FFRF Loses Challenge to Stop Arizona Day of Prayer… Again

In January of 2012, the Freedom From Religion Foundation sued Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in order to stop her from holding another Day of Prayer (PDF).

The FFRF, along with several members from the state, sued on principle — saying that the Day of Prayer was unconstitutional — instead of arguing that it “harmed” any of the plaintiffs… but that may have been their undoing. Last August, a court in Arizona threw out their lawsuit saying the plaintiffs didn’t have “standing” to sue to government:

The Court having considered all information presented and authorities cited, finds that Plaintiffs lack an injury sufficient to demonstrate that they have direct or representational standing. In the absence of a particularized and concrete injury suffered by Plaintiffs, their claims cannot go forward. Plaintiffs have not alleged that they filed their claims in their capacity as taxpayers, nor have they shown a direct injury, pecuniary or otherwise. No exceptional circumstances or fundamental questions of statutory construction or constitutionality of a statute or government action, moot due to passage of time, have been demonstrated to support the Court’s waiver of the standing requirement.

As you might have guessed, Brewer was thrilled (PDF):

“I applaud the Arizona Superior Court for rejecting this lawsuit, which was little more than another sad attempt to stifle an American tradition.

“Uniting in prayer is a custom as old as our nation itself. For centuries, millions of Americans of every race, creed and color have come together in voluntary prayer to seek strength and wisdom. This is an American right and tradition, and one that I’ve proudly marked each year I’ve been Governor by proclaiming an Arizona Day of Prayer.

“In these troubled times, it is more important than ever that we have opportunities such as this to freely and voluntarily come together in seeking courage and guidance from a higher power. I thank the court for dismissing this baseless suit, and will continue to vigorously defend our ability to commemorate an Arizona Day of Prayer.”

FFRF filed an appeal after that, asking the Arizona Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling. Yesterday, unfortunately, the court decided they didn’t want to hear the case (PDF), effectively putting and end to the issue for now:

Arizona, however, has placed limits on a party’s standing to sue another. To have standing to sue, a plaintiff must have suffered injury in fact, economic or otherwise, from the allegedly illegal conduct, and the injury must be distinct and palpable so that the plaintiff has a personal stake in the outcome.

Appellants allege only that the proclamations offend them and cause them to feel like outsiders and second-class citizens. While we acknowledge those feelings, in this context we do not consider them to be so critical “as to convince us to consider this challenge to executive conduct.”

Once again, Brewer was gloating (PDF):

Governor Jan Brewer today thanked the Arizona Court of Appeals for rejecting a legal challenge to the longstanding tradition of gubernatorial proclamations designating an Arizona Day of Prayer. With its decision today, the Arizona Court of Appeals found that the plaintiffs — including an out-of-state, special
interest group known as the Freedom from Religion Foundation
— could not demonstrate any injury caused by the proclamations and, therefore, lacked standing to sue.

The FFRF accepts the ruling but wonders how this decision would have gone if the governor had proclaimed it a Day of No Prayer instead:

“Can you imagine how the court would have ruled had Brewer issued a proclamation stating that prayer was futile and encouraged all citizens to take a day to refrain from prayer?” asks FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Slamming shut the courthouse door to prevent citizens from challenging government violations is the legal trend today, and it’s a trend everyone should decry. The Religious Right should take heed: The same rulings that bar atheists and nonbelievers from courthouse challenges will apply equally to aggrieved believers.”

“Courts have most often held that standing is available when there is direct and unwelcome contact with speech promoting or denigrating religion. With the court’s view on standing, Arizona citizens are unable to challenge religious endorsements at the highest levels of state government,” [FFRF attorney Patrick] Elliott said.

That’s really the big problem here. There’s no good way to challenge government overreach when it comes to church/state separation, paving the way for Religious Right abuses. They want to turn the government Christian, it’s easier to do at the state level than at a national level, and the Arizona courts just handed right-wing groups a tremendous gift.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • C Peterson

    Once again, the courts use the concept of “standing” to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans.

