Thursday, January 22, 2009 at 12:31PM | in Religion The paradox of pluralism
I've posted a couple times on the question of the inaugural prayers in the US becoming less inclusive over the past 60 years. It's worth noting that Barack Obama did not, in fact, reverse this trend. The inclusive event was the National Prayer Service, but the inauguration itself had only Protestant ministers. Anyway, Steven Waldman at the Wall Street Journal has an answer to why, as America has become more religiously pluralist the inaugural prayers have become less so:
(Hat Tip: TIF)
The country has gone through, in effect, three phases. In the first, presidents used a religious-diversity model. From 1937, when the first inaugural prayer was offered, until 1985, the presidents (with one exception in 1981) had clergy of different faiths or denominations up on the podium.
...Ironically, the shift to this model may have been driven in part by America's increasing diversity. As more and more faiths-including non-Christian religions-grew, it may have seemed impractical to have a representative cast of clergy. The podium could buckle under the weight of the holy men and women if all substantial faiths were given voice. A single, acceptable preacher could serve all purposes, and, luckily, Mr. Graham had attained such broad acceptance that he could play that unusual role.
During these years, the Christian prayers were not watered down in any way. They often prayed in the name of Jesus Christ. But because there was a rabbi on the platform, no one could be accused of giving a government imprimatur to one particular religion.
...Then in 1989 and 1993 we tried what might be called the "America's pastor" model. One man, the Rev. Billy Graham, offered both the invocation and benediction. He pulled it off by using broadly inclusive language. In 1989 he referred just to "God" and in 1993 he declared: "I pray this in the name of the one that's called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, the Everlasting Father and the Prince of Peace." Note, too, that he used the word "I" rather than "we," which would have assumed all in the audience were Christian.
(Hat Tip: TIF)
Thursday, January 22, 2009 at 12:31PM | in Religion 
Reader Comments (2)
Hmmm. Pluralism. Contrast that observation with a quote from a story on travel in Iran posted on CNN.com
"I asked my guide if it's okay to be non-Muslim in Iran. "Yes," he said, "We have religious freedom, as long as it is not offensive to Islam." Christian? "Sure." Jewish? "Sure." Bahai? "No. We believe that Mohammed -- who came in the 7th century -- was the last prophet, so the Bahai prophet (19th century) is offensive to Islam."
I asked, "What if you want to get somewhere in the military or government?"
My guide answered, "Then you better be a Muslim -- a practicing, Shiite Muslim."
This is the same argument I have heard with regard to having prayers in schools: "We either have to include every religion or none". Most public schools in our Canadian school board choose "none" since they are worried about 'having' to include what they consider fringe religions such as Wicca or the Marijuana Church. Unfortunately that means the athiests and secular humanists win their argument even though the public school legislation clearly allows school opening prayers/readings. Personally I appreciated hearing prayer at the inauguration but wish Warren had used more inclusive language as you pointed out was used by Billy Graham. America is founded on religious morality, but is now a different place and has to recognize the important part that religion plays in the lives of most of its citizens - even those who belong to other religions than christianity.