USAToday: Judge Rules National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well this is totally stupid, and no way this gets upheld through SCOTUS.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-04-15-prayer-day_N.htm

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional Thursday, saying the day amounts to a call for religious action.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic.

"In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual's decision whether and when to pray," Crabb wrote.

Congress established the day in 1952 and in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations asking Americans to pray. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 2008 arguing the day violated the separation of church and state.

President Barack Obama's administration has countered that the statute simply acknowledges the role of religion in the United States. Obama issued a proclamation last year but did not hold public events with religious leaders as former President George W. Bush had done.

Crabb wrote that her ruling shouldn't be considered a bar to any prayer days until all appeals are exhausted. U.S. Justice Department attorneys who represented the federal government in the case were reviewing the ruling Thursday afternoon, agency spokesman Charles Miller said. He declined further comment.

Obama spokesman Matt Lehrich said in an e-mail to The Associated Press the president still plans to issue a proclamation for the next prayer day.

"As he did last year, President Obama intends to recognize a National Day of Prayer," Lehrich said.

The American Center for Law and Justice, which represented 31 members of Congress who joined the federal government as defendants, called Crabb's ruling flawed and promised to appeal.

"It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it," ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said in a statement.

The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group of Christian lawyers, issued a statement saying Crabb's ruling undermines American tradition dating back to the nation's birth.

Freedom From Religion Foundation attorney Richard Bolton didn't immediately return a message seeking comment.

Crabb wrote that her ruling was not a judgment on the value of prayer. She noted government involvement in prayer may be constitutional if the conduct serves a "significant secular purpose" and doesn't amount to a call for religious action. But the National Day of Prayer crosses that line, she wrote.

"It goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," she wrote. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience."

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Larry]

I can see some reasoning behind the decision.

As described, the event not only recognizes prayer, but actively encourages it.

But, I don't think it's far enough over the line that it should be prohibited, either. My reason is that it doesn't encourage any specific religion. (Even though I think we all know that yes, it was, in fact, intended to encourage one particular one.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

I can see some reasoning behind the decision.

As described, the event not only recognizes prayer, but actively encourages it.

But, I don't think it's far enough over the line that it should be prohibited, either. My reason is that it doesn't encourage any specific religion. (Even though I think we all know that yes, it was, in fact, intended to encourage one particular one.)

Agreed, but the same exact arguments are made regarding "In God We Trust".

[greenspandan]

i find a national day of prayer offensive. i have no issue whatsoever with people praying whenever and wherever they want. but my government should not be calling on me to participate. i hope this decision stands up, but i doubt it will.

[Larry]

Agreed, but the same exact arguments are made regarding "In God We Trust".

Which, (like adding "under God" to the Pledge), was specifically passed for the stated purpose of using the government to promote Christianity.

Note: That's according to Neal Boortz. Conservative/Libertarian radio talk show host. (And Lawyer.) I've heard him

claim

this dozens of times, and from listening to the guy for years, I can tell you that he's anything but a liberal kook aid drinker. However, I'll freely admit that I've never

seen

any of these actual quotes which he says were made, on the record, on the floor of Congress.

I believe him. But that's not the same as actual quotes.

[Zguy28]

i find a national day of prayer offensive.

Of course you do.

[Midnight Judges]

I'm kind of Jeffersonian when it comes to the Separation of Church and State. Religions don't need Government involved in their business and Government doesn't need religion involved in its business. I believe SOCAS is what's best for all involved.

From a law perspective, I can see it both ways. Without a doubt, the motivation of the red scare congress was to establish Christianity as the official religion of the USA, or at least to imply that to be the case. This is clearly unconstitutional, but the Christians in congress were sneaky enough about it to walk the fine line of subverting the intent of the law while perhaps getting by on a technicality.

[Zguy28]

Apparently there is a rumor in heavy circulation on Facebook that Obama has canceled it.

The rumor is not true.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2010/04/15/national-day-of-prayer-2010-canceled.htm

[Mickalino]

National Breast Cancer Awareness Day is offensive to me because I do not have breasts, and therefore unconstitutional, and must be cancelled.

[PokerPacker]

National Breast Cancer Awareness Day is offensive to me because I do not have breasts, and therefore unconstitutional, and must be cancelled.

flawless analogy

[sideshow24]

National Breast Cancer Awareness Day is offensive to me because I do not have breasts, and therefore unconstitutional, and must be cancelled.

As you fasten the back of your manzier.

[China]

National Breast Cancer Awareness Day is offensive to me because I do not have breasts, and therefore unconstitutional, and must be cancelled.

Actually you do have breasts, just because they don't look like a woman's doesn't mean you don't have them.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Apparently there is a rumor in heavy circulation on Facebook that Obama has canceled it.

The rumor is not true.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2010/04/15/national-day-of-prayer-2010-canceled.htm

Yep I got that yesterday via facebook and email from church members, aggravating seems like some days I spend too much time emailing people I very much like telling them to check snopes before spreading craziness.

