Practice What You Preach

It seems that no matter how far we like to believe we've come in terms of becoming the moral compass of the world in terms of sanity and tolerance, all we have to do is try something different and portions of our society still go nuts over change. What am I talking about? Well, yesterday, as the Senate prepared to spend another day debating the war in Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) had invited a Hindu priest, Rajan Zed, from his home state of Nevada to lead the traditional morning prayer before the session began. The decision on the part of Reid had already been under fire but this was made even more apparent when the priest began his prayer and three protestors began shouting that 'this is an abomination' from the viewing gallery. They were escorted out and Zed managed to complete his prayer and the Senate continued it's work.

I find it highly ironic that in the Senate, where a debate on the situation in Iraq is continuing on and on, that we are seeing similar religious debates occuring as are occuring in Iraq. Ask the average person what the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni is and they'll likely stare at you blank-faced. If you get any answer besides the obvious knowledge that both practice Islam then you may have a somewhat knowledgeable person. What we have failed to understand in Iraq is that there is a fundamental difference in styles of practice that has led to generations of fighting amongst themselves. In Iraq it is often fought with suicide bombs or other violent means but on the whole, it comes down to believing one way is the right way and the only way and anyone not following those rules is not worthy of living.

Thankfully here we aren't quite so violent but I can see that there is still a great deal of ignorance and misunderstanding about a lot of religions outside one's own. Case in point, the protest over a Hindu leading the morning prayer in the Senate. Some, such as historian David Barton of the WallBuilders Association (dedicated to teaching the history of our nation and it's founding fathers with religion and morals) claims that there is no business for a Hindu to lead a prayer session. He claims that because Hinduism is not a mono-theistic religion it has no place in a Senate whose founding principles (and the principles of this nation) proclaim "one nation under God". Barton contends that if Hinduism doesn't have one God but many, then how is it possible that he should be allowed to offer up a prayer. What I think Barton, and many like him fail to remember is that this country was founded under the belief that men, women and children should have the right and the freedom to practice what they believe in and not what someone else says they should believe in.

The protest against Zed making his prayer seem ridiculous to me because in reading the opening lines of his prayer, there is no mention of anything remotely classifiable as a Hindu belief in many Gods or anything of the sort. At no time did he invoke the name of a Hindu God or Goddess. His reference to the 'Supreme Diety' is no different than any Christian reference to 'The Almighty'. It's like the whole po-tay-toe po-tah-toe debate. What difference does it really make when its the message and the spirit in which it's delivered. I understand the frustration of many Christian groups in this country. Many of them feel that in the quest to promote religious equality, their belief systems are made to suffer. And perhaps it's true, perhaps in an effort to give everyone else a 'fair shake' they are forgetting to take a turn themselves. The fact of the matter is that Christians make up the majority of this country and so for them to protest the fact that a Hindu priest is delivering one of many prayers that have been delivered in the Senate is itself a problem to me.

Of course, I can blanketly call all Christian religions the same. I can say that there is no difference between Catholocism, Protestantism, Presbyterianism or any of the other -isms. I can say that they are all essentially the same but then that would just convince people out there that I'm completely ignorant when it comes to the Christian religion. I don't believe that I'm completely ignorant but I do feel I have enough knowledge and more importantly tolerance to interact with these religions. What do I mean by interact? I attended public college at the University of Maryland in College Park yet every event, big or small, was started with the National Anthem and then a convocation by the campus priest. We ended each and every convocation by declaring 'Amen'. In all my limited practice of Hinduism, I have never ever had to say Amen and I could conceivably say that this was forcing another religion on me but I'm not because I know that's not the case.

If you have faith in your religion then no matter what anyone says, your religion will continue to survive. If your faith is so weak to think just because someone says something against it or does something which you are not used to, then you have no faith that your religion is worthwhile at all. It's like the advice every parent gives their kid at some point or another in their lives. "If someone calls you stupid, are you automatically stupid?" By the same comparison, if another religion makes a statement, does it decrease the standing of your religion? Not if you don't let it. We claim to be tolerant and accepting of all religions in this country. We pride ourselves on the fact that most anyone can come to this country and practice what they want but there are times when those seem like empty promises written on paper when you see that we still don't know what the other guy practices. Should we really then be preaching tolerance when we ourselves really aren't?