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