My kids can’t bring Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to school anymore because there’s a kid who’s “nut intolerant” or something. I don’t want a kid to get sick so I’m cool with it. But I’m thinking that Jesus is the new Peanut butter because you can’t bring Him to school anymore either. It’s getting to the point that anywhere a large group gathers, Jesus isn’t allowed because someone might be Jesus intolerant.
Just today, a Senator in Minnesota is yelling that a preacher opened up the Senate with a prayer and had the gall to mention Jesus. THREE TIMES!!!!! And that made some Jewish legislators…”uncomfortable” and now they’re considering making it against the rules to mention “Jesus” in prayers.
CBS in Minnesota is reporting:
A state senator who is Jewish said Tuesday she was “highly uncomfortable” while a visiting Baptist pastor repeatedly mentioned Jesus Christ and Christianity in a prayer on the floor of the state Senate a day earlier, and wants to require that prayers in the chamber be nondenominational.
The prayer, and the reaction to it by Sen. Terri Bonoff, DFL-Minnetonka, threatens to re-ignite a debate that’s long simmered in the Minnesota Legislature over the content of the invocations that open each Senate and House floor chamber session. Bonoff said she’s met resistance to her concerns from some members of the new Republican majorities in the House and Senate.
“If we’re going to invite clergy to the Senate session to pray, we know they’re coming from a denomination or a religion that represents a belief system,” said Sen. David Brown, R-Becker. “I believe we don’t have the right to censor their prayers.”…
Bonoff, elected to the state Senate in 2005, said it has been Senate tradition that visiting religious leaders are asked to refrain from direct references to any specific faith. The letter given to the visitors by the Secretary of the Senate lays out such a request: “In an effort to be respectful of the religious diversity of our membership (Christian, Jewish and possibly others among them), we request that your prayer be interfaith and nonsectarian.”
After Campbell’s prayer Monday, Bonoff rose to object to its content and demand he not be invited back. She said she was not reassured by an initially noncommittal response from Senate leaders. Bonoff said she intends to ask Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch to commit to changing the letter to say the Senate members “require” rather than “request” that prayers be interfaith and nonsectarian.
“I’m a very religious woman and believe deeply in God,” Bonoff said. “We honor God in public and our political discourse, and that’s proper. But in doing a nondenominational prayer we are honoring him without violating the separation of church and state.”
Bonoff said if Koch won’t commit to the change, she will try to implement it through the Senate rules process. Bonoff said other Jewish members of the Legislature share her concerns.
“It makes anyone who doesn’t pray through Jesus Christ, or believe in Jesus Christ — it makes them feel like they don’t belong,” said Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, who is Jewish. “It makes me feel like I don’t belong on the Senate floor to which I was duly elected by my constituents. In a government chamber, I and others should not be made to feel that way.”
Feel. Feel. Feel. Can you imagine an adult complaining that they were made to feel like they didn’t belong. Are we in junior high? Grow up. The guy mentioned Jesus. Big deal. Oh, your precious feelings require that no mention of Jesus enter your ears?
I understand that it’s a tradition to keep the prayers a bit unspecific among a group of people of different faiths but this one preacher mentioned Jesus on one day and you’re so offended that you now want to banish Jesus by rule or law from the Senate floor just to ensure that you’re never made to feel that you’re not one of the gang. Really?
Hawaii has done away with prayers altogether on the legislative floor for fear of offending people and for fear of lawsuits of course.
We’ve got to stop kow-towing to these nuts. You know what, I’m now officially nut intolerant.
March 16, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Like the piece and get the metaphor, but "nut intolerant" the kid is not. My sons are peanut allergic and it is always and every time a life threatening reaction if they are exposed. Some kids can't even smell peanuts without having an anaphylactic reaction – so, though I get your point I just want to say the problem for that kid is potentially extremely serious and dangerous and shouldn't be blown off as "nut intolerant or something". Deadly attitude, and you have a moment here to help others who have that attitude start taking these allergies seriously. Sorry for the rant.
March 16, 2011 at 3:47 pm
One gathers that devout Baptists, devout Jews, devout Methodists, and devout Catholics are not offended by other faiths. When my daughter was in hospital years ago the local Baptist minister, quite a good man, wandered into the room by mistake, apologized, and then asked if he could pray for Sarah anyway. Yes, yes, and yes.
