MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional Thursday, saying the day amounts to a call for religious action.
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.
President Barack Obama's administration has countered that the statute simply acknowledges the role of religion in the United States. Obama issued a proclamation last year but did not hold public events with religious leaders as former President George W. Bush had done.
Crabb wrote that her ruling shouldn't be considered a bar to any prayer days until all appeals are exhausted. U.S. Justice Department attorneys who represented the federal government in the case were reviewing the ruling Thursday afternoon, agency spokesman Charles Miller said. He declined further comment.
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 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.
Freedom From Religion Foundation attorney Richard Bolton didn't immediately return a message seeking comment.
Crabb wrote that her ruling was not a judgment on the value of prayer. She noted government involvement in prayer may be constitutional if the conduct serves a "significant secular purpose" and doesn't amount to a call for religious action. But the National Day of Prayer crosses that line, she wrote.
"It goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," she wrote. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience."
I can respect Obama's position on recignizing it, especially since we can bet this will appealed up the lines.
That being said, expect the same DOJ 'civil servants' tucked into their loving holes during Bush's term(A thing called 'Burrowing', done by moving political appointees into civil service jobs, compounded by politicized hiring) to fight this with considerable invective, and everyone to blame Obama. Which was the whole point of burrowing in the first place.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
After the fiasco with the allegations that teachers following the law would be charged with violating the law, I needed something to remind myself that, though my state is a largely rural shithole like a majority of the country, relatively speaking it's still a far more liberal rural shithole than most of the rural US.
Gaian Paradigm: Because not all fantasy has to be childish crap. Ephemeral Pie: Because not all role-playing has to be shallow. My art: Because not all DA users are talentless emo twits. "Phant, quit abusing the He-Wench before he turns you into a caged bitch at a Ren Fair and lets the tourists toss half munched turkey legs at your backside." -Mr. Coffee
Now is it just the Government or can schools not as well? Because I'm kind of worried this argument could be extended to things like the Day of Silence.
Alphawolf55 wrote:Now is it just the Government or can schools not as well? Because I'm kind of worried this argument could be extended to things like the Day of Silence.
The Day of Silence isn't a religious action or event and thus, doesn't violate the first amendment.
It's this line that worries me "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."
I could honestly see conservatives arguing that if the Day of Pray is breaching that line then a Day of Silence which is encouraging its citizens to stand for gay rights is breaking some kind of rule and honestly, I don't trust Judges to really see the difference.
Alphawolf55 wrote:It's this line that worries me "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."
I could honestly see conservatives arguing that if the Day of Pray is breaching that line then a Day of Silence which is encouraging its citizens to stand for gay rights is breaking some kind of rule and honestly, I don't trust Judges to really see the difference.
By that logic, you could extend that to say MLK day is unconstitutional. The distinction here is the religious aspects that the judge's examples all contain. Even religious conservatives don't claim the Day of Silence to be a religious event.
How is it that our resident theocrats can, on the one hand, denounce the size of the Federal government, and then, breathlessly, turn around and argue it ought to prop up their preferred denomination with the other?
This decision pleases me to no end. Let's suppose we accept the notion that the day of prayer wasn't established for Christians, as will inevitably be proffered by them as an explanation for keeping it around. So what? I'm an atheist - why should even a cent of my tax dollars be used to encourage an act that is entirely religious?
If people want to pray, they can. Nobody is stopping them. Nobody is stopping churches from holding their own prayer day either. That's the only legitimate individualist answer to the problem. We ought to treat religions like competitors in a market; what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
When the histories are written, I'll bet that the Old Right and the New Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the middle will be the enemy.
- Barry Goldwater
Americans see the Establishment center as an empty, decaying void that commands neither their confidence nor their love. It was not the American worker who designed the war or our military machine. It was the establishment wise men, the academicians of the center.
- George McGovern
I honestly never liked the "Why should my tax payer money go to something I disagree with" argument. I mean I understand what you're saying it's just...people seem to feel in this country they should only pay for the things they support and nothing else.
Alphawolf55 wrote:I honestly never liked the "Why should my tax payer money go to something I disagree with" argument. I mean I understand what you're saying it's just...people seem to feel in this country they should only pay for the things they support and nothing else.
As I've said before, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I loathe our military, point-blank. I find abstinence-only sex programmes absolutely unconscionable. I fucking despise Bush's "Faith-Based Initiative" pap. I find we spend far too much on our prison system. Yet I'm not supposed to speak out on my opposition to these things on the basis that de-funding them would materially benefit me. Well, fuck that.
When the histories are written, I'll bet that the Old Right and the New Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the middle will be the enemy.
- Barry Goldwater
Americans see the Establishment center as an empty, decaying void that commands neither their confidence nor their love. It was not the American worker who designed the war or our military machine. It was the establishment wise men, the academicians of the center.
- George McGovern
To me there's always been a difference been say arguing against abstinence-only sex education because it's generally unrealistic, a bad idea and a waste of funds and saying arguing against something because you don't want to pay for it. One is arguing for something that focuses on the betterment of the country, the other focuses on the individual. It's like conservatives who argue that none of their taxpayer money should go to abortions, universal health care or welfare because they don't believe in it.
Granted it might just be a problem to me because my first concern is honestly the budget in this country and I find having a balanced budget trumps most personal grievances that aren't going to result in death or extreme pain of the individual.
