Today's Daily Oklahoman reports that the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control has issued a news release asking the religious community to pray last Wednesday for people battling prescription drug addiction.
In a press release entitled "Statewide evening of prayer encouraged," Oklahoma Bureau of Nacotics Director Darrell Weaver says, "The is (sic) a night which we must lace up our gloves and enter the spiritual ring to conduct battle with this formidable foe in pursuit of making a better tomorrow for our State.”
While it is always a good idea for people to pray for those with drug addictions, is it a good idea for agents of the state -- particularly those representing law enforcement -- to be issuing the call?
Is Darrell Weaver merely using his position with the government to advertise his personal religiosity? Or, is he deliberately using the authority of his office to promote religion?
If Weaver was genuinely concerned for people with addictions, he would find a better way to involve the religious community than by issuing press releases.
2 comments:
This almost assumes that "there are better ways to combat drug addiction than prayer." Much of our fear of "government calls to prayer" comes from an assumption that prayer is merely a private preference and does not really affect anyone or anything outside of the one who is praying.
In a truly free society anyone--literally anyone--should be free to call people to prayer. Holding government office should not be a barrier to that. One does not give up one's freedom, in order to work for the government, if one lives in a free society.
Of course, if a law enforcement officer was forcing people to pray, or to pray in a certain way, perhaps at gunpoint--THAT would be unconstitutional and unjust.
I wonder if some of the anti-"government calls to prayer" rhetoric is more a desire on the part of some people to distance themselves from "conservative religionists" rather than a deeply thoughtful position on the matter of public prayer.
Fred,
I contend that making certain that the government remains neutral in matters of religion is the true conservative position.
I know of an instance shortly after civil rights legislation was passed where a police officer heard that an independent Baptist church had denied membership to a couple in a "mixed" marriage (the husband was black, the wife was white) on the grounds that it was an "unequal yoke." The police officer was a "moderate" Southern Baptist who vehemently disagreed with that independent Baptist church's position. When he was off-duty, but wearing his police uniform with both badge and gun in place, he went to the church, advised the secretary that he had heard of the church's actions and asked for the names of the people who were denied membership. The secretary's immediate reaction was to be alarmed. She thought this meant that a law was broken and the church was under investigation.
Was it right or was it wrong for the police officer to do that? Does he give up some freedoms while working as a police officer in a society that separates church and state? Or, is he free to do as he pleases while in uniform?
Post a Comment