— Mack
March 16, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Meh. I get that it isn't okay to make one group "feel" bad about themselves and separation of church and state, blah, blah, blah. But this always puzzled me. Instead of saying, basically, "we can't allow a god here, in case he might not be yours," why not just say, "okay, let's make sure everyone's deity of choice be equally represented."
So, for the folks really devout about their faith, they get their chance at a little evangelization. And, for those not really devout, but offended by everyone else, they can say to themselves "Fine, I have to sit through this, but at least it's my turn on Monday."
That just seems a lot closer to me to not having a state-sponsored religion than allowing atheism to be the state-sponsored religion.
March 16, 2011 at 4:12 pm
I'm with Mouse on this, just have everyone have a day to do the opening prayer representing their religion. Furthermore, if you feel it is more "evangelistic" to NOT mention details of your religion when praying, you can do so. The atheists can even have their day of no opening prayer if they so desire (although a moment of silence would probably be appropriate for those who would WANT to pray).
March 16, 2011 at 4:16 pm
LOVE LOVE LOVE it!!!! You go girl!
March 16, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Requiring that the prayers be "non-denominational?" Is the senator really so vapid that she used a term that makes a distinction between different Christian denominations?
I believe what she meant was that the prayers must be "inter-faith." She might be enthralled if the prayers lacked any faith at all.
If you don't want to hear the name Jesus, don't invite a Baptist preacher to pray.
March 16, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Thats like asking Emeril to the kitchen and telling him he isn't allowed to cook.
March 16, 2011 at 4:26 pm
What surprised me most is that the Baptist preacher only said Jesus three times. He must really have been holding it in.
March 16, 2011 at 5:59 pm
I wouldn't want to hear prayers to "Allah" nor to Satan if someone in the Senate was practicing that "religion" (nor Wiccan, etc.)
Merely praying to "God" is fine with me. I know He is one in the same and Jesus. Don't you?
March 16, 2011 at 7:50 pm
How about every christian praying silently for himself?
Who needs instituted prayer at a governmental funktion?
I don´t!
Shalom
Hermann
March 16, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Quite frankly this is exactly what is wrong in our society today. First the problem and then the solution and then the reaction to the solution. The people in Japan are undergoing some terrible times which most of us in the USA have never had to experience without complaining and with patients and respect for their families and communities. We wimper about a little peanut butter and then compare it with our Lord and Savior…May God have mercy on us all…….
March 16, 2011 at 8:25 pm
This is why we pray for the "perfidious Jews".
March 16, 2011 at 8:42 pm
@jayeverett
Amen! May God have mercy on us all! (And especially the Japanese in the midst of their terrible suffering)
Next:
You seem overwhelmed to the point of being able to think about anything else other than the tragedy in Japan. (Not surprising as it is so unbelievably horrendous)
But it is a horror of the fallen world that life does continue amongst the tragedy of death. If only we could all just stop and somehow, our prayers, our feelings of grief and our thoughts would heal our brothers and sisters who suffer.
So while God allows our prayers to have effect when He wills it, our lives go on and we can and must still discuss other things too.
Meanwhile there seems always to be some kind of Catholic blog police out there to remind our bloggers that they may not employ humor while discussing important issues. Catholicism is an important issue – so no joking.
But humor is a very natural expression of our human nature. It exists in every culture.
God made it – and saw that it was funny.
And this blog manages to be both funny and serious and respectful and important all at the same time.
But if it doesn't appeal to you, you may want to glance over at the left side of the screen where the brother's Archbold write,
"The purpose of this blog is as an outlet for sometimes ill considered but occasionally pithy commentary by my cohorts and me."
And then again, "Please bear with us."
It may be more charitable to see the discussion of blocked prayers and foods in public for what it is.
There is nothing wrong with bringing up peanut butter. No one should be smeared by it.
March 16, 2011 at 9:36 pm
You know what bothers me the most about this? A minority that's about 1.5% of the US population is upset that the majority wishes to exercise their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. These silly fools need to realize that while America allows freedom of religion in our constitution, in the long run, we won't allow a bigoted minority to dictate to us how we, the majority, can express our faith in public. Indeed they might find out that they created the 'bigotry' that they are so afriad of by their own actions.
