Remind me again...

What do we elect and pay our state representatives for? Is it to represent our concerns and manage our commons, or is it spend legislative time to offer prayers to Jesus and turn our public financed buildings into churches and not courts of law?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has sent a letter requesting the assembly to end prayer at the commencement of legislative sessions in our state assembly. Apparently this tradition got its start in 1848, where the Wisconsin State Assembly passed a resolution establishing this practice. (Can someone help me find this resolution? I'd like to read it. Thanks.) This practice is very much like prayer in public schools.

Before 1962, teachers or religious educators lead daily prayers in our public schools. This was ruled by the Supreme Court (Engel v. Vitale) to be a violation of the separation clause. (Students can still pray in school all they want. Students can not be lead in prayer by a teacher during class time.) The Assembly's prayers are no different because they appoint speakers from a pool of our elected representatives to lead the prayer, even though the US Senate begins its sessions with prayer.

In 1983, the Supreme Court allowed prayer in the US Senate but stated that "the prayers must not be intended to coerce listeners into adopting the speaker's belief or favor one religion over another." Despite this, these coercive prayers have continued in our state legislature. Wisconsin Assembly Chief Clerk Pat Fuller, states that this practice does not violate the ruling because the assembly is a separate branch.  Wow. Just because there is a loophole and the Assembly is not explicitly cited, does not mean you go ahead and do it anyway. Our taxes pay these people. I fail to see how this is any different than school-lead prayer, except for a change in venue.  And, I think, the fact this is a public court makes these prayers more of an egregious offense to the separation of church and state and religious liberty.

The FFRF also observes that the prayers are "unnecessary, coercive" and notes that "thirteen of the prayers invoked Jesus Christ, eight quoted the Bible and three mentioned the Holy Spirit." But what would you expect? Christianity can not help itself as religions are mutually exclusive to each other and to a secular, civil society.

For example, the article cites:

• Accused Rep. Eugene Hahn, R-Cambria, of urging his colleagues to turn against faiths other than Christianity.
• "Those who don't love us, may God turn their hearts. And, if he doesn't turn their hearts, may he turn their ankles, so we'll know them by their limping," he said, prompting lawmakers to burst into laughter. He added later: "Oh God, Our Judge, save us from holding a faith that cripples the future, and makes a better tomorrow an impossibility."
• Criticized Rep. Sheryl Albers, R-Reedsburg, for quoting a Bible verse that said laws were meant to allow individuals to lead godly lives. "So, man made laws, which are contrary to reason, become unjust. On that basis, laws we might make, if contrary to natural law, are a corruption of the law," she said on Oct. 24.

And that's only a small sample of thirteen. Imagine just how many prayers like this have been uttered since 1848?

I agree with the FRFF that initiating legislative sessions with prayer is unnecessary and most importantly, it is divisive to non-Christians and Christians alike. Last July, Harry Reid invited the first Hindu, Rajan Zed, to lead the Senate in prayer. Zed was met with protests by the Religious Right, claiming that Zed worshiped "false Gods." If a Hindu leading a bland prayer piqued enough anxiety for these Christians, what about the rest of us who are non-religious? Since you can not divorce the person from the type of belief held - which the Zed case demonstrates, so to does prayer causes friction among any of the religiously devoted. Furthermore, the way a Catholic worships is different than a Protestant. The small differences in religious practice between varieties of Christianity make those sects what they are.

This spring, many Christians were up in arms over Reverend Wright's comments about "God damning America." Wright is a citizen that only represents his church and is not a lawmaker, unlike Chippewa Falls Republican Terry Moulton. During one such legislative prayer, Moulton stated that the nations that do not accept God "went into ruins and perished." Is this the kind of activity we want from our representatives when they should be engaged in writing laws and debating the merits over issues of economic and social priority? If you are offended by such statements like Wrights, be sure to email Moulton and let him know that his views are not your views and he should apologize for his damning of America.

Inevitably, the defenders of such traditions will cry foul that prohibiting such a practice in our state houses and courts is a threat to their religious liberty. This would be true if the law was prohibiting them for doing so in their homes, or in their churches. Context matters here. These prayers are being lead by our State representatives who are salaried through taxes, and as mentioned before, in our public courts. Christians do not have the right to Christianize and bash their religion over everyone else's heads and with the assistance of our tax dollars.

