It was right out of a movie script…there I was, passionate disparager of President Bush, spending the final full day of his dismal administration enthusiastically praising the president and wildly cheering as he walked by me, time and time again. Let me explain…
It was right out of a movie script because it was right out of a movie script. “My Name Is Kahn” is a Dharma Productions extravaganza starring Bollywood mega-star Sharukh Kahn whose celebrity status outside the U.S. was confirmed by the hundreds of Indian teenagers standing behind the barricades hoping to catch a glimpse of one of their country’s most beloved actors. I had a much better view than the screaming teens because, once again, during my winter sojourn in Southern California, I am wiling away my retirement days working as an extra in whatever movie or TV show happens to need a slightly balding, semi-alert, ex-preacher to fill in the background. This time it was “Kahn” shooting in LA and New York with a mainly all-Indian crew and cast and which, as best I can figure out, is telling the tale of an Indian traveler to America who gets accused of being a terrorist at a rally for President Bush. I know. I know. G.W.B. is old news but I hadn’t the heart to tell either the director or the star and, besides, movie jobs don’t come easy nowadays.
So, as I said, there I was cheering a remarkable presidential look-alike who, I assumed, was probably one of the few Americans mourning the outgoing administration seeing as he didn’t look in the least bit like Barack Obama. Over and over again, from slightly different angles and under varying conditions of light, the motorcade pulled up before me and the two hundred or so other extras lucky enough to be employed. Each time the faux-Bush popped out of the limousine, we went bananas…waving our little flags and cheering our president on. Acting can be very, very challenging.
As an actor who seeks to find the motivation for any character that he plays, I knew I needed to dig deeper into my casted role of an appreciative American. During each camera set-up, I frantically tried to focus on some presidential precedent that would allow me to more fully understand my responsibility to represent a truly grateful citizen. I have had other difficult tests of my dramatic abilities (most recently in the exhaustingly complex role of Mayor of Munchkinland) but nothing has challenged my thespian talents more than this particular theatrical trial.
I reminded myself that I am now a professional background actor and expected to draw on my own experiences to bring to the screen whatever emotions the director demanded. If this guy wanted gratitude, I was going to give him gratitude in spades. Integrity be damned. This was for my art!
At my age, memory begins to play games with reality and so I knew I would be able to come up with reasons to be thankful for the tenure of our outgoing president. There was that, of course…the outgoing part. And I always appreciated the fact that he had a dog frolicking about on the south lawn of the White House. His choice in a wife seemed spectacularly fortuitous. Surely all of America is grateful for that little bit of good fortune. Laura Bush’s obvious grace and good manners went far in balancing her hubby’s bloopers and blunders. One wonders how many other wars we might have to be waging was it not for the charms and, I suspect, wise counsel of Mrs. Bush.
Although it pretty much exhausted my inner resources, such grateful recollecting provided enough motivation for me to continue to fulfill my dramatic responsibilities. Each take took me closer and closer to the brink but still I was able to muster the means to appear to be deeply thankful. I waved. I cheered. I tried not to throw up. And I triumphed. When the Assistant Director in Charge of Extras so endearingly shouted through his bullhorn for us to “Get out of here and don’t leave any of your crap behind!” I heard in his brief dismissal a deep and profound gratitude for my professionalism.
It also sounded like a good theme for an inaugural address.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Practicing Progressive
I don’t suppose it was just because a certain Saturday columnist for the Summit Daily News expressed objection to the selection of Pastor Rick Warren as prayer-in-chief at this week’s presidential inauguration that gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson was invited to offer up a public prayer of his own at the inaugural kick-off festivities for the new president.
Clearly our new president seeks to make good on his pledge to bring America back from the brink of paralyzing partisan politics by seeking to include representatives from a wide range of political and religious perspectives. Of course, the problem comes in discerning where to draw the line on such inclusive hospitality.
For instance, I suspect there may be more than a few of the faithful who wish their own worldview would be equally represented before the millions who will be watching this coming Tuesday morning. With Rick Warren’s very public prejudices on display, one could fairly assume that those holding other bigoted biases will feel slighted by President Obama’s failure to include them as well.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a Scientologist or two have had their feelings hurt by the inevitable exclusiveness that comes from trying to balance the theological teeter-totter as our new president is obviously trying to do. And what about our Hindu brothers and sisters who surely must feel slighted when they hear the ever-recurring references to the one God of monotheism in the midst of their polytheistic practices? Then there are the Lutherans who would be miffed to the max by their exclusion but wouldn’t dream of complaining. My heart even goes out to my Calvinist friends who surely would like to get their two-cents in regarding predestination before the president starts thinking he attained this lofty stature on his own. And is it not fair to assume there are rabbinic members of the pro-Israel lobby who would like the opportunity to make sure we all understand how God is blessing the current bombing barrage in Gaza just as a humble imam in Hamas might make his case for Allah’s benediction upon using schools, hospitals and mosques as rocket-launching sites? Personally, I wouldn’t mind having a Quaker lead us all in a lengthy peaceful silence but quiet reflection doesn’t seem too popular either in churches or out.
