A federal judge has ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional:
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.
Congress established the day in 1952 and in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations asking Americans to pray. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 2008 arguing the day violated the separation of church and state.
This response from an Obama spokesman is too bad though:
Obama spokesman Matt Lehrich said in an e-mail to The Associated Press the president still plans to issue a proclamation for the next prayer day.
“As he did last year, President Obama intends to recognize a National Day of Prayer,” Lehrich said.
The fundies are already preparing for an appeal:
The American Center for Law and Justice, which represented 31 members of Congress who joined the federal government as defendants, called Crabb’s ruling flawed and promised to appeal.
“It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it,” ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said in a statement.
The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group of Christian lawyers, issued a statement saying Crabb’s ruling undermines American tradition dating back to the nation’s birth.
If the “National Day of Prayer” is okay, then I guess they would support a “National Day of Blasphemy,” right?
Preface: I don’t have strong feelings about this ruling. I tend to think it’s probably for the best in the long term, but I’m not sure yet.
If the “National Day of Prayer” is okay, then I guess they would support a “National Day of Blasphemy,” right?
I don’t think it follows. A National Day of Prayer is intended to recognize prayer, not degrade people who don’t believe or unbelief generally. A National Day of Blasphemy is specifically meant to degrade and ridicule religious belief. Apples and oranges.
If you wanted a National Day of Unbelief, in which the validity of not believing in religion were validated by the government, that would be one thing. I wouldn’t have a problem. But I’d object to the government endorsing/celebrating blasphemy.
“But I’d object to the government endorsing/celebrating blasphemy.”
Not as much as I’d object to the government endorsing/celebrating prayer.
I think your words are more rhetorical than literal. Still, I’d oppose government-sponsored blasphemy with about as much passion as you’d oppose government-sponsored prayer.
“A National Day of Prayer is intended to recognize prayer, not degrade people who don’t believe or unbelief generally. A National Day of Blasphemy is specifically meant to degrade and ridicule religious belief. ”
No, it’s meant to degrade and ridicule deities. I don’t think any of those are US citizens… except maybe Chuck Norris.
Well, there’s probably no one definition of the day itself that’s agreed upon, but I don’t agree with what you’ve just defined it as, based on this:
I’m all for the peace part and right to free speech. But it’s a day that’s clearly about ridiculing religious belief, not god(s) as I see it. The distinction is small but hugely important.
source: http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2009/02/26/blasphemy-day-international/
Yeah that is a bit more targeted at faiths and the faithful, and seems to be basically a way to say to religious thugs that they do not have a monopoly on speech any more and cannot justify harming someone because they say something they don’t like. Personally I still find that a valuable concept.
Yes, I agree with you on the right to free speech and the resistance to being bullied by religion. But surely you can see the problems with having a national holiday that is dedicated to what I quoted above, right?
I see why you have a problem with it, but I don’t see why it would be unconstitutional. Disrespecting religion is not a religion itself. There’s no reason I can see the country couldn’t have such a day if it chose, and it’s a day I’d welcome. There’s no reason to object to it other than it personally offends you, and I’m afraid that’s too bad in a country with freedom of speech.
I’m not totally sure that such a holiday is actually defensible by the constitution if the government would chose to make it an official holiday. It’s never been considered, as far as I’m aware, in the courts — but, I think it’s possible that such a holiday could be ruled unconstitutional based on the establishment clause.
Pragmatically speaking, I’m not sure that any government in its right mind (is there such a thing?) would prohibit the establishment of any religion over another and turn around and establish a national day of blasphemy. I don’t see that one happening.
Oh, and I wouldn’t be offended by that holiday, for what it’s worth. I’d oppose such a holiday because I’m inclined to think that’s consistent with the spirit of the establishment clause. But I don’t care enough to be offended what you or your fellow atheists do to blaspheme religion on your own time. It’s your time and opinion, and thankfully we’re all free to express them as we please.
