Congresswoman Virginia Foxx represents the district in which I live. I learned of her co-sponsorship for the Public Prayer Protection Act in an article on the front page of my local newspaper. It was included in an article on the national day of prayer. I then visited her website and read this article to get her position on it. I’ve already made clear my position on prayer in the previous post, so I won’t mention that again. It’s enough to say that she does not represent me.
The Public Prayer Protection Act is presented to protect the rights of elected officials so that they may pray freely. But they already have freedom of religion and the right to pray like all citizens. The only purpose this act is serving is to insert religion into the government. And by the way, does it seem like any of them refrain from praying? President George W. Bush has ridden religion to the top, praying and quoting the bible all the way. The citizens are who need protection. How about a Public Protection from Prayer Act?
Praying while representing a group of diverse citizens all of whom are guaranteed freedom of religion is clearly contradictory. How can I be free in my religious position if my representative is making decisions on my behalf based on the doctrine of a religion with which I disagree? More to the point, why should I trust such a person who claims to be guided by a magical entity that no one has ever seen? This is not what I consider a trustworthy public servant.
You disagree? Consider how you would feel if the president’s speech included quotes from the Qur’an, the book of Mormon, or the Vedas. Would you want the leader of this country blessing you in the name of Allah or Krishna? What about Satan? Think of a religion which you trust the least, or consider the most dangerous… even ridiculous. Now think how you would feel if your government officials were basing decisions about your life and the lives of all citizens upon it. I realize that religious beliefs will be present regardless of the ability to pray while on the job. But this act will not just allow, but encourage religiosity by our elected officials. The dangerous potential outcome of this is further movement toward the combination of church and state- theocracy.
Instead of ranting further, I will conclude with the message I sent to Rep. Foxx through her website.
Congresswoman Foxx,
On the front page of my local paper, the Statesville Record & Landmark, I read about the National Day of Prayer. I also learned that you are co-sponsoring the Public Prayer Protection Act. I am greatly disappointed that you are working to violate the establishment clause of the US Constitution. Why does prayer need protection? All citizens are completely free to pray in their private lives. If you haven’t noticed, the United States is comprised mostly of religious people. Elected officials should not be free to express religious beliefs while serving the public. Like the rest of the citizens, they can pray in private. All people should be served equally fairly. An elected official praying on the job alienates part of the group she represents. That might be over religious differences for those in other religions, or in my case, by an official being religious at all. Appealing to a god shows me that a person is superstitious and unreasonable in at least part of her thinking. It’s a silly, useless waste of time. If our elected officials aren’t capable of fulfilling their duties without appealing to unproven supernatural powers, they should resign and make way for those of us who are able to deal with reality. Human problems require human solutions.
Sincerely atheistic,
J.S.Brown
Tags: congress, constitution, god, politics, prayer, religion, separation of church & state