March 16, 2011 at 10:17 pm
I have been a committed Roman Catholic all my life and intend to die one. But there is a very great value of living in a civil society where all religions are welcome to practice their faith in their own way or to practice none. In the great tradition of the Catholic faith we are committed to negative theology, that we know not what God is but what God is not. In that sense, all positive religious statements fall short of the truth. Therefore, it does not seem that we Catholics should object to not having such statements in the public, governmental space. The value of our living together with openness to all faiths is reinforced by a public policy that we are, as a civil society and state, non-religious and secular. At infinity where the God who is not known to us is found, all religious statements fall away and we are alone with the great Alone. Peter H. Baker
March 17, 2011 at 12:24 am
This is going to be a long post because of the direct quotes but please bear with it and read it. Pope Pius XI stated, in part, in his encyclical Quas Primas: "It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. Nevertheless, during his life on earth he refrained from the exercise of such authority, and although he himself disdained to possess or to care for earthly goods, he did not, nor does he today, interfere with those who possess them." And: "Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: 'His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.' [Annum Sacrum] Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ." Pretty much says it all concerning this matter. I know the preacher was a Baptist but as Catholics we should NEVER be afraid of, or refrain from, proclaiming Christ. The Social Kingship of Christ reigns over all.
March 17, 2011 at 12:51 am
God is known to us because He sent His only Son, Jesus Christ. God has become man, and thus, we know what God looks like, and we are made in the image and likeness of God. So, we do know a good deal about what God is, and He is not a negative!
Jesus tells us that no one gets to the Father but through Him, and that we are to pray in His Name. That's why Christians can, do and must pray in the Name of Jesus. To not do so is to deny Jesus and for that we are warned we can be damned. This is very clear, and real Christians will pray in His Name and we don't care whether this is offensive to those whom He has not yet called. As Jesus says, He has come to cast fire upon the earth, and to follow Him, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, is to be set at odds with others who refuse that invitation. Like the Jews did and continue to do today.
I'm not surprised she's offended. But I'm really taken aback by Christians so-called who would throw Him aside in this mealy-mouthed, pussyfooted, namby-pamby, Quisling-esque effort to spare the "feelings" of those who need to hear the Truth in order to be saved, which is the duty of all Christians. Did Jesus walk this earth sparing the feelings of those who refused to believe in Him? Of course not, and He is the Way, after whom we are to model ourselves and our behavior.
We are not to put our light under a bushel, but to allow it to shine forth and scatter the darkness. And Jesus is the Light of the world.
So let the pagans and Jews and Mohamedans deny Him, but let them know in no uncertain terms that we Christians will not, and that we are not going to hell to spare their "feelings." If anyone doesn't like it, then leave the room.
We're Christians. Remember the martyrs? You know, people who willing went and still go to their deaths, suffering all types of tortures yet have and continue to refuse to deny Jesus?!!
Final reminder: Jesus tells us to be either hot or cold, and NEVER lukewarm.
If He is who He says He is, then we must willingly offend those who would deny Him. He tells us that not every one who says "Lord, Lord" will be saved; I'm seeing more and more those about whom He speaks!
And what does "DFL" stand for? I'm sure it's not for the phrase that I kept thinking every time I saw it after the names!
Yeah, I've grown nut-intolerant too.
By the way, peanuts are legumes, not nuts.
March 17, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Very impressive stuff. thanks for sharing
March 17, 2011 at 2:05 pm
The fundamental human value, as Rousseau and Kant noted, is liberty and autonomy. We are only truly human to the extent that we choose for ourselves values that have some claim of universality. The rather imperialistic ideas of Pius XI and Leo XIII, whilst perhaps useful in their time (Leo XIII in particular made some efforts in a liberal direction, and doubtless in those times when the Vatican made rather far-reaching claims there were liberal Catholics) are certainly not apropos in a post Vatican Council II age when people of all faiths and none try to come together in finding common ground in humanistic values. As an RC I do believe that in some sense Jesus has revealed to us something of the Father, but all of us as human beings seeing only through a glass darkly. The secular state is not merely something to be endured. It is a value. It says that no one of us, and none of our faiths has a lock on understanding and truth, and that we must always seek together moving in the direction where all human partial understandings are at infinity merged together in the infinite understanding of the divine. Peter Baker
March 17, 2011 at 2:40 pm
As a Catholic, I don't know what I would do if I was a legislator and they invited someone to come and pray to "Mother Earth" or "Gaia" or some horrible new age garbage like that. I think that I would be severely annoyed and would not take part in that prayer. I would pray my own prayer silently. I think that I would be very disturbed by this prayer and would not feel safe in joining a group prayer in the legislature anymore, without the foreknowledge of its content.
I can understand why faithful Jews would be offended. I guess the question is, do we have a right to not be offended or not?
Opposing beliefs will always divide us, which is simply reality.