The Issue of Prayer

The Indiana House of Reps. has reinstated the tradition of prayer before its sessions. Apparently the ACLU's taxpayer-led case fell through; they're now looking for an involved party such as a Representative or Senator, who would be required to subject themselves to the prayers because they are members of the assembly. (Well, theoretically ... it seems they've switched the presentation around so dissenting members can skip the prayer and then show up for roll call.)

I have mixed feelings on the issue of prayer before convening a governmental session. I can see the argument that allowing someone to express their faith does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of that faith. Rather, it is an endorsement of their right to express that faith -- essentially, a mark of freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.

However, I know how Indiana rolls, as they say. The vast majority of these prayers are of varying Christian denominations, with perhaps a few scattered Muslim or Jewish nods here and there so they can claim diversity while still keeping it in the Abrahamic family. While Rep. Bauer and the others profess to be open to prayers from leaders of all faiths, I have serious doubts regarding their willingness to accept a Hindu presenter, for example, let alone a Druid, or a Wiccan, or an Asatruar. How about a solitary asking for the guidance and blessing of Melek Taus or Inanna? I have to wonder whether there are credentials and requirements necessary in order to secure an invitation in the first place. And let's face it, modern Paganism is a movement that is largely comprised of individuals and minor groups such as groves/covens/throths, etc., who don't necessarily practice a formal ordination or adopt a hierarchy that would be recognized by one of the mainstream religions.

And what happens if an atheist wants to stand before the assembly and asks not for the blessing of the gods, but for compassion and common sense from their fellow men and women? Would they be given the chance to express their lack of faith in the divine? To keep things equal, they should be. And yet ... I can't see Rep Bauer endorsing that right, for some reason.

I suppose it boils down to the familiar old "religious decorations on public ground" example -- to be fair, the rule will have to apply to all or none. I'm not holding my breath.