Federal judge strikes down National Day of Prayer statute

• ts1227

  

  http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/15/wisconsin.court.prayer/
  
  I'll just quote the first 2 parts of the article to start it:
  

  A federal judge on Thursday struck down the federal statute that established the National Day of Prayer, ruling that it violates the constitutional ban on government-backed religion.
  
  "ts sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function," a Wisconsin judge wrote in the ruling

  
  
  Obama does plan to fight this/recognize the day.
  
  I see it from both sides (full disclosure: I identify myself as a strong agnostic). The quote of the judge is definitely true. However, no one is being forced to engage in the action. So, the question is whether the government can endorse such a statute at all, or is the fact that its voluntary acceptable?
  
  I know I won't do anything different on May 6, but should the government even suggest that we do?
• I Wear Pants

  The shouldn't endorse it but by no means should they interfere/discourage it. Which they aren't and won't. I see this as a non issue.
• Sykotyk

  

  They shouldn't encourage it.
  
  Anyone wanting to pray would pray regardless of whether the government states. Anyone not wanting to pray won't pray, regardless of what the government states.
  
  So, it seems to be a rather pointless proclamation anyways.
  
  Sykotyk
• Glory Days

  

  Sykotyk wrote: So, it seems to be a rather pointless proclamation anyways.

  this is the first thing that came to mind.
• Swamp Fox

  I don't see this as a major issue. It reminds me of Prohibition. During Prohibition, those that didn't drink kept right on abstaining. Those that did drink, kept right on drinking. If you are a believer in the power and value of prayer in your personal life, you will most certainly pray whenever you feel the need. If you are agnostic or atheist, you won't. Since we are basically a religiously based nation, it doesn't bother me that this particular day is "proclaimed", as long as everyone in our nation has the right to do exactly what they feel like doing on this day. (Short of killing folks, of course!)
• Writerbuckeye

  

  While I think this judge is a nimrod who overstepped his legal authority to play out his own bias against religion -- my response to this is basically a big yawn.
  
  If people want to celebrate a National Day of Prayer, who says they need a government body to declare it?
  
  Why not have all of the religious councils go together and declare it themselves, and simply take government out of the equation.
  
  It doesn't need to be there.
• I Wear Pants

  How did the judge overstep his legal boundary?
  
  He was just saying the the government doesn't need to be declaring religious holidays. Nothing is stopping people from celebrating it on their own.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I'm guessing his legal authority to strike down this type of act is weak, at best. I guess we'll see if there are any appeals.
  
  And proclaiming a Day of Prayer is not the same as declaring a religious holiday -- not even close. Government entities use proclamations to set aside days for all kinds of purposes, and have done so forever. They carry ZERO weight of law.
• I Wear Pants

  I just can't get too upset either way. No one is saying you have to celebrate the day or that you can't celebrate the day.
  
  The same could have been said before this decision so I guess it didn't do anything.
• Bigred1995

  

  Thomas Jefferson already covered this topic concerning a similar situation in his letter to Rev. Samuel Miller when requested a proposal that he recommend a national day of fasting and prayer!

  Sir, — I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.
  
  I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.
  
  I again express my satisfaction that you have been so good as to give me an opportunity of explaining myself in a private letter, in which I could give my reasons more in detail than might have been done in a public answer: and I pray you to accept the assurances of my high esteem & respect.
  
  
  ( Thomas Jefferson, letter to letter to Rev. Samuel Miller, from Washington, January 23, 1808; Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings, New York: Library of America, 1994, pp. 1186-1187. )

  End of Conversation!!!
• Writerbuckeye

  

  While I deeply respect our learned forefather -- I don't see any problem with government entities passing PROCLAMATIONS OR DESIGNATIONS like setting a national day of prayer.
  
  This type of practice has been going on for hundreds (?) of years and nobody has been hurt. I'd say experience alone has taught us where the line is and how not to cross it.
  
  We needn't use the force of law (a judge's ruling) to eliminate something that is OPTIONAL and doesn't carry the force of government behind it.
• Bigred1995

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote: While I deeply respect our learned forefather -- I don't see any problem with government entities passing PROCLAMATIONS OR DESIGNATIONS like setting a national day of prayer.
  