    It is a travesty that “standing” should ever be considered in any constitutional case.

    • rwlawoffice

      Standing should always be a requirement. Without it the court is just giving an advisory opinion.

      • SirReal

        I need not have standing to point out that someone else is breaking the law… why must I have standing to point out that the State is breaking the law?

        • SJH

          I know virtually nothing about law but just thinking conceptually, if a person does not have standing then their rights are not being violated. The purpose of the law is to protect our rights. If a person’s rights are not being assaulted then they are protected and therefor have no standing. If a person feels that their rights are being assaulted then they can fight it and the courts can determine if they are, in their opinion, being violated. If I don’t feel that my rights are being violated then I don’t want someone fight for those perceived infringements. Let me fight my own battles. It is my right to fight them and it is my right to ignore them.

          • Kodie

            I’m being assaulted by finding the whole of Arizona an unfree place to live, work, or travel. Is it a foreign country with strange laws under which I could not expect to be covered? Obviously they make and keep these laws so “outsiders” know how it is, and let us know we’re not wanted and endorse a preferred religious make-up. There are nations of the world where it would be unwise for an American to travel. By their laws and culture, they make it known this is not a friendly place, and sure, you could take your chances, but if you are looking for an interesting and relaxing vacation, you pick a friendlier destination. If you are expecting freedom in the US, there are many places you can’t go.

            That’s the opposite of freedom.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            If I don’t feel that my rights are being violated then I don’t want someone fight for those perceived infringements.

            Interestingly, you just reiterated one of the arguments against Christianity.

            Not everyone is America is you.

            Not everyone is aware that their rights are being chipped away at.

            Not everyone is physically, emotionally, intellectually, socially and financially able to defend those rights personally.

            Not everyone is blase about other peoples’ rights, or dismisses the issue by claiming that they themselves wouldn’t want any help with real, actual erosion of their civil liberties.

            Not everyone is a fucking member of the Christian tribal group.

            This is why empathy is a prime source of morality. But if you lack it, have it stifled, or don’t engage it, it’s easy to imagine that everything is cool and everybody is fine when all of society is geared around making your tribe happy.

          • rwlawoffice

            Standing is a legal injury that is specific to a person. It is not a general injury to the public at large. That is why people who file these suits claim that they have individually been harmed in some manner.

            • Craig

              From wikipedia:

              “In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:

              2. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called “chilling effects” doctrine.”

      • C Peterson

        Fair enough. Let me rephrase it. In any constitutional case, every American citizen should have standing to bring a complaint, without exception.

        I live in Colorado, yet this action by an Arizona official disenfranchises me. My government has stepped on my rights. And the court has added to the injury by doing it again.

        • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

          Why doesn’t any Arizona citizen have standing?

          • C Peterson

            Go figure. It seems as if the standard of the courts these days is that if you can’t show a bleeding wound, you can’t show harm and therefore have no standing.

            • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

              I see your point, however, if it weren’t for this qualification, special interest groups would have flooded the courts with lawsuits on every subject under the sun.

        • Randay

          Here is more stepping on your rights, this time in San Diego. A poll that one can arrange from Pharygnula.

          .I’m from San Diego and went to UCSD long ago. I have always hated that
          eye-sore cross. I recently called a UCSD service and had the recorded
          message for Memorial Day which said, “God bless our troops and God bless
          America.” No kidding, at one of the top science schools in the U.S.! I
          left them the message that their message was unconstitutional.
          Unfortunately I still have to contact them again.

          http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jun/13/symbols-religious-mountsoledad/

  • Reginald Selkirk

    I would think that having your constitutional rights violated constituted “harm.”

  • Monika Jankun-Kelly

    I’ve come to hate the word “offended”. It is used to dismissively. We are not just “offended”. We are in fact second-class citizens. We don’t just “feel” second-class, we are. The governor is blatantly using her position to promote religion. It’s unconstitutional, but the Christian judges just don’t care.