Again, blasphemy isn’t a religion. It has nothing to do with the establishment clause. I can’t ever see it happening anyway, but it is not unconstitutional as a National Day of Prayer is.
I would imagine that disparagement of specific religious beliefs or religious belief in general, when undertaken by the government, is as much a violation of the Free Exercise clause as actually supporting a specific religious belief or religious belief in general is a violation of the Establishment clause. When the government officially expresses a preference or opinion about a religious belief, it can cause a chilling effect for its practitioners (or other beliefs and practitioners depending on the character of the opinion), which impairs free exercise.
I’m with Elemenope. If I were as articulate as he is, that’s what I would have said.
I will be absolutely shocked if a judicial ruling ever emerges that differs from what he just said, given the way that establishment clause has been interpreted in my lifetime alone. It’s much broader than simply establishing a state religion, and it needs to stay that way.
Fair enough, I’d agree with Elemenope there too.
If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for ideas you don’t like.
And considering that criticism of religion is one of the most censored and persecuted forms of speech in the world, I would think the country that is supposed to value “free speech” would do well to show some solidarity with all the people who have been forced to believe or punished for not believing in the bible, quran, papacy, etc.
“I don’t think it follows. A National Day of Prayer is intended to recognize prayer, not degrade people who don’t believe or unbelief generally. A National Day of Blasphemy is specifically meant to degrade and ridicule religious belief. Apples and oranges.”
Not really. A national day of prayer can just as easily bee seen as an attempt to degrade people who don’t believe in prayer. Similarly, a national day of blasphemy is intended to recognize blasphemy.
“But I’d object to the government endorsing/celebrating blasphemy.”
This is what a national day of prayer does.
I support this ruling fully, but I also think Obama did the right thing. If he had supported this, he would automatically lose the support of a large number of Americans. Too large a number.
Agreed. That is the power of religion in the States, had he readily accepted what is a firm and reasonable ruling based on the Constitution of that country, he’d have been crucified.
“he’d have been crucified”
But would he have rose again on the 3rd day?
It’s Obama. He’d have asked the Republicans to help him out of the tomb in a gesture of bipartisanship and they’d have refused, said things were going too fast, and asked him to die all over again.
HA! win =)
And if he did rise from the dead, would he be able to reclaim the presidency? Biden would already have been sworn in as the new President by then. I checked the Constitution and it doesn’t say anything about what would happen if he came back as a zombie. Bit of an oversight if you ask me.
So much for the US being founded as a Christian Country ™. They didn’t even think ahead to the possible consequences of the rapture and the resurrection of the dead.
Well, we are trying to limit government. We shouldn’t expand government to cover the newly-resurrected or zombies.
Die?
Good Luck convincing the nimwits who think Obama hasn’t even been born.
That brings up an interesting question. If he dies and is resurrected, will people demand a valid resurrection certificate to prove he wasn’t resurrected in Kenya?
Zombie Obama!
Zombama!
I agree that from a practical standpoint, this is the right thing for Obama to do. And from a personal standpoint as well: if he truly is a religious person, why shouldn’t he observe what is more or less a religious holiday? Just because the law establishing the holiday is unconstitutional, it certainly doesn’t mean the holiday itself is unconstitutional. People of faith (Obama included) are totally free to publicly or privately celebrate any holidays they wish. Just don’t use our government to establish or endorse a religious day.
“Just because the law establishing the holiday is unconstitutional, it certainly doesn’t mean the holiday itself is unconstitutional”
It does.
“People of faith (Obama included) are totally free to publicly or privately celebrate any holidays they wish. Just don’t use our government to establish or endorse a religious day.”
Obama is the President of the US. He can’t, in that capacity, advocate this day without violating his oath of office. He can have it at home in private all he wants, but he is not supposed to recognise the holiday publicly.
This is like saying both a law establishing Christmas and Christmas itself are unconstitutional. The law would be, the holiday isn’t.
