National Day of Prayer

[HuskyCaucasian]

Religion News Service via HuffPo -

WASHINGTON (RNS) As Rep. Randy Forbes sees it, the decision by a Wisconsin federal judge that the law creating a National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional is little more than one person's opinion.

 

Millions of Americans, Forbes said, think otherwise.

 

"That's not what the Constitution says," the Virginia Republican declared Wednesday (April 21), surrounded by other members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus. "That's what one unelected judge says the Constitution says."

 

On Thursday (April 22), the Justice Department said it would appeal the decision, capping a week of political uproar from conservatives after Judge Barbara Crabb of Madison, Wis., issued her April 15 ruling.

 

Since then, lawmakers and conservative Christian groups had pushed President Obama to appeal the controversial decision. Interfaith organizations that say evangelicals have "hijacked" the prayer day, meanwhile, hope politicians will take a more inclusive approach to the observance.

 

With yet another legal skirmish in the offing, the political debate over whether Americans should pause for a collective day of national prayer on the first Thursday of May has now reached a fever pitch.

 

The Freedom from Religion Foundation, the small Wisconsin-based organization that Crabb vindicated with the decision, is planning to contact all 50 governors and mayors of major cities to dissuade them from participating in observances, scheduled for May 6 this year.

 

"It's a David and Goliath fight, but we're readying our slingshot!" said foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor, with not a hint of irony as she pulled a metaphor straight out of the Bible.

 

The National Day of Prayer Task Force, the Colorado Springs, Colo.-based group that plans tens of thousands of events each year, has already launched a "Save the National Day of Prayer" campaign.

 

"This is an attack upon our religious freedoms, and it is a sad day in America when an atheist in Wisconsin can undermine this tradition for millions of others who simply wish to join their fellow citizens in praying for their country," the petition reads.

 

Shirley Dobson, leader of the task force and the wife of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, issued a statement Wednesday decrying the "unrelenting assault" on the nation's "heritage of prayer."

 

In addition to Crabb's ruling, she criticized the Military Religious Freedom Foundation's demand that the Pentagon disinvite evangelist Franklin Graham from speaking at its National Day of Prayer event.

 

"It is time to say, 'Enough is enough," Dobson said. "We can be silent no more."

 

Graham, who angered Muslims by calling Islam an "evil and wicked religion" after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, is this year's honorary chairman of the prayer task force. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has also asked the Pentagon to remove Graham as a speaker after he told Fox News on Thursday that Muslims are "enslaved by Islam."

 

The Alliance Defense Fund, which successfully removed Shirley Dobson as a defendant in the case that landed in Crabb's courtroom, has sent an update to mayors saying Crabb's ruling "should not disrupt your local observance" of the prayer day.

 

J. Michael Johnson, a senior legal counsel for the ADF, said he hopes his legal advice will be the same after the appeals.

 

"I think observances like this can and will continue, but it would be a real shame if the government couldn't acknowledge the importance of it," he said.

 

Jews on First and the Interfaith Alliance, two groups that have accused the National Day of Prayer Task Force of hosting exclusionary Christian events, sent a joint letter to Obama asking him to issue a proclamation that promotes inclusive observances.

 

"We're certainly going to encourage people to have interfaith, inclusive events but the line that we're going to take now is it's important for there to be a healthy separation as well as a healthy respect for religion," said Rabbi Haim Beliak, one of the co-directors of Jews on First.

 

The Interfaith Alliance says it has plans for such events in Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and California.

 

Hours after Crabb's decision, the White House announced via Twitter that President Obama "intends to recognize a National Day of Prayer," as he did last year. In 2009, he issued a proclamation, but did not host an observance at the White House, as his predecessor George W. Bush did throughout his presidency.

 

The judge noted that her decision cannot be enforced until the appeals process is exhausted, making the observances scheduled for May 6 able to continue this year.

 

Whatever the appeals court decides, First Amendment Center scholar Charles Haynes predicts politicians will embrace the debate--and probably show up at more events this year.

 

"It's like waving a red flag in front of politicians, and who wants to say we don't support prayer?" said Haynes, who agrees with the ruling but doubts it will be upheld. "That's like being against apple pie and motherhood."

[CrimsonWeltall]

Religion News Service via HuffPo -

 

Easy ruling. The government should not be encouraging a religious exercise.

 

[bmags]

"That's not what the Constitution says," the Virginia Republican declared Wednesday (April 21), surrounded by other members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus. "That's what one unelected judge says the Constitution says."

 

pray tell me, genius, what you are talking about.

[Jenksismyhero]

Easy ruling. The government should not be encouraging a religious exercise.

 

Not really easy. They've been debating variances of this exact issue for decades now.

 

Personally, I don't see a problem with it. It's not promoting a religion, therefore IMO it's constitutional. If you're going after this, you might as well go after "In God We Trust" or Christmas as a national holiday. Ignore it if you don't like it/don't agree with it.

 

That said, their argument that the government is somehow taking something away from them is ridiculous. You don't need a stupid piece of paper proclaiming X day as national prayer day to hold rallys or to pray or to do whatever you want to do on that day.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Not really easy. They've been debating variances of this exact issue for decades now.

 

Personally, I don't see a problem with it. It's not promoting a religion, therefore IMO it's constitutional. If you're going after this, you might as well go after "In God We Trust" or Christmas as a national holiday. Ignore it if you don't like it/don't agree with it.

 

It's promoting a religious activity: prayer. It doesn't matter if it's non-denominational (we swear it's not evangelical!).

Is it *picky* to b**** about something so small? Sure.

