National Day of Prayer Unconstutional

[e2iPi]

From the Associated Press:

MADISON, Wis. , 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.

This is a great step forward in the re-establishment of the secular government which our Founding Fathers intended. Although the National Day of Prayer seems rather innocuous on the surface, the day itself was put in place by the same McCarthy era demagoguery which brought us the more egregious violations of the Establishment Clause such as "In God We Trust" as our national motto and "under God" surreptitiously slipped into the Pledge of Allegiance.

Any appeal of this decision must come from the White House, placing the ball squarely in President Obama's court. The President has already courageously recognized the role of non-believers in American culture and even met with 60 members of the Secular Coalition of America. Now the Obama administration will have to face pressure from religious groups to appeal the decision. The Alliance Defense Fund's senior legal counsel, Joel Oster, had this to say:

The court should not have struck down this statute. ADF urges the Obama administration to appeal this terrible ruling that not only undermines the National Day of Prayer, but the underlying heritage and tradition of the American people which dates back to the nation's founding.

The National Day of Prayer provides an opportunity for all Americans to pray voluntarily according to their own faith--and does not promote any particular religion or form of religious observance," Oster explained. "It does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and this decision should be appealed.

Bollocks. Do religious people really need the government to provide an "opportunity" to pray? Isn't that what, I don't know, RELIGIOUS leaders are for? The ADF goes on to say

ADF is now considering all possible legal options at its disposal while simultaneously urging the Obama administration to appeal Thursday's decision.

Now is the perfect opportunity for President Obama to demonstrate that he is willing to do what is right for all Americans, not only the religious majority.

+1 <For America>

 

[Aught3]

Well that's good news. I bet we'll see stories about how atheists are taking the right to pray away from believers.

Btw, here's the full story: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gd8532foDasi_HtAzi9JolkMVlqQD9F3PCE00

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.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

There's a very easy way around this for those who support the National Day of Prayer: change the text. Take out the reference to the Christian god and refer to the day as one of "prayer, meditation, and reflection." There you have it - an instant secularized day of observation (i.e. waste of time and tax payer money).

 

[darthrender2010]

Any appeal of this decision must come from the White House, placing the ball squarely in President Obama's court.

sadly... there's no way he'll do it in his first term. He's already been deemed a socialist anti-American Muslim by the neo-cons, if he started to deal with the national motto and the pledge it'd be political suicide.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I don't see how it's a waste of tax dollars if it doesn't appeal to any spacific doctrine. Hell - some Atheists meditate, I'm sure (relaxing and thinking is not bound to any one religion).

I'd spend it chilling and thinking about my life. I really wouldn't mind.

 

[e2iPi]

There's a very easy way around this for those who support the National Day of Prayer: change the text. Take out the reference to the Christian god and refer to the day as one of "prayer, meditation, and reflection." There you have it - an instant secularized day of observation (i.e. waste of time and tax payer money).

There is nothing unconstitutional about the President calling for a national day of prayer--even if the President was to say "I call on all Baptists to pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ," the Constitution has not been violated. When Congress enacts a law which requires the President to do so, however, we have a clear violation of the Constitution.

sadly... there's no way he'll do it in his first term. He's already been deemed a socialist anti-American Muslim by the neo-cons, if he started to deal with the national motto and the pledge it'd be political suicide.

I am inclined to agree with you regarding the motto and pledge. In order to allow this ruling to stand, however, only requires that the administration not file an appeal. The perfect rational is the fact that the government has better ways to spend its money in the languishing economy.

I don't see how it's a waste of tax dollars if it doesn't appeal to any spacific doctrine. Hell - some Atheists meditate, I'm sure (relaxing and thinking is not bound to any one religion).

It's a waste of tax money because it is so innane. Those who pray are going to pray and those who don't, won't. Mass prayer has no demonstrable effect anyway--otherwise British royality would be the longest lived family on Earth (current monarch's longevity not withstanding)

-1

 

[RestrictedAccess]

There is nothing unconstitutional about the President calling for a national day of prayer--even if the President was to say "I call on all Baptists to pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ," the Constitution has not been violated. When Congress enacts a law which requires the President to do so, however, we have a clear violation of the Constitution.

Which is why I mentioned changing the text to something like the example I provided.

 

[e2iPi]

Good ol' Chuck Norris has chimed into the debate. It's full of the typical revisionist history and appeals to tradition so prevalent on the political right. It seems that we can add logic to the list of things to which Mr. Norris is impervious.

-1

My opinion here