As for Obama’s celebration of the day, this would depend on how he does it. Just as the Obama seder doesn’t violate the constitution, neither should his observance of a day of prayer. I don’t think he should have to check his religion at the door of the White House–in fact, it’s probably impossible to do that. But he shouldn’t endorse the statute for a government-established religious day.
“This is like saying both a law establishing Christmas and Christmas itself are unconstitutional. The law would be, the holiday isn’t.”
If it’s a federal/state sanctioned holiday for a religious reason, it’s unconstitutional. Fortunately people have fudged with Christmas enough to make it about “family” and no one really minds. Easter isn’t a federal holiday for a reason. People can still celebrate it, Obama included, without violating the constitution, but the President can’t publicly encourage it as a national day of anything without doing so.
“I don’t think he should have to check his religion at the door of the White House”
No, but he does have to whenever doing anything in his capacity as President.
“But he shouldn’t endorse the statute for a government-established religious day”
That’s what the holiday would be and that’s what he continues to advocate, publicly.
I think we’re agreeing here. I agree that as an officially endorsed holiday, the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional–as would be government endorsed holidays like Easter. Obama is wrong if he appeals the case, but not wrong to observe the Day. His administration was incorrect in functioning as a defendant in the case to favor the law, but I would have no problem with him simply praying and asking others to pray as well. I will have to see how this unfolds before I can decide how critical to be of his stance here.
If I as a high school teacher declare at my podium (o.k. my desk) that I am simply playing and ask others (i.e. my students) to pray as well am I violating the establishment clause?
Yes, though that has a great deal to do with the fact that the students are considered under the law to be:
1. Vulnerable, due to your implicit power over them as a teacher
2. A captive audience, in that they cannot choose not to be there
The case of a president announcing a prayer is a bit murkier because those factors are not present.
I was reading through this on FFRF’s site and they had this in there about National Day of Blasphemy:
In her ruling, Judge Crabb wrote: “The same law that prohibits the government from declaring a National Day of Prayer also prohibits it from declaring a National Day of Blasphemy.”
I fully agree with the ruling though and Obama is fighting it because it is what he needs to politically. He has to fight this and it will keep going up to the Supreme Court.
How are we supposed to take people seriously, when they think America was founded in 1952?
Silly humans.
This ruling gives me a lot of hope. It is sad that Obama still wishes to recognize it, but I suppose that when we consider how frightfully brittle so many people can be on the matter, for him not to would lose him support from those to whom religion is more important than policy and action.
Prayer isn’t going anywhere. It’s not an endangered species. We certainly don’t need a national day for it. People are quite capable of praying if and when and where they want to without government cosseting them in their beliefs on the matter. As an inherently religious act, yes, it is unconstitutional for the government to tell people to go pray, or even to stay out of church and say how God sucks or something. The whole point of freedom of religion is for government to remain neutral on the matter, and the best to do that is to stay out of it (unless it’s causing manifest harm to people, like the priest-pederasty thing, or other nasty things that are just flat illegal).
But, yes, it is an inherently social act, as well. People do pray privately and individually, but they also bond socially and express their common interests and philosophies with one another by gathering and praying in groups. In this there is a great deal of power. But, it’s no place for the government to tread. There are places and groups entirely dedicated to the social aspect and benefits of prayer. That’s what churches and mosques and temples and synagogues and other places of worship are for. Fairly elementary stuff, that, but there it is. People are as free as they could want to pray and worship as they please, but the snag comes if they want it more for themselves than for others.
Do you people seriously argue these kinds of thing over the courts?
Seriously?
Yeah. Why not?
Madison just made my list of potential retirement spots. As for prayer day, to me it depends on how people celebrate it. I fear that in many locales this would mean congregating on public property and defaming non-praying citizens. However, I’d like to point out that here in VA, the phrase “let me pray on that” serves a useful purpose. It is absolutely the right thing to say when someone asks you to co-sign a loan or host a family reunion. So, maybe this is a national day of procrastination.