  This type of practice has been going on for hundreds (?) of years and nobody has been hurt. I'd say experience alone has taught us where the line is and how not to cross it.
  
  We needn't use the force of law (a judge's ruling) to eliminate something that is OPTIONAL and doesn't carry the force of government behind it.

  The great thing about TJ, is that he covers, to a limited extent, the "optional" portion of which you speak here:

  That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion.

  Why should the government get involved in something in which private citizen or organizations can do on their own? TJ had no problem with state government doing this, actually as governor he did do it.
• QuakerOats

  Good article:
  
  http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidStokes/2010/04/18/a_national_day_of_humiliation?page=1
• ts1227

  

  How in the fuck do you call that a good article?
  
  It didn't even really address the National Day of Prayer. It elevates Bush for being a man of faith, then attacked Obama (who is also a man of faith, just perhaps not so much as Bush but that's their own personal choices), even though he said he's going to back keeping the day in place.
  
  This really wasn't even a partisan issue. Then , of course, you opened your mouth.
• QuakerOats

  I didn't realize obama was a man of faith. What faith, what church is he regularly attending?
• cbus4life

  QuakerOats wrote: I didn't realize obama was a man of faith. What faith, what church is he regularly attending?

  Going to church has nothing to do with being a man or woman of faith.
  
  Not to mention you'd probably get mad at him for wasting time at church when he should be spending time working on helping people get back to work, etc.
  
  P.S. He wouldn't attend church, he would go to the mosque.
• Bigred1995

  

  QuakerOats wrote: I didn't realize obama was a man of faith. What faith, what church is he regularly attending?

  So in order to be a person of faith, going to church regularly isn't enough, you have to go to one particular church?
• QuakerOats

  Bigred1995 wrote: So in order to be a person of faith, going to church regularly isn't enough, you have to go to one particular church?

  I asked two simple questions; if you can't answer them then why waste your time?
• cbus4life

  I know he has said that his primary place of worship is the Evergreen Chapel at Camp David. George W. Bush also said that the Evergreen Chapel was his primary place of worship. But have said it was very difficult to formally join a church while in Washington. A Navy chaplain, i believe, preaches at the church at Camp David, and the other families at Camp David attend as well.
• Bigred1995

  

  QuakerOats wrote:

  Bigred1995 wrote: So in order to be a person of faith, going to church regularly isn't enough, you have to go to one particular church?

  I asked two simple questions; if you can't answer them then why waste your time?

  This article should answer both of your questions for you!
  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-blackberry-faith-white-house/story?id=9689272
• superman

  QuakerOats wrote: I didn't realize obama was a man of faith. What faith, what church is he regularly attending?

  Greenside Baptist featuring Pastor Putter and Deacon Driver.
• buckeyefalls

  Obama was United Church of Christ; however, since his minister caused so many silly distractions throughout the years, I think he doesn't publicly call himself UCC anymore, but his history is of such. Yes, a Navy Chaplain takes care of services at Camp David, but the Chaplain can be of any faith (denomination or faith type, i.e. muslim, etc.)
• QuakerOats

  superman wrote:

  QuakerOats wrote: I didn't realize obama was a man of faith. What faith, what church is he regularly attending?

  Greenside Baptist featuring Pastor Putter and Deacon Driver.

  You make a very good point.
• jhay78

  

  ts1227 wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/15/wisconsin.court.prayer/
  
  I know I won't do anything different on May 6, but should the government even suggest that we do?

  As long as Congress makes no law establishing a religion (they didn't) or prohibiting its free exercise (they didn't), they government can suggest all they want. This judge's ruling is pretty insignificant except that it illustrates one of the many sheer idiotic interpretations of the First Amendment.
  
  Maybe there's some special version of the Constitution out there, but I don't think the First Amendment guarantees anyone freedom from any and all religious references or from feeling offended by someone else's exercise of his/her religion.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  jhay78 wrote: but I don't think the First Amendment guarantees anyone freedom from any and all religious references or from feeling offended by someone else's exercise of his/her religion.

  Correct.