Alphawolf55 wrote:To me there's always been a difference been say arguing against abstinence-only sex education because it's generally unrealistic, a bad idea and a waste of funds and saying arguing against something because you don't want to pay for it. One is arguing for something that focuses on the betterment of the country, the other focuses on the individual. It's like conservatives who argue that none of their taxpayer money should go to abortions, universal health care or welfare because they don't believe in it.
Granted it might just be a problem to me because my first concern is honestly the budget in this country and I find having a balanced budget trumps most personal grievances that aren't going to result in death or extreme pain of the individual.
I, too, believe in balancing the budget. So let's look at the programmes we don't need or that obviously aren't working - and you'll see they read like a litany of conservative social engineering projects. Both our current Wars? Check. Our massively bloated prison system? Check. The "War on Drugs"? Check. Faith-based spending? Check. Southern/rural poverty relief programmes? Check. Let's stop throwing good money after bad on Republican initiatives.
When the histories are written, I'll bet that the Old Right and the New Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the middle will be the enemy.
- Barry Goldwater
Americans see the Establishment center as an empty, decaying void that commands neither their confidence nor their love. It was not the American worker who designed the war or our military machine. It was the establishment wise men, the academicians of the center.
- George McGovern
Oh I agree for the most part, you also forgot socializing healthcare which could save around 1.5 trillion a year for tax payers (or we funnel the money into the Government which would eliminate the deficit entirely with around money to fix welfare). Personally though I'd include merging SS and Welfare into a bigger tent that's more means based but that's because I hate old people.
I'm not saying we shouldn't get rid of bad policies, I was just voicing my personal pet peeves when people use the line "Why should my money go to..." when I absolutely despise it when conservatives who use it, as if we should get to cherry-pick which services we fund, rather then agreeing that by and large society should house the cost of services.
Einzige wrote: I, too, believe in balancing the budget. So let's look at the programmes we don't need or that obviously aren't working - and you'll see they read like a litany of conservative social engineering projects. Both our current Wars? Check. Our massively bloated prison system? Check. The "War on Drugs"? Check. Faith-based spending? Check. Southern/rural poverty relief programmes? Check. Let's stop throwing good money after bad on Republican initiatives.
What do you mean here when you reference "Southern/rural poverty relief programs"?
Einzige wrote: I, too, believe in balancing the budget. So let's look at the programmes we don't need or that obviously aren't working - and you'll see they read like a litany of conservative social engineering projects. Both our current Wars? Check. Our massively bloated prison system? Check. The "War on Drugs"? Check. Faith-based spending? Check. Southern/rural poverty relief programmes? Check. Let's stop throwing good money after bad on Republican initiatives.
What do you mean here when you reference "Southern/rural poverty relief programs"?
Things like the Tennessee Valley Authority, which certain segments of the conservative coalition (mostly those who are very Southern-oriented in their persuasion - Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee come to mind) are very defensive of.
When the histories are written, I'll bet that the Old Right and the New Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the middle will be the enemy.
- Barry Goldwater
Americans see the Establishment center as an empty, decaying void that commands neither their confidence nor their love. It was not the American worker who designed the war or our military machine. It was the establishment wise men, the academicians of the center.
- George McGovern
Alphawolf55 wrote:I honestly never liked the "Why should my tax payer money go to something I disagree with" argument. I mean I understand what you're saying it's just...people seem to feel in this country they should only pay for the things they support and nothing else.
It's hilarious because the same people oppose things that benefit everybody like universal healthcare or a universal social safety net.
Typical selfish douchebags.
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi
"Problem is, while the Germans have had many mea culpas and quite painfully dealt with their history, the South is still hellbent on painting themselves as the real victims. It gives them a special place in the history of assholes" - Covenant
"Over three million died fighting for the emperor, but when the war was over he pretended it was not his responsibility. What kind of man does that?'' - Saburo Sakai
Einzige wrote: Things like the Tennessee Valley Authority, which certain segments of the conservative coalition (mostly those who are very Southern-oriented in their persuasion - Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee come to mind) are very defensive of.
Why do you want to get rid of them? I'm not sure I understand what it would accomplish.
Alphawolf55 wrote:It's this line that worries me "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."
Are you fucking retarded? It's called the separation of church and state.
I could honestly see conservatives arguing that if the Day of Pray is breaching that line then a Day of Silence which is encouraging its citizens to stand for gay rights is breaking some kind of rule and honestly, I don't trust Judges to really see the difference.
Is this "Day of Silence" (something I've never even fucking heard of) religious in nature? Because if it's not, then it doesn't violate the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Is this "Day of Silence" (something I've never even fucking heard of) religious in nature? Because if it's not, then it doesn't violate the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
Not at all. The fact that conservatives whine about the Day of Silence is pathetic, because all it is is a day where students (gay or straight) wear t-shirts and don't speak all day as a symbolic opposition to gay-bashing. We had it at my Catholic high school; you just have to be a bad person to get upset over it, the same sort of person who insists on using "f____" and "that's so gay" to "spite the language police".
Is this "Day of Silence" (something I've never even fucking heard of) religious in nature? Because if it's not, then it doesn't violate the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
Not at all. The fact that conservatives whine about the Day of Silence is pathetic, because all it is is a day where students (gay or straight) wear t-shirts and don't speak all day as a symbolic opposition to gay-bashing. We had it at my Catholic high school; you just have to be a bad person to get upset over it, the same sort of person who insists on using "f____" and "that's so gay" to "spite the language police".
Then that idiot Alphawolf55 has nothing to worry about.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