    • SJH

      I’m not sure why you think that you are considered a second class citizen because the governments sets aside a day to recognize prayer. Please explain.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        Tomorrow is the Day of No Prayer. Government officials will give speeches about how there is no god, only godlessness leads to morality, and the importance of keeping god out of our schools. Religion and gods and religious people will be implicitly derided as irrational and stupid and immoral. They’ll invite atheist and anti-theist speakers to give talks in Congress, then the governor will meet with them to discuss their issues and concerns (special private access to politicians!). Everyone will clap and cheer wildly.

        Still feel your government has your best interests at heart? Still feel it’s not biased against you? Still feel safe telling any government official that you’re Christian, should you need services or to redress a wrong, when you know that if you tell them that you’re Christian they will probably automatically assume you’re incapable of morality and being a good person?

      • Kodie

        When the government distinguishes prayer by special acknowledgment, it strengthens the fallacy that this is a Christian law country, in which Christians can strong-arm their positions against non-Christian citizens using not only their religion but the government’s preference for them as evidence. It diminishes the power of our voice when we are denied equality merely for asking for it. This equality, by the way, was put into law FIRST. Freedom from government oppression in the form of establishment of a religion is the 1st part of the 1st freedom of the 1st amendment. It is difficult not to take any significance out of that, while everything can’t be first, the government shall not tell you what to think, imagine, or believe in your own head seems pretty vital. Telling me that Christianity is preferred is a persuasion to become or pose as a Christian, or shut up and hide myself away is what governmental celebrations of Christianity establish – with respect to religion, it establishes one, not none as promised. I cannot go to my local, state, or federal government body and ask that my equality of freedom under that amendment be respected and have it be so. I cannot trust the government to protect me in any matter if I have the perception I have to be Christian to receive that protection, or fear, as exactly happens in this case, the outcome is the official declaration that I am not equal to Christians.

        It is news like this that brands Christians ungenerous, unkind, unAmerican, freedom-hating, privilege-hoarding disgusting bigots, officially accorded by the government with more than equal rights. Nobody needs to be reminded to pray by their official government – you either pray or you don’t. It’s used by the majority to oppress the minority, it’s exactly endorsement of a religion. It’s just not good enough for any Christian to have their beliefs belong to them, to share openly with others, to encourage their neighbor to pray, to erect religious displays on their own private property, etc. – all allowed with the freedom of expression. With respect to religion, the government is not either allowed to suppress or discourage personal beliefs. Not saying anything about it is leaving it to the personal conviction, it is not censorship or persecution as Christian freedom-haters would have you believe.

  • Art_Vandelay

    So prayer needs to be deemed harmful for this to be unconstitutional? Perhaps they could get a child of a Christian Scientist to testify.

  • Beth

    So if they were praying for harm to come to the godless would that be standing? They can pray all they want and nothing will happen because no one is listening, but they are asking that their god to hurt others…
    So how about we just don’t allow any religion in the government.

    • eric

      Your question has been answered by the courts: no. Somehat ironically, IIRC the legal justification for why you can’t sue over nasty prayers is because the legally defined “reasonable person” understands that prayer doesn’t work.

  • SJH

    There are a lot of people who think that such a law is constitutional. People need to recognize that the law is there for our protection from others that might want to stifle our freedoms. Admittedly this is a gray area. Does the government have the authority to make suggestions regarding faith? Does a person have the right to demand that everyone else bend to there feelings? If collectively, we elect representatives and then ask them to enact such suggestions, should they? Why don’t we just try and change the culture such that we are respectful of each other’s beliefs? If we developed such a culture then it would be unnecessary to challenge these suggestions for prayer. Certainly you can have an recognized day of prayer and not feel injured by such actions. It is not the day of prayer that injures the protesting atheists but it is the feeling of divisiveness, whether perceived or actual, that injures them. Telling a society that they cannot collectively recognize prayer through their elected officials is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. We should be coming up with ways to correct the actual problem which is divisiveness. If we feel more like a family then maybe we wouldn’t get so offended or feel so injured by the innocent actions of others.