[tshile]

National Breast Cancer Awareness Day is offensive to me because I do not have breasts, and therefore unconstitutional, and must be cancelled.

you don't have breasts?

what species are you?

edit: damn, beaten by china.

that aside...

regardless of your beliefs of religion, the government should keep its paws out of anything regarding religion - and if its going to do something that can somewhat be viewed as promoting a specific religion, then it should do it for all.

[mjah]

Get the other religions involved with large-scale prayer events on NDoP, and then we'll see how much everyone likes it.

Giant Muslim prayer assemblies in city centers would spread the discomfort more equally.

But it seems to me that either we accept this kind of thing, or we get rid of "In God We Trust" which is obviously a more specific religious reference than a general prayer day.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Get the other religions involved with large-scale prayer events on NDoP, and then we'll see how much everyone likes it.

I think if more religious groups get involved then it will be much more acceptable, except to the militant atheists who hate anything that even smells like God.

Giant Muslim prayer assemblies in city centers would spread the discomfort more equally.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here: are you saying that more people would object to "NDoP" or that less people would object to it?

But it seems to me that either we accept this kind of thing, or we get rid of "In God We Trust" which is obviously a more specific religious reference than a general prayer day.

Agreed and since that has already been reviewed by SCOTUS, I think its time to move on.

[greenspandan]

congress is never going to remove "in god we trust" from our money (or "under god" from the pledge allegiance, for that matter, which was also added during the red scare). there'd just be too much outrage. anyone that voted for it would be demonized and probably thrown out of office at the next election.

the intention of adding those phrases was to acknowledge christianity and please christians, which is a pretty clear violation of the bill of rights, but oh well, whatever. those phrases aren't as offensive as a national holiday in which the government urges people to pray.

[greenspandan]

i know the SCOTUS upheld the "under god" phrase in the pledge of allegiance, but the majority of the justices (5 of 8) did so expressly because they said the guy who brought the case didn't have standing.

the case invloved a man who claimed that his daughter being led by authority figures in a daily recitation of the phrase "under god" infringed on his ability to influence his daughter's religious beliefs. the court ruled against him because they said he didn't have standing due to the fact that he was currently in a custody battle involving her. this ruling was really kind of a cop out.

[NOLASKINSFAN]

Is Martin Luther King day unconstitutional because he was predominantly a religious leader?

[skinfan133]

i find a national day of prayer offensive. i have no issue whatsoever with people praying whenever and wherever they want. but my government should not be calling on me to participate. i hope this decision stands up, but i doubt it will.

explain to me how you are being forced to do something against your will. Proclamations are much different than laws, and this is an extremely vague sort of proclamation. As a social libertarian I definitely will defend your right to free expression and freedom from government tyranny, even with my own life if necessary. But this is just ridiculous, you do not have a right to be free from being offended. Its part of the human experience, get used to it.

[mjah]

I think if more religious groups get involved then it will be much more acceptable, except to the militant atheists who hate anything that even smells like God.

Well, that's half of it anyway. I imagine that large prayer demonstrations by non-Christian religions would get the stink-eye glare from the fundie crowd on the other extreme of the American political spectrum, who wouldn't cotton to it. That whole "this is a Christian nation" nonsense, and all. The NDoP would go on, but not without additional tension.

That's the way a NDoP should be, though. I actually think it's healthy for everyone -- regardless of their own beliefs -- to see very large unfamiliar religious sects using NDoP as a rallying point to promote their respective religions to Americans. To a degree, involuntary exposure to other religions (whether a particular person likes it or not) is a natural consequence of freedom of religion. Nobody should expect to be exempt.

[skinfan133]

I'm kind of Jeffersonian when it comes to the Separation of Church and State. Religions don't need Government involved in their business and Government doesn't need religion involved in its business. I believe SOCAS is what's best for all involved.

exactly both parties (gov't and religion) are better off mutually ignoring each other. But, as the proclamation stands, an unconstitutional argument would be hard to make.

[Predicto]

I think this decision is probably correct (the current SCOTUS may not agree).

I also think that there are some battles that are not worth fighting. No one is harmed by the National Prayer Day, its really vague. Why pick this particular fight and piss off religious people? Just like the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit, all this lawsuit accomplishes is to make religious people less respectful of our Constitution and the courts (as well as create hostility toward non-religious people) without providing anyone any real benefit.

[SnyderShrugged]

Don't most, if not all forms of religion have prayer? It seems many feel the NDoP is just for christians. If it were, then i could see the judges point, but it isnt so I dont. How is the NDoP upholding any one set of religious beliefs?

[NavyDave]

Giant Muslim prayer assemblies in city centers would spread the discomfort more equally.

.

True if they are advocating a Jihad, but not as much as the socialist agenda that does need to eliminate Judeo Christian principles to destroy a nation as great as the uSA or rants by the Godless or morally corrupt.