Senior U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb, of the District Court in Madison, Wisconsin, ruled yesterday that the National Day of Prayer created by Congress in 1952 and reaffirmed by them in 1988 is unconstitutional. In a confusing ruling, Crabb 
wrote that 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 that the National Day of Prayer crosses that line.
It's hard to imagine a more significant secular purpose than praying for God's help and wisdom for America. Apparently President Obama agrees, because an administration spokesperson told the Associated Press, "As he did last year, President Obama intends to recognize a National Day of Prayer." And it should be noted that Judge Crabb herself said that her ruling should not prevent the occurrence of any such prayer days "until all appeals are exhausted."
The lawsuit was filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation—an organization that makes its position on America clear by its deliberate distortion of the actual words in the U.S. Constitution's first amendment which guarantees freedom of religion. It's no surprise that an organization that (by its very name) disrespects our Constitution is seeking to have the words of that Constitution misinterpreted to match their own agenda.
But as is often the case, there is a deeper question: Does it matter? After all, there's certainly nothing in the ruling that prohibits individual Christians (or Hindus or Muslims or...) from praying for America on that day. What is our real goal? To get the government to declare a day in which praying for our country is a good thing? Or is it instead to build an America in which people lovingly call upon God every day for our country and all our needs?
Some would argue that this is just one more step down a slippery slope into a world in which Americans are forbidden to pray; or at least as in some Muslim countries, forbidden to pray as Christians. They may be right. As Christians, we do need to be vigilant to prevent that from happening.
But what's the best way to fight that battle? Is it by causing another angry uproar that the media can use to paint us as negative haters? Surely some level of public response is good to remind everyone that we're still here! And this is especially important now as President Obama is preparing to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice that will make final rulings on cases like this.
But isn't it more important that we help people find the love of Jesus so the swell of public opinion is to support the freedom of religion in the Constitution rather than fight it? To create a country in which fringe groups can no longer dictate policy to the masses? No doubt there are some highly misguided people in the Ku Klux Klan who would like to see Martin Luther King, Jr. Day removed from the national calendar, too. But they don't dare try to file such a lawsuit because the climate of America is so strongly behind admiration for Dr. King's contributions to our country. Shouldn't our primary goal be developing a climate in America that is so strongly behind the value of prayer to our God that such a lawsuit wouldn't even be considered?
What do you think is the best response?
Comments
Well said, Brian. Thank you for your astute and eloquently written observations.
You're very kind, ShyrlAnn, thanks.
Brian Proffit: "To create a country in which fringe groups can no longer dictate policy to the masses?"
America is not a democracy. 'Never was. America is a Republic. The U.S. Constitution protect the minority from the druthers and whims of the majority.
Mr. Proffit seems to understand the "separation clause" and the "free exercise clause" aspects of the first amendment, since he said that we still have the right to pray individually, but then that being the case, the "slippery slope" comment makes no sense. The point is that we cannot federalize religious practices, while it's perfectly legal for an individual to pray anywhere, anytime anyway they see fit, and always has been. "...free exercise thereof...". 'Funny that Mr. Proffit would mention Muslims forbidding anyone praying, because Islam as expressed in Sharia law is exactly the federalization of religion which the FFRF is attempting to gain a fair and just ruling on.
Lucis Ferre
Lucis Ferre: "Funny that Mr. Proffit would mention Muslims forbidding anyone praying, because Islam as expressed in Sharia law is exactly the federalization of religion which the FFRF is attempting to gain a fair and just ruling on."
You may well be right that that is what Islam as expressed in Sharia law is supposed to be. Unfortunately the reality is that in some countries Christians are being imprisoned, tortured, raped, and killed for being Christian.
I suspect you and I would agree that there are people claiming the name of both Islam and Christianity that are not accurately living the precepts of those belief systems. You may get a better idea of my thoughts on that unfortunate reality by reading my story on the Hutaree.
If we teach about Jesus, we have to teach about the end coming. Most churches don't want the truth of the scriptures given-this would empty out the pews!
LOLUMAD? Seriously, are you going to claim that freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion as well? Should the government make church/temple/whatever mandatory for all children? Can you pick any religion? Are we free to be Pastafarians and Scientologists? What counts as religion? Alright, if I can't have freedom from religion I think I will gather my own following. It's called thinking for yourself. Every man, woman, and child will decide what religious/nonreligious beliefs are their own.
"Some would argue that this is just one more step down a slippery slope into a world in which Americans are forbidden to pray ... As Christians, we do need to be vigilant to prevent that from happening."
I really laughed when I saw this. A nationally recognized day of prayer is the government encouraging prayer. There is a difference between the absence of encouragement and discouragement.
America’s Godly heritage cannot be denied, there is solid historical evidence beginning with the Mayflower Compact, which was drafted, and signed by forty-one men onboard the ship Mayflower on November 11, 1620. The Mayflower Compact is the bedrock upon which America was founded.
Which reads in part: “In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc. Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic.”
Fifty-six years later, on June 20, 1676, by unanimous vote the Pilgrims of Charlestown, Massachusetts proclaimed June 29, 1676 a day of t
Okay, Jim, I have to give you credit: Pastafarian was a good one. But the National Day of Prayer isn't government sanction of a religion because it doesn't specify to whom you should pray. Note that prominent Christian Franklin Graham has been specifically excluded from the ceremony because of his comments against Islam. So if you want to pray to your fettucine that's included.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!