Presidential Issue of the National Day of Prayer

• O-Trap

  

  This was begun back with Truman, who signed into law that:
  
  "The President shall set aside and proclaim a suitable day each year, other than a Sunday, as a National Day of Prayer, on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals."
  
  Since then, it has gone back and forth, most recently last April, when US District Judge Barbara Crabb determined, in the case of the FFRF vv. President Obama and Press Secretary Gibbs (though the suit began back in 2008, and the original defendants were GWB and Dana Perino), that such a practice by the president violates the establishment clause of the Constitution's First Amendment.
  
  In her ruling, Judge Crabb said:
  

  [The National Day of Prayer] serves no purpose but to encourage a religious exercise, making it difficult for a reasonable observer to see the statute as anything other than a religious endorsement. [...] It bears emphasizing that a conclusion that the establishment clause prohibits the government from endorsing a religious exercise is not a judgment on the value of prayer or the millions of Americans who believe in its power. No one can doubt the important role that prayer plays in the spiritual life of a believer ... However, recognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it, any more than the government may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic.

  So, what do the OCers think? Does the letter of the law Truman signed in violate the First Ammendment?
  
  For more info on the case: http://www.wiwd.uscourts.gov/assets/pdf/FFRF_v_Obama_Order.pdf
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I don't think so.
  
  It is not forcing anything on anyone, people can ignore it, and it does not favor one faith over another.
  
  I don't see it that much differently than Congress opening each day with prayer.
• Bigred1995

  

  ptown_trojans_1;632081 wrote:I don't think so.
  
  It is not forcing anything on anyone, people can ignore it, and it does not favor one faith over another.
  
  I don't see it that much differently than Congress opening each day with prayer.

  
  
  I think it does, although it doesn't force anything or favor one faith over another, it does however promote religion!
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Of course there's nothing wrong with doing it.
  
  Just another ridiculous overreaction to something that -- at worst -- does something good for individuals and society.
• Belly35

  

  Is that Obama Christian side of prayer or the Obama Muslim side of silent prayer ?
• mella

  I don't think this violates anything. Nobody is forced to pray and if you don't believe in God you get a good chuckle at those who are praying. It may promote religion but it may also promote laughter at religion and we all know that laughter is a good thing.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Belly35;632243 wrote:Is that Obama Christian side of prayer or the Obama Muslim side of silent prayer ?

  
  Does it matter?
• jmog

  Bigred1995;632183 wrote:I think it does, although it doesn't force anything or favor one faith over another, it does however promote religion!

  
  Ah, but the Constitution does not say that the government can not promote religion in general, it states that it can not promote one religion over another.
  
  Its impossible to read our founding documents and not see religion being promoted in general (endowed by our Creator, etc).
• pmoney25

  

  kind of stupid and pointless if you ask me. Mainly because those that do believe probably are already praying anyways and those that don't believe are not going to pray. So it doesnt really make sense to do this.
• BoatShoes

  For what its worth I don't think it's a big deal but if we're to look at the current jurisprudence, I think under the Agostini Test from Agostini v. Felton it's probably unconstitutional. The Agostini test says that a statute will comply with the establishment clause if it has 1). a secular purpose and 2). the statutes primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. You have to ask whether a reasonable person would think that the U.S. is trying to endorse religion by having a national day of prayer and/or whether having a national day of prayer conveys a message that the U.S. endorses prayer. Because the word "prayer" is used and prayer is something unique to religion I'd have to say it probably violates one of both of those prongs. If the statute was the "National Day of Silent Reflection Act" I wouldn't think it violates the prongs of that test I don't think.
  
  That was a Rhenquist opinion in Agostini fwiw.
• Swamp Fox

  It sounds to me pmoney25 that your post also explains Prohibition pretty well.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Seriously, Einsteins - if our federal government were to "promote" religion in the way that you THINK it does, there'd be a damned tax on it for sure. That's a gimmee!
• BGFalcons82

  

  CenterBHSFan;636248 wrote:Seriously, Einsteins - if our federal government were to "promote" religion in the way that you THINK it does, there'd be a damned tax on it for sure. That's a gimmee!

  
  That's a big 10-4!!! LOL