Day of Prayer Ruled Illegal


According to Todd Richmond of the Associated Press, "A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstituti9onal Thursday, saying the day amounts to a call for religious rights. 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 National Day of Prayer back in 1952 and in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations calling on Americans to pray. According to Richmond, The Freedom from Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 2008 saying that the day violated the separation of church and state.

Interesting to note is that President Barak Obama's administration has stated against this that the statute simply acknowledges the role of religion in the United States. Obama issued his own proclamation last year just as his predecessors had done since the 50's.

Judge Crabb, did, however, write that her particular ruling should not be considered a bar to any prayer days until all appeals are exhausted. President Obama plans to issue a proclamation for this year as he did last.

The tension between church and state in our country provides an ongoing debate about what role, if any, religion should play in our society. President Obama is right in saying that such a proclamation merely acknowledges that historically religion has played a significant role in our country. Our public universities, funded with state tax dollars, provide professors and classes for religious studies courses. Our military and other governmental agencies provide chaplains for the sake of our public servants who often find themselves under the kind of stress that only matters of faith can provide healing answers. As much as some might want, we cannot legislate religion out of the American consciousness, pretending that we are faith-neutral in matters of public national interest involving government agencies. In the same way, we cannot ask our public servants to shed their religious identity at the door in such a way that they are not allowed to integrate it with a faithful and responsible service to their country.

I predict that this judgment will ultimately fail to find judicial support if it should arise again to the highest court in the land. There are limits where we will go in trying to officially neuter this country of its religious nature. I am hopeful that this conviction will keep such unnecessary rulings mere footnotes in courthouse record books.

Comments

Steve said…
I have issues with the "National Day of Prayer" that are theological in nature, not political. If we believe that there is only one Triune God and all other "gods" are idols, then why do we engage in prayer with those to reject the Triune God? If I pray with a Muslim, do I not acknowledge that their pray to "god" is just as effective as my prayer to Christ?
April 22, 2010 at 5:33:00 PM PDT
Donald V. Engebretson said…
Steve,

I would agree with you that praying with those who do not believe in the true God is wrong (and a direct violation of the First Commandment). Undoubtedly many who participate in events on the "National Day of Prayer" do just that, thereby truly weakening, if not removing, a clear Christian witness.

My point in this post, however, was simply the idea of legislating religion out of the public square. Personally, I do not participate in "National Day of Prayer" events, nor do I promote it in my church. Actually, I see little use in having to set aside a day to do what should be intrinsic to the very nature of the church. So, I really am not defending the idea of this day, as such. However, for a judge to declare it illegal speaks to the broader issue of the role that faith and religion will play within the confines of our governmental structure, and here I am most interested in the freedom to practice it and not the government in any way mandating or legislating it. Of course, I have a vested interest in the subject as a practicing chaplain for a government agency, so it is from this point that I speak.

But thank you for your comments! Your point is well taken.
April 23, 2010 at 9:41:00 AM PDT
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Firefighter's Cross

Image
[Note: A similar article to this will be shared with my department at their next meeting. During this Lenten season when we are meditating on the significance and meaning of the Passion of our Lord and the Cross at Golgotha, it seemed like one way to offer a witness to the department that captured their interest and yet was not too heavy.] [Editorial Note: In response to a recent comment on this article I have made some changes to the original version of this article especially in regard to references to the so-called St. Florian's Cross. For any confusion the previous unreferenced information may have caused I apologize. I hope that the changes are satisfactory.] THE STORY OF THE MALTESE CROSS In many ways the familiar symbol to the right requires no explanation. It is the universal insignia of firefighting nationwide. Yet the precise origins of this symbol are less clear. The most popular explanation proposes its beginning in the far distant past of medieval Crusaders fi...
Read more

Historical Roots of the Warham Guild Hood

Image
In doing just a little checking on the internet, it's interesting to see how the Warham Guild hood, which I have as part of my STM degree attire, is actually a throwback to the Medieval hood. One article notes "the work of the Warham Guild in its imaginative renderings of medieval hoods" (reference is from here ). Again, here is my hood: The Medieval hood, which was originally a very practical outer garment to cover a person's head and shoulders, protecting both from the elements, bears striking resemblance to this revived form: This hood was also a part of the garb of monks in that era. The Medieval hood, in some cases, also had what is known as a "liripipe," a long tail hanging from the back of a hood. You can see the modern stylized version of this on my own hood. From an article on "Academic hood development" we read that "By 1463 the favourite dress of doctors was the hood with round bell-shaped cape, and the lir...
Read more

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Image
According to a recent documentary, for all the talk about academic freedom in the world of the large American university system, it would seem that it extends only as far as the system defines it - especially with regards to the subject of origins and science. Noted speechwriter Ben Stein stars as host of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Dr. Angus Menuge, professor of philosophy at CUW, highlights the film in an article included in the Concordia University - Wisconsin magazine Concordian , including some seemingly revealing details about the expulsion of talented scientists who apparently were ‘expelled‘ from their positions for mentioning the theory of Intelligent Design: “In the current climate, even when academicians have a relevant doctorate and a track-record of peer-reviewed publication, their careers suffer if they argue that the scientific evidence points to an intelligent source involved in the creation of the world. In 1992, Dean Kenyon, a biology professor at ...
Read more