    • Kodie

      The law is the law and culture is culture. In cases like this, the culture takes its cues from the law. If the government permits exclusion by breaking the law, and no one complains, then they use “nobody ever said anything before,” and surprises them that anyone would. If someone does complain, they want to know who it was so they can pay them an unfriendly mob-like visit. That’s oppression and the government seems to endorse it.

      They want to live in a world where people like me are not as free to stand up for myself and thus stay censored and closeted. They complain that large organizations come from out of town to fight some battle for one anonymous secularist as if they can’t imagine their presumptions bother a single person. They take their personal convictions too far and enforce them publicly, by which I mean via the government endorsement, and not to mean “out loud where anyone can hear them”. We all supposed to pay our taxes so the town hall yard is my yard. Your yard is not my yard, and I don’t help pay for your church, so that is not my yard. If I choose not to patronize a store or restaurant, they don’t get my money either, but the government sends me forms every year and I have to calculate my share of their expenses. Christianity or even preference for some vaguely predominant Abrahamic religion does not dignify Arizona or any government body with freedom for everyone. It literally reinforces the predominant culture to drive out unwanted types or silence them out of fear. That’s damage. We can’t change that without challenging the government to stick to its original laws.

    • averydashwood

      The problem here is that the government is using its power to promote—or establish—religion. This flies directly in the face of the First Amendment. By choosing to hide behind the standing rationale, the courts were able to avoid addressing this issue.

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      There’s no innocence in this action. The intent is clear: to encourage a religious practice. Personally I would prefer that we focus on cases in which there is a specific harm: school children forced to participate in religious activities from a religion that they do not normally practice. But, it is obviously a violation of the constitution for the state to encourage (or discourage) religion.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      There’s nothing innocent about intentionally tossing out government neutrality. Elected officials have zero excuse to not know that this is a violation of their oaths of office.

      Do… do you even realize that you’re making the same arguments as were used to try to shut down Civil Rights protesters sixty years ago by those who pretended to not take sides?

  • Miss_Beara

    Arizona – Where the constitution is ignored and women could be pregnant before they have sex.

    This country… I don’t know.

    • Reginald Selkirk

      …and women could be pregnant before they have sex.

      It worked for Jesus’ mom.

  • mike

    Try to organize a scientific,cultural,music,etc. event that occurs yearly in Arizona. Eventually, when one of them cancels because Arizona is a cesspool of bigotry, get those rejection letters in writing. Now you have been denied economic or professional opportunity because of the bigots around you and their actions. Now you have standing.

  • Frank

    Excellent. Can’t stop the signal!

    • Spuddie

      Frank is a major supporter of Jan Brewer for Dictator campaign.

      • Frank

        I could care less about Jan Brewer.

        • Spuddie

          People are stopping you from praying much like your underpants are stopping you from leaving crap on the sidewalk.

          • Frank

            Ah yes the cogent, intellectual atheist argument.

            • Spuddie

              In other words it is a spot on description for your version of prayer.

            • Matt D

              True, but you’ll have to get one of your own to keep up.

        • WallofSleep

          How much less?

    • Matt D

      You mean that old imaginary signal that doesn’t exist until you grab pitchforks and torches to force people to agree it does?

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      It’s very sad that you applaud the very thing that the First Amendment was crafted to help prevent, government establishment of religion.

      Trying to co-opt Firefly only demonstrates that you never actually understood the show.

  • Gideon

    “Maybe if we all pray at the same time when I say so, praying will finally work!”

    …not a direct quote, I admit, but that’s how it sounds in my head.

    • Frank

      Prayer works all the time. So sorry you have never experienced it. Maybe you should giver it a try.

      • Lee Miller

        Making requests to my dog yields verifiable results with the same frequency, Frank. That is, sometimes things happen, sometimes they don’t.

        • Spuddie

          My cat doesn’t listen to me. He must be satanic.

        • Frank

          Clearly you know nothing about God or prayer.

          • Matt D

            Clearly you lack the ability to see your own faith objectively.

