So Help Me Brahma

Religion usually stirs up strong emotions. Religion is more often experienced with the heart, rather than the head – and why not? Faith is not governed by intellect, but by a perception that there is a higher power guiding us; and it is not given to us mere mortals to question it. This can have dangerous ramifications, of course; particularly for the weak minded. Mindless faith is often the justification for acts no religion could condone – suicide bombings and the murder of innocents, for example. Sometimes the backlash is less violent, more benign; but it is a form of fanaticism nonetheless.

The above diatribe was prompted by the news that, last Thursday, for the first time in its history, the US Senate was opened with the invocation of a Hindu prayer. Let me clarify straight away that, although I am from India, I am not a Hindu. So I can view this episode with a certain detachment. The prayer was brief – just an incantation, really – and was not accompanied by elaborate rituals. In short, it was no big deal and, by itself, would have merited a couple of column-inches in the back pages of newspapers.

The reason it made headlines was that the prayer was noisily interrupted by Christian activists, belonging to an organization that calls itself Operation Save America. The group later issued a statement confirming that three of its members were all arrested in the chambers of the US Senate "as that chamber was violated by a false Hindu god". The statement continued, ""The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer, placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our founding fathers." Presumably they have an inside line to the founding fathers.

I do not want to get into a discourse here, about the relative merits of different religions, but I am always a little perturbed by intolerance. In terms of scale, this protest does not remotely compare to the atrocities perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. However, I would respectfully submit that the breeding ground for any kind of fanaticism is intolerance for others’ beliefs: only the magnitude differs.

I realize and appreciate that the fact that the US Senate even considered inviting a Hindu priest to their chambers speaks highly of American values. Something like this would be inconceivable in any Muslim nation, of course. So when an altruistic action is disrupted in the name of religion, it is doubly disturbing. And it was, in fact, deplored by the organization, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which said the incident showed the intolerance of many religious rights activists. As their executive director, Rev Barry Lynn, put it, "They say they want more religion in the public square, but it's clear they mean only their religion."

The US Senate justified their decision to invite the Hindu priest by stating that it has always honored the historic separation of the church and the state, but not the separation of God and state. Their website stated, "All sessions of the Senate have been opened with prayer, strongly affirming the Senate's faith in God as sovereign Lord of our nation..." Most years, the Senate chaplain delivers the opening invocation, but sometimes guest chaplains are invited from all over the country to read the prayer. Although priests from other faiths such as Islam and Judaism have delivered prayers in the Congress, this is the first time that Hindu invocations were delivered on the Senate floor.

My take on this affair is: why open the Senate with a prayer at all? I am all in favor of invoking God’s name on any occasion. What I find a bit puzzling – as an outsider - is how the US has regulated this issue. On the one hand, it is official national policy to separate church and state. Prayers of any faith – or any denomination – are not allowed in schools; and a sculpture depicting the Ten Commandments, put up in front of a courthouse, was frowned upon. On the other hand, witnesses in court trials are required to swear on a religious book; and oaths of office always end with the words "so help me God." Why this dichotomy?

In my personal opinion, religion is – or should be – an intensely personal communion between an individual and his Maker. Why should the government interfere at all? Some would argue that separation of church and state was mandated by America’s Founding Fathers. Fair enough; but remember that the Founding Fathers lived in a vastly different era. Besides, there have been numerous Amendments to the Constitution over the past decades. It is not cast in stone – nor was it meant to be. It is something to think about.