Hospitality has its drawbacks, it would seem. By the time a truly representative inaugural prayer could be pronounced, all of us would have long ago reached for the remote. As our new president is surely discovering, pleasing the people who claim to be pleasing God can be a very unpleasant proposition. You usually end up angering all and being damned by most. That is why almost every prayer before politicians ends up as nothing more than a few pious platitudes half-baked into a semi-humble pie.
Many years ago, I was talked into giving one such prayer before our Colorado House of Representatives. As I waited to be introduced, the woman in charge of public piety for that day reminded me that all prayers before the House were non-denominational and, even more importantly, short. She checked back with me several times before my scheduled debut and each time she would say something like, “Are you ready to give your SHORT prayer?” and “It’s almost time for the SHORT prayer.” Even I got her point and pared my message to the Almighty down to nothing more than the briefest of greetings, the swiftest of thanks and a good-bye that was perilously close to being downright curt. As I left the chamber, somewhat stunned by my ability to be so sanctimoniously succinct, I caught a glimpse of my female chaperone. She was giving me the “OK” sign with her thumb and forefinger. I shuddered to think what she would have done if I had run a little long.
In the intervening years, I have come to believe that the founding fathers were especially wise in their collective determination to keep politics and religion apart. I have a sneaky hunch, given the brouhaha brewing over inaugural prayers and their pray-ers, our new president might soon feel the same.
Clearly our new president seeks to make good on his pledge to bring America back from the brink of paralyzing partisan politics by seeking to include representatives from a wide range of political and religious perspectives. Of course, the problem comes in discerning where to draw the line on such inclusive hospitality.
For instance, I suspect there may be more than a few of the faithful who wish their own worldview would be equally represented before the millions who will be watching this coming Tuesday morning. With Rick Warren’s very public prejudices on display, one could fairly assume that those holding other bigoted biases will feel slighted by President Obama’s failure to include them as well.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a Scientologist or two have had their feelings hurt by the inevitable exclusiveness that comes from trying to balance the theological teeter-totter as our new president is obviously trying to do. And what about our Hindu brothers and sisters who surely must feel slighted when they hear the ever-recurring references to the one God of monotheism in the midst of their polytheistic practices? Then there are the Lutherans who would be miffed to the max by their exclusion but wouldn’t dream of complaining. My heart even goes out to my Calvinist friends who surely would like to get their two-cents in regarding predestination before the president starts thinking he attained this lofty stature on his own. And is it not fair to assume there are rabbinic members of the pro-Israel lobby who would like the opportunity to make sure we all understand how God is blessing the current bombing barrage in Gaza just as a humble imam in Hamas might make his case for Allah’s benediction upon using schools, hospitals and mosques as rocket-launching sites? Personally, I wouldn’t mind having a Quaker lead us all in a lengthy peaceful silence but quiet reflection doesn’t seem too popular either in churches or out.
Hospitality has its drawbacks, it would seem. By the time a truly representative inaugural prayer could be pronounced, all of us would have long ago reached for the remote. As our new president is surely discovering, pleasing the people who claim to be pleasing God can be a very unpleasant proposition. You usually end up angering all and being damned by most. That is why almost every prayer before politicians ends up as nothing more than a few pious platitudes half-baked into a semi-humble pie.
Many years ago, I was talked into giving one such prayer before our Colorado House of Representatives. As I waited to be introduced, the woman in charge of public piety for that day reminded me that all prayers before the House were non-denominational and, even more importantly, short. She checked back with me several times before my scheduled debut and each time she would say something like, “Are you ready to give your SHORT prayer?” and “It’s almost time for the SHORT prayer.” Even I got her point and pared my message to the Almighty down to nothing more than the briefest of greetings, the swiftest of thanks and a good-bye that was perilously close to being downright curt. As I left the chamber, somewhat stunned by my ability to be so sanctimoniously succinct, I caught a glimpse of my female chaperone. She was giving me the “OK” sign with her thumb and forefinger. I shuddered to think what she would have done if I had run a little long.
In the intervening years, I have come to believe that the founding fathers were especially wise in their collective determination to keep politics and religion apart. I have a sneaky hunch, given the brouhaha brewing over inaugural prayers and their pray-ers, our new president might soon feel the same.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
The Practicing Progressive
The Rev. George M. Docherty died this past Thanksgiving Day at the very impressive age of 97. Unless you’re even older than I am, you probably don’t remember the good reverend or the sermon he preached to his congregation at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington D.C. on February 7th, 1954. In his homily, Pastor Docherty, a native of Scotland, mused on the lack of any reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. He admitted that he hadn’t even known of the pledge’s existence until his 7 year old son recited it for him. Docherty was stunned when he first heard it. “I came from Scotland, where we said ‘God save our gracious queen,’ ‘God save our gracious king.’ Here was the Pledge of Allegiance, and God wasn’t in it at all,” he recalled in an interview in 2004.
