
By: ROBERT CURRY
Re: letter to the editor

A recent editorial in the St. Petersburg Times prompted me to take
the unusual step (well, for me) of sending a letter to the editor.
I have no idea if it will be published, except of course here in this
special preview for all you lucky people. :-)

The editorial itself was in response to a number of complaints about
the head of the Campus Crusade for Christ, who was invited to pray
at the opening of the state legislature and made several remarks that
were considered "offensively" sectarian.

Comments and criticisms are both welcome and invited.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Editor:


        Why should religious prayers "respect all beliefs" as the
    Times recommends the Florida Legislature insist upon? Let's
    face it: not all religions do respect other beliefs. If a member
    of an intolerant religion is going to pray at the opening of
    the Legislature, let him be as offensive as his religion demands.
    Anything less would be dishonest.

        So a preacher was invited by our legislators to engage in
    ritualistic behavior -- and they got what they were asking for.
    Anyone who lives in the real world knows that religion is often
    very intolerant. Knowing that, the next question is whether
    government sponsored prayers are in the public interest to begin
    with.

        The state cannot enforce rules to ensure that these prayers
    respect the religious diversity of all Florida citizens, because
    such official rules would be an undeniable establishment
    of a politically correct state religion, in direct violation of
    the First Amendment. They would give preferential treatment
    to some religions at the expense of others, and at the expense
    of people with no religion at all. Only those whose beliefs
    closely fit the mandatory guidelines would be granted an official
    platform to say (or "pray") what they truly think or believe,
    while all others would be turned away or forced to stifle
    their principles to obey religious content rules ordained by
    the state.

        I am no fan of intolerant religions, but I do support the
    First Amendment right of every citizen to religious freedom.
    If our lawmakers are going to invite clergy to lead the
    Legislature in prayer, what do they expect? Should we provide
    a penalty if the preacher does not toe the line and obey
    their religious content rules?

        Commissioner Tom Osborne has a better idea in his call
    for the Dunedin City Commission to return prayer to the
    private sector where it rightfully belongs. There is absolutely
    no need for an official invocation at each public meeting.
    Our state and local goverments are not churches, nor should
    they try to be. There are plenty of churches already out
    there for people to choose among if they so desire, and people
    can pray privately whenever and wherever they wish without
    forcing religious practices into official government functions.

        It is not the business of government, anyway, to promote
    or to engage in the farce of watered-down, nonsectarian
    religious rituals. Even if some people like them, they are
    a slap in the face to others, and since when is slapping people
    in the face good government?


                                                  Robert Curry
                                                  St. Petersburg