Source

In my ninth grade math class, I was scolded for not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. My teacher had asked me if I was not proud of my country. I wanted to ask him in what context, but felt the peer pressure to just shut up. To tell you the truth, I wasn't very proud of my country. Iran-Contra broke around this time, and I was disappointed by Reagan and this was a simple, yet quiet way to protest. Despite all that, I have always felt uncomfortable performing this bit of patriotic pageantry in any mood.

But why the anxiety you might ask? Don't true, patriotic Americans enjoy this bit of public affirmation to their country? Do I hate America? Am I a Communist? A socialist? An Islamo-Fascist? None of those reasons, I assure you. It is because I am an American that I object to this ritual that only Communists and Goosesteppers do. I also have to ask myself, is our pledge any different than when Saudi's pledge to their flag? When Saudis pledge, they make an oath to God. Essentially, there is absolutely no difference in this practice and intent.

The Pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, and published to commemorate the 400 year anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America. The companion address, by Bellamy, is full of exhalations in the discovery of the country, to America, to God, and to the public school system. While I can agree with some of the sentiments of the original 1892 wording was meant to express by Bellamy and agree with Bellamy that the public school is foundational to a free society, I do not agree with the forced, recital of the Pledge as a vehicle to teach our children what the values that the Pledge supposedly represents. In fact, it is very much against "justice and liberty" that this compulsory oath violates. The greatest accomplishment of our secular democracy is the freedom from compulsory belief, whether these beliefs are secular, religious, or otherwise. The Pledge, as it is currently configured, is a religious test. Article 6 expressly forbids any religious oath as a requirement to hold office and if we apply the spirit of Article 6, the Pledge and the phrase "under God" is the endorsement of the Christian (mainly Protestant) belief in God. (Spend a moment and read the Flag Code. Congress Findings is nothing but a long list of religious justification.) Furthermore, nowhere is the First Commandment of the Decalogue enumerated within the Constitution.

In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the Pledge was an "unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism" affirming the significance of the phrase "under God". This prompted a 2004 Supreme Court showdown, that instead of ruling on the constitutionality of "under God", took the red-herring and dismissed this case on procedural grounds. I do recall listening to extended debate on NPR between Justices Renquist and Thomas. If I recall correctly, it was Renquist that correctly observed that the word God was not just an explicit historical reference as the arguments of the day had asserted. Renquist (again, if I recall correctly) effectively pointed out that the argument that he and Thomas were presently engaged in over the meaning of the word God was demonstration enough that the word God can not be removed from its theological, religious context. (In other words, to change the context of the word God renders such a word meaningless.) As personally gratifying listening to that exchange, I was fully disappointed that such sublime reasoning was only to be abandoned for the coward's way out. Regardless, this exchange between Renquist and Thomas positively affirmed the appellate court's ruling.

Being a godless liberal, you would probably expect this opinion of me I am sure. A perfectly reasonable, knee-jerk, defensive reaction should summon the most invective language against me. Very well. But when you do, consider the fact that in the 40's it was the Jehovah Witness that objected to the Pledge as violating their First Amendment Rights. They are hardly atheists. Also consider the analysis of senior editor at the Cato Institute, Gene Healy, who is no liberal himself. Healy had this to say about (Republican) defenders of the Pledge:

"Why do so many conservatives who, by and large, exalt the individual and the family above the state, endorse this ceremony of subordination to the government? Why do Christian conservatives say it's important for schoolchildren to bow before a symbol of secular power? Indeed, why should conservatives support the Pledge at all, with or without "under God"?"

In the spirit of James Madison "Memorial" speech, let's abolish the Pledge. Just as Madison stated that "the Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate." So too should the convictions and conscience of every American decide how best to exercise their patriotism.

Therefore in respecting the individual over the state, let's abolish this tradition. Instead, let our democratic principles revolve not around the parroting of words, but in our actions.

____________________

(It should be pointed out that there is no law, unless in uniform, that Americans must pledge. But it is a tradition that nonetheless continues in our schools. Effectively, the recital of the Pledge becomes compulsory. )