The minister’s topic that particular Sunday was hardly coincidental. He knew that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was to attend services that day. One can only assume that Docherty was a powerful preacher as the very next day a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to add the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. President Eisenhower signed it into law that same year.
Despite the assumption of many that the pledge dates back to the founding fathers,
the original Pledge of Allegiance was the work of another cleric, Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and socialist who penned the pledge in 1892 for a children’s magazine celebrating the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’ discovery of America.
The addition of the divine blessing to our nation disturbed a great many citizens who felt the phrase violated the intentions of the First Amendment. Equally disturbing for many others was the assumption that the phrase posits: There is one God and, presumably, America abides under this one God’s benevolence.
Such an assumption is highly problematic to anyone with even a passing understanding of the development of religions. Even putting aside the monotheistic implication, an implication that precludes patriotic polytheists like American Hindus and others, the idea that U.S. policies and actions somehow reflect divine intent is troubling to the extreme. Our recent military forays and the continuing discrimination in domestic matters provides vivid evidence for many of us that this is a God we would choose not to be under at all.
A growing number of American citizens are feeling less and less aligned with traditional religious expressions. The problems inherent in assuming an omnipresent, omnipotent and benevolent deity manifest themselves in a myriad of ways from personal tragedies to very public horrors. Many spiritually sensitive people find the traditional image of an anthropomorphic heavenly being severely limiting and have turned to other theological models. To assume that the people of this one nation have one understanding of God is naïve at best and contrary to all evidence. As a parish pastor for thirty years, I can assure you that even in one small mountain congregation the range of understanding of God and godly actions is vast.
In the same week of The Reverend Docherty’s demise, a group of atheists filed suit against the State of Kentucky’s Department of Homeland Security for formally announcing that the security of that state "cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God.” Indeed, the official state position that offers offence to the atheists also includes a verse from the Bible: "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." (Psalm 127) The atheists are not only concerned with what they consider the abuse of the First Amendment but also the very possible presumption that those assigned to protect Kentuckians’ safekeeping might shirk their duties off on a God who, the atheists point out, hasn’t been particularly consistent of late in the security department.
There are many who continue to believe that America’s Constitution assumes but one theological perspective. But of course there is no mention of God anywhere in that treasured document. The writers were abundantly clear in their intention to forbid any attempt on the part of this new government to intrude on the religious beliefs, or lack of beliefs, of its citizenry.
So, rest in peace, dear reverend, even though you disturbed the peace of many.
The minister’s topic that particular Sunday was hardly coincidental. He knew that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was to attend services that day. One can only assume that Docherty was a powerful preacher as the very next day a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to add the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. President Eisenhower signed it into law that same year.
Despite the assumption of many that the pledge dates back to the founding fathers,
the original Pledge of Allegiance was the work of another cleric, Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and socialist who penned the pledge in 1892 for a children’s magazine celebrating the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’ discovery of America.
The addition of the divine blessing to our nation disturbed a great many citizens who felt the phrase violated the intentions of the First Amendment. Equally disturbing for many others was the assumption that the phrase posits: There is one God and, presumably, America abides under this one God’s benevolence.
Such an assumption is highly problematic to anyone with even a passing understanding of the development of religions. Even putting aside the monotheistic implication, an implication that precludes patriotic polytheists like American Hindus and others, the idea that U.S. policies and actions somehow reflect divine intent is troubling to the extreme. Our recent military forays and the continuing discrimination in domestic matters provides vivid evidence for many of us that this is a God we would choose not to be under at all.
A growing number of American citizens are feeling less and less aligned with traditional religious expressions. The problems inherent in assuming an omnipresent, omnipotent and benevolent deity manifest themselves in a myriad of ways from personal tragedies to very public horrors. Many spiritually sensitive people find the traditional image of an anthropomorphic heavenly being severely limiting and have turned to other theological models. To assume that the people of this one nation have one understanding of God is naïve at best and contrary to all evidence. As a parish pastor for thirty years, I can assure you that even in one small mountain congregation the range of understanding of God and godly actions is vast.
In the same week of The Reverend Docherty’s demise, a group of atheists filed suit against the State of Kentucky’s Department of Homeland Security for formally announcing that the security of that state "cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God.” Indeed, the official state position that offers offence to the atheists also includes a verse from the Bible: "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." (Psalm 127) The atheists are not only concerned with what they consider the abuse of the First Amendment but also the very possible presumption that those assigned to protect Kentuckians’ safekeeping might shirk their duties off on a God who, the atheists point out, hasn’t been particularly consistent of late in the security department.
There are many who continue to believe that America’s Constitution assumes but one theological perspective. But of course there is no mention of God anywhere in that treasured document. The writers were abundantly clear in their intention to forbid any attempt on the part of this new government to intrude on the religious beliefs, or lack of beliefs, of its citizenry.
So, rest in peace, dear reverend, even though you disturbed the peace of many.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