            • Frank

              I do not see everything clearly but I see enough clearly. Can you be more specific?

              • Matt D

                My response wasn’t directed at “C Peterson”, but “Frank”, so no, I can’t be more specific with someone I wasn’t addressing.

                • Matt D

                  Sorry, a snarky response wasn’t necessary since you probably hit the wrong reply button. Sorry about that.

              • C.L. Honeycutt

                You make intentionally vague statements and then request that other people be specific when dismissing your vague (and disproven, but hey) statements because they don’t contain any information. Might wanna work on that.

              • Matt D

                “I do not see everything clearly but I see enough clearly. Can you be more specific?”
                Yes I can. How many faiths (religions) have you studied before concluding one is right, and the thousands of others are wrong?

                • Frank

                  Very many but certainly not all. I have been Catholic, Taoist, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic and many of my own made up philosophies before landing as a Christian.

                • Matt D

                  So you determined the others were wrong and Christianity was correct, by using what method?

      • Matt D

        So sorry you find it easy to lie when dealing with strangers. Being honest isn’t as fun, but it works. Mabye you should “giver” it a try.

        • Frank

          Nothing I said is a lie. That you would say so proves you don’t understand what prayer is. You are in good company. Many Christians don’t understand what prayer is either.

          • Matt D

            What I’ve stated is based on my own experiences with prayer, not yours. I do not expect you to understand you are talking to yourself until you are willing to test it, rather than accept it.

            • Frank

              Fair enough that is your experience with prayer but that doesn’t mean that’s what prayer is or that you are correct.

              • Matt D

                Frank, if you have one definition of prayer and I have another, than the next step is to determine who’s definition is accurate.

                • Frank

                  I stick to what the bible says about prayer, which my own experience supports.

                • Matt D

                  “I stick to what the bible says about prayer”

                  and
                  “There are many good theologians that have studied prayer and have written a book. I suggest you read some them.”
                  I’m confused…why tell me you stick with what it says, when you also told me experts are needed, when I did the same?

      • meekinheritance

        If prayer worked all the time, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          If it worked *ever*, even.

      • WallofSleep

        Hecatombs work all the time. Go get me a hundred cattle, I’ll show you.

      • DavidMHart

        The question is not whether prayer works, exactly; the question is whether it works better than chance. Give me an situation where praying for outcome X rather than outcome Y significantly increases the proportion of times that X happens rather than Y as opposed to when no one prays, and demonstrate good reasons that it is actually the supernatural power of prayer that is causing the difference, and not some other factor.

        As a specific example, people sometimes claim that prayer helps cure disease. I don’t know if you’re such a person, but if you are, you will need to be able, for instance, to say what the natural rate of recovery from a particular disease is when the patients aren’t being prayed for, and what the rate of recovery is when the patients are being prayed for, and demonstrate that the difference is actually because a supernatural force is responding to the prayers, and not, say, some sort of placebo effect.

        Give us a good, statistically significant, well-documented example of something like that, and you’ll have a point. If you can’t, we are entitled to conclude that belief that prayer works is just the result of confirmation bias- counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

        • Frank

          Prayer is not a laundry list of desires and wants and needs. Its not about changing Gods mind into doing something, its about changing our own mind to the Will of God. You can accept that or reject that but thats what prayer is about.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Pray to accept dying of cancer instead of praying to get a miracle cure from the cancer? Why not skip the prayer and just move to trying to accept the imminent, painful death?

          • Matt D

            Nothing so fanciful, actually.
            Prayer
            /pre(ə)r/
            Noun
            A solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship.
            A religious service, esp. a regular one, at which people gather in order to pray together.

            • Matt D

              And as far as your notion that prayer doesn’t mean what it’s defined as……
              In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:

              Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

              In Matthew 17:20 Jesus says:
              For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

              • Frank

                Thanks for proving what you don’t know. There are many good theologians that have studied prayer and have written a book. I suggest you read some them.

