Mary Anna is a junior studying english.
Christian church congregations vary in how they respond to sanctions made by the government or by their church’s larger body. In some cases, they push for the separation of church and state and support the individual freedoms of smaller branches of the church.
If a faction of the government dictates that gay marriage is legal and right under its respective constitution, some churches under its jurisdiction throw up crossed fingers and hastily draw up rules of their own in order to deny homosexuals the right to wed under their roofs. However, when such churches continue to witness the blatant perpetuation of Christian privilege within the government, they openly advocate for it.
It’s important to note that what these habitual prayers primarily encourage is a narrow definition of Christianity. These practices harken back to the spring of 1789, during which the tradition of utilizing taxpayer money to sustain chaplains in the House and Senate began, according to David Hawkings of Roll Call. The Christianity that these prayers recall is that of our forefathers — a fact that Fox News broadcasters are eager to emphasize. This Christianity is very white, very traditional and very patriarchal. Our forefathers owned slaves. Our forefathers barred minorities from voting. Perhaps their antiquated practices are not to which we should aspire.
Though perhaps these prayers have evolved past that. Myriad people would assert that a prayer before a Senate meeting would serve to unite those in the courtroom under an umbrella of shared security, that it creates intimacy in a room of strangers. Others who seek to protect the traditional courtroom prayer claim that it rightly invokes Christian values. The prayer acts as a reminder of the ideals we all, presumably, share.
However, as we live in a nation that systematically privileges those who profess Christian faith, I would reject these notions. The promise of union through prayer falls apart in the presence of those who do not fall into the perceived majority. Perhaps the prayer brings together many persons with a Christian background, but it merely operates to isolate those who do not belong to this overwhelming majority — overwhelming, because candidates typically must broadcast their dedication to the Lord before being seriously considered for office.
In the United States, the ideal of white, masculine Christianity incessantly influences whom we look to for leadership. We cast this archetype as the default, rather than as circumstantial. If candidates are not men, why not? If they are not white, why not? Do they have ties to a church? Have they lived outside of the country? Does their skin burn if they handle a crucifix?
Though outwardly, these prayers may seem innocuous, they serve as ties to a past that many continue to deny as wrong. On the U.S. Senate’s website, the chaplain’s page states, “During the past 207 years, all sessions of the Senate have been opened with prayer, strongly affirming the Senate’s faith in God as Sovereign Lord of our Nation.” This statement palpably champions Christianity as a given in the U.S. Other belief systems aren’t simply ignored — here they don’t exist at all.
In a time when we are begrudgingly moving toward social change, tradition that favors the traditional anchors us to the past, pulling us backward. We cannot expect to foster acceptance as a society if we continue to treat people unequally. Yet we continue to force people to stand and bow their heads, despite that they might disagree with what they’re being held to. We don’t give them an option.