at all, since, however toxic their impact on the body politic, at least they're saying something.
Now, granted, Bennett isn't offering a prescription, but it's within his core approach of providing a metaphor that may not demand a solution any more specific than "knock it off" or "could you at least put some thought into it?"
Sometimes "knock it off" is a cool hand.
In any case, for my part, I don't see the sky falling, or, at least, not a huge chunk of it having broken off this time around.
This essay from the larger Scotus Blog round-up linked above sums up the two sides in this case, which is that the majority says it's okay as long as the prayer isn't too specific and everybody gets a turn in the pulpit, while the minority holds that making people feel excluded is one hell of a way to start off a public meeting in a democracy.
I agree with that latter opinion, which is why I object to prayers at public school graduations or sporting events: You don't build teamwork or celebrate group effort by reminding members that some are more equal than others. And a public meeting of a governmental body, IMNSHO, is a time for teamwork, or, at least, it used to be.
Then again, from a religious rather than civil point of view, I don't entirely hate the majority opinion, which seems to fall in line with previous court decisions on public displays of piety, such as placing "In God We Trust" on currency, in which the 9th District Court held
"It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. …It is not easy to discern any religious significance attendant the payment of a bill with coin or currency on which has been imprinted 'In God We Trust' or the study of a government publication or document bearing that slogan. In fact, such secular uses of the motto was viewed as sacrilegious and irreverent by President Theodore Roosevelt. … While 'ceremonial' and 'patriotic' may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact."
The Supreme Court declined to overrule that decision, which suggests that public prayer is permitted because it's a pointless gesture of no religious significance.
And I'd concur with that as well, not so much from any certainty about the inner workings of the cosmos as from a more overarching concurrence with the opinion expressed in Matthew 6:5,6
And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee.
So it's up to you whether you want to go along with the Court or the Christ, but at least they seem to agree that God doesn't really have anything to do with this kind of empty showboating.
It's not so much that I welcome the decision — I'd have preferred one that united, rather than divided, the populace — but we've already got more heads than we've got pikestaffs to put'em on, and I don't think, when the time comes, that these particular ones — if you'll pardon the pun — are gonna make the cut.
Tip for Teachers
Today's Mr. Fitz is particularly apt, and I might have featured it simply for that reason, but I've also been wanting an excuse to pass along this thoughtful bit of guidance on getting middle-school kids to write well, which is an excerpt from a book on the topic by David Finkle, who draws Mr. Fitz.
And a more frivolous bit of leftover business
Back in February, I cited a Wumo strip and noted that it was the on-line version and not the syndicated version, to which someone (no names, but she's in Ohio) expressed surprise.
Yes, there are two Wumos, and May 1 provided a pretty good example of why.
I leave it to the subtle discernment of my readers to guess which one appeared in the relatively family-friendly confines of the funny pages and which one was offered to a perhaps less brass-bound on-line audience:
Comments 2
Comments are closed.