George Washington and Abraham Lincoln must be rolling over in their grave. A U.S. District judge in Wisconsin has declared that national days of prayer are unconstitutional because they violate the separation of church and state.
Those like this judge are very confused about the first amendment. What was intended to grant the freedom of religion is being used to guarantee a freedom from religion. The 1st amendment did not demand that the government be purely secular with no mention of, or interaction with religion. Washington and Lincoln et al proclaimed national days of prayer and fasting, and no one ever thought of these acts as being unconstitutional. In fact, for more than 200 years no one thought so. The text hasn’t changed, so how did we discover something that those who penned and ratified the amendment didn’t know about?
These kinds of rulings are clearly not based on the text of the Constitution, because the Constitution does not prohibit religious expression, even by the government as the government. It only prohibits Congress from passing a law establishing a particular religion as the nation’s religion. It does not proscribe government officials from speaking about religion, or establishing a day of prayer. After all, no religion is established as our nation’s religion by proclaiming a national day of prayer. Prayer is common to many religions. This ruling is based on the secularist philosophy of the day, not the Constitution.
Thinking to Believe 
April 16, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Other than two small quibbles (I think the first amendment does in fact require our government to be completely secular; and, this ruling may well reflect the judge’s sincere legal interpretation, not a secularist bias — we have no basis for assuming the best or the worst regarding her), I agree with your post completely. Even our scrupulously secular government can have a day of prayer. A day of prayer relates to the personal voice of our elected leaders, not any action of government to establish a state religion.
Of course, it also is important that our leaders, when participating in a day of prayer, remain respectful in their phrasing. Proclamations of “our Christian nation” are inappropriate when made by government leaders in an official capacity. But to call us all to prayer, inclusive of all faiths, and with no indication of government preference of any religion over another, is clearly constitutional. It is good, even.
LikeLike
April 16, 2010 at 9:51 pm
I live in Wisconsin. It’s sad to see it happen in own my backyard, so to speak.
However, no matter how much things like this happen, I don’t for a second believe it can stop the will of the people to pray, and even assemble publically, to pray, even within political or governmental arenas, such as at public schools, capitol buildings, courthouses, etc.
I do fear, however, that, these types of rulings, should they pass the Supreme Court, will then be used to limit other aspects of the 1st amendment, such as the right to peaceable assembly, which would then hinder public prayer.
On a side note, the geo-political landscape of Wisconsin is interesting, in that spatially speaking, the state is overwhelmingly republican conservative, but the city of Madison specifically, along with major portions of Milwaukee, are overwhelmingly democrat and liberal, and so the entire state, due to the dispoportional enclaves of population, seems to swing toward only one side of the spectrum. It’s a false balance and not really indicative of the demography. But, because, the power is centrally located and not equally dispersed, the Madison socio-political machine reigns supreme.
LikeLike
April 16, 2010 at 10:22 pm
“The opinion comes in a case filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based group of self-described “atheists” and “agnostics.””
I should have known. They’ve upset, harassed, and persecuted just about every church in the state.
They are very much in the business of trying to actively “un-convert” people. Not just advocating the right to unbelief and support for an atheistic worldview, but that religious belief and theism in general is a poison or cancer that needs to be eradicated from society.
LikeLike
April 19, 2010 at 2:23 pm
The Center Square,
Define for me “completely secular.” As I understand the first amendment, all it prohibits the government from doing–or to be specific, Congress from doing–is passing legistlation that establishes a religion; i.e. makes a particular religious faction the national religion. It doesn’t prohibit any religious expression by any particular member of any branch of government in either a personal or official position.
Our history tells me this is true. Presidents have issued proclamations for prayer and fasting. Congress issues such a proclamation the day it passed the Bill of Rights! Jefferson authorized federal funds for building churches for the Kaskaskia Indians (in a treaty the U.S. signed with them). Church services used to be held in the House of Representatives building. Given this, it is hard for me to believe that the First Amendment demanded a secular government. It only demanded a government that does not endorse a particular religion/denomination as the national religion/denomination.
One could argue that a call for prayer is sectarian, since not all religions utilize prayer. For example, Buddhism and other eastern religions do not. Only those religions who have a personal God utilize prayer. Of course, I find no requirement that any public expression of religion be all-inclusive of all religious belief. There is virtually nothing that can be said or done that would be accepted by all religions.
Jason
LikeLike
April 20, 2010 at 8:09 pm
For me, the best definition of “completely secular” is that the rights and responsibilities of citizenship are completely unaffected by one’s religious affiliation (or the absence thereof). Ours is a secular government in the sense that we do not make things illegal BECAUSE they are religiously proscribed; nor do we require actions BECAUSE they our religion demands them.
That’s why I think all this history of faith-related proclamations and prayer and so forth is completely reasonable and constitutional. They do not require or forbid any actions based on religion. They do not put forth a religious test for anyone seeking government services.
Thanks for the good conversation here
LikeLike
April 21, 2010 at 12:48 pm
The Center Square,
I would agree with your definition of secular, and would agree that our founders intended America to be a secular nation in that sense. But I’m sure you are aware that this is not the way a lot of people define secular. They understand it to mean the government must be a “religion-free” zone. That is, in my opinion, both a legally and historically ignorant understanding.
Jason
LikeLike
April 21, 2010 at 3:45 pm
I completely agree, Jason. My sole clarification would be that government should be cautious about religious expression that reflects the values of any particular faith. It is always best when any such expressions are either faith-neutral or should broadly encompass all faiths. That is why:
* These prayer services pass muster (faith-neutral);
* The depiction of Moses and the Ten Commandments in the US Supreme Court passes muster (part of a broadly encompassing depiction of multiple sources of our legal and ethical traditions).
LikeLike
April 21, 2010 at 4:11 pm
The Center Square,
I would agree that the government should be cautious in its religious expression (for example, I wouldn’t care much for a public official talking about Allah all the time), but this concern is more of a practical one than a legal/Constitutional one.
Personally, I don’t think any religious expression can be faith-neutral. Any religious expression that reflects a belief in multiple gods will go against monotheistic religions. Any religious expression which refers to God in the singular will go against polytheistic religions. Any expression of a divine being goes against certain Eastern religions like certain forms of Buddhism.
Jason
LikeLike
May 1, 2010 at 3:04 am
shoot fun stuff dude.
LikeLike