                • Matt D

                  No, I’ll stick with personal observations and rely on empirical testing to determine the effectiveness of prayer.

                • Frank

                  Your loss.

                • Matt D

                  I don’t consider it a loss, since I’m a better person for it.

            • Frank

              Yes because the dictionary knows better than God what prayer is.

              • Matt D

                See below.

      • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Tanner B James

        The scientific method and formal logic work all the time. So sorry you have never experience it. Maybe you should give it a try.

  • meekinheritance

    As Feminerd almost suggested, maybe Arizona secularists, atheists, etc should petition to have an annual Arizona Day of Non-Prayer.

  • Carmelita Spats

    Ay carajo…Ladies, this is the state where life begins at menstruation. When a given superstition’s needs become so ridiculously over-satisfied and over-satiated and just plain obscenely stuffed like a Baptist pastor on Bud Light, it begins to invent utterly useless proclamations no one really needs and that actually turn out to be dangerous to the separation of church and state. There are at least 2,798 tax exempt religious properties in Arizona that can host/declare a Day of Prayer 365 days a year, until everyone’s ears bleed and an exhausted Baby Jesus in a tiny sombrero looks like he just wants to be shot…

    http://www.churchangel.com/arizona.htm

  • Rain

    That’s really the big problem here. There’s no good way to challenge government overreach when it comes to church/state separation, paving the way for Religious Right abuses.

    This I can get behind. I’m a little more “iffy” on the valedictorian speeches thingy though. Sure it might be annoying and disrespectful downright contemptuous of others, but it’s their (free) speech.

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      I think the general consensus on that (with, of course, that implying disagreement on all sides by some) is that if the school requires vetted speeches, and if the student moves off the vetted speech for any reason, then the school has both the right and responsibility to cut the student off.

      Basically, it’s not total free speech because the valedictorian has been given a platform and captive audience by a governmental body and is thus subject to the rules governing government speech.

      • Rain

        Okay true, but what better time to test free speech and to celebrate the idea of academia than a valedictorian graduation speech? Just sayin, censorship in that context bothers me a little.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          That’s fair. It doesn’t bother me, because academia has nothing to do with religion (unless you explicitly study theology). It’s not testing free speech; this is, or at least ought to be by now, settled law. Also remember that mentions of God or religion as they personally impact the valedictorian are not banned; leading a prayer is banned. There’s a distinct difference, and it’s not censorship to say you must not impose religion on your fellow students at a government event.

          • Rain

            Vetting speeches and cutting off microphones is censorship, I think. Possibly justifiable censorship. Still censorship though! :D

            • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

              Again, fair enough! Justifiable and justified censorship it is. You are correct in that.

        • skeptic150

          “Freedom of speech* is not a guaranteed protection. Important issues are 1) the forum and 2) the fact that religious freedom is constitutionally protected but the imposition of religious beliefs on others is not, especially in the context of a taxpayer supported forum.

    • eric

      If its treated like a public forum (i.e.., the school does not regulate the valedictorians), then, AIUI, its fine.
      The problem is that the school generally exercises some control over content. Which means the government is at least tacitly endorsing what the student says. A further problem occurs if or when the school exercises control in a biased manner – i.e., allowing pro-Christianity speeches but not pro-Atheist speeches. Or allowing one valedictorian to say “I thank Jesus” but not another to say “I thank Mohammed.” When the school does that, they are clearly endorsing a religion and merely using the student as a tool to do it.
      What the state removes is as important to the question of whether its free speech as what the state permits.

  • WallofSleep

    “Uniting in prayer is a custom as old as our nation itself.”

    How about a custom that is even older, with many more centuries of tradition behind it? I’m talking ritual blood sacrifice. Shall we have an official, gov’t endorsed “Day of Hecatomb”? If not, why not?

  • kaydenpat

    “FFRF filed an appeal after that, asking the Arizona Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling. Yesterday, unfortunately, the court decided they didn’t want to hear the case (PDF), effectively putting and end to the issue for now:”

    Any plans to appeal to the US Supreme Court?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X