 

How about a National Day of No Prayer? I bet that would go over well.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

It's promoting a religious activity: prayer. It doesn't matter if it's non-denominational (we swear it's not evangelical!).

Is it *picky* to b**** about something so small? Sure.

 

How about a National Day of No Prayer? I bet that would go over well.

 

Define religious activity. Is taking peyote a religious activity? How about sacrificing animals?

 

And I don't think "prayer" is enough to "establish" a religion, which is all the Constitution is concerned with. Prayer isn't specific enough IMO.

[BigSqwert]

What is the point of this? Anyone can pray whenever they want.

[Steve9347]

This is like Boobquake. Only with less ugly fat women.

[StrangeSox]

I think a good test of whether or not it is intended as an endorsement of religion is the way people react when it's discussed.

[CanOfCorn]

Call it National Day of Remembrance...oh wait, we have one of those.

 

Really, if you are religious, you have a day of prayer. Sunday is one of them. Friday night to Saturday night Sabbath is another one. Just saying.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Define religious activity. Is taking peyote a religious activity? How about sacrificing animals?

 

And I don't think "prayer" is enough to "establish" a religion, which is all the Constitution is concerned with. Prayer isn't specific enough IMO.

 

...an activity associated with religion? Taking peyote or sacrificing animals can be, but are not necessarily, religious exercises. Is prayer ever non-religious?

 

The first amendment isn't just about establishing a religion; it's about the government compelling people to believe in any way, including being religious over non-religious.

[Jenksismyhero]

...an activity associated with religion? Taking peyote or sacrificing animals can be, but are not necessarily, religious exercises. Is prayer ever non-religious?

 

The first amendment isn't just about establishing a religion; it's about the government compelling people to believe in any way, including being religious over non-religious.

 

I'm not religious, and I do think this argument is trivial since they can pray on any other day of the week. My argument is more for the bastardizing of the Constitution (in this instance anyway). It IS all about establishing a religion. I dunno how the government is compelling people to believe in a religion by saying x date is a national prayer day. It's not a law that says "everyone must pray on this day or else!" But whatever, dumb argument I agree.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

It's endorsing the idea of prayer and religion.

[CrimsonWeltall]

It IS all about establishing a religion.

 

Virtually all precedent disagrees. The government should not be promoting religious acts, even by the simple act of "encouraging" Americans to pray.

[kapkomet]

I think a good test of whether or not it is intended as an endorsement of religion is the way people react when it's discussed.

 

 

That's a good point, actually. Personally, I don't get too excited about stuff like this, ... with that said, though, don't take my PERSONAL freedom away to pray or not to pray. The rest is a stupid arguement, really.

 

It's endorsing the idea of prayer and religion.

 

You really think so? I don't see it that way.

[Balta1701]

That's a good point, actually. Personally, I don't get too excited about stuff like this, ... with that said, though, don't take my PERSONAL freedom away to pray or not to pray. The rest is a stupid arguement, really.

 

 

 

You really think so? I don't see it that way.

I certainly see it that way.

 

Anyway...I'll bet if you put a team of really smart lawyers on this, you could find a way to have the people in the government recognize the day and release statements about the day but without having it codified in law that it is a federally considered holiday.

[kapkomet]

I certainly see it that way.

 

Anyway...I'll bet if you put a team of really smart lawyers on this, you could find a way to have the people in the government recognize the day and release statements about the day but without having it codified in law that it is a federally considered holiday.

 

 

True.

[lostfan]

I'm not really bothered by the government promoting a vague idea of religious activity or faith, it's not endorsing one religion over another, and it's not infringing on anyone's right to practice or not practice their religion. But I am also with the "stupid argument" crowd.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I'm not really bothered by the government promoting a vague idea of religious activity or faith, it's not endorsing one religion over another

 

Does it not endorse belief over non-belief? Or theism over non-theism/atheism/deism/pantheism?

 

[lostfan]

Does it not endorse belief over non-belief? Or theism over non-theism/atheism/deism/pantheism?

It's so vague, how does it actually infringe on the rights of atheists?

[CrimsonWeltall]

It's so vague, how does it actually infringe on the rights of atheists?

 

What level of specificity is required before endorsement of religion is too much? It is everyone's religious right not to be influenced by the government, however minor that attempt is.

 

Still waiting for National Prayer-Is-Useless Day.

[lostfan]

Is there a Supreme Court ruling that says that somewhere? (Asking because I don't know). I've always thought of specific religions, i.e. Christianity, because colonists were tired of being dicked around by the Church of England.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Is there a Supreme Court ruling that says that somewhere? (Asking because I don't know). I've always thought of specific religions, i.e. Christianity, because colonists were tired of being dicked around by the Church of England.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman and The Lemon Test would be the obvious reference. The National Day of Prayer fails prongs 1 and 2.

 

That being said, the Supreme Court by their own admission applies Lemon very inconsistently and a lot of the stuff which is vague or 'traditional' doesn't get knocked down, probably because it's not worth the controversy.

[kapkomet]

What level of specificity is required before endorsement of religion is too much? It is everyone's religious right not to be influenced by the government, however minor that attempt is.

 

Still waiting for National Prayer-Is-Useless Day.

 

 

Okay, but at what point should the government not interfere with (insert X here).

[StrangeSox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman and The Lemon Test would be the obvious reference. The National Day of Prayer fails prongs 1 and 2.

 

That being said, the Supreme Court by their own admission applies Lemon very inconsistently and a lot of the stuff which is vague or 'traditional' doesn't get knocked down, probably because it's not worth the controversy.

 

They skirt around that by coming up with "secular tradition" arguments that are transparent crap, but they make them anyway.