Praying for common sense
It would be understandable if supporters of the separation of church and state suspected that there's a fifth column in the judiciary determined to make the separationist cause look bad. Latest example: A federal district judge's ruling that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.
Like Michael Newdow's challenge to "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins, the Freedom From Religion Foundation's lawsuit against the Day of Prayer might be justified on a purist 1st Amendment theory about the establishment of religion.
But there is a doctrine in the law known as "de minimis," from a Latin maxim that basically says that government officials shouldn't concern themselves with trivialities. The National Day of Prayer is a pretty good candidate for the "de minimis" rule.
Not throwing a constitutional fit about what is sometimes called "ceremonial deism" makes it easier to oppose serious breaches of the wall of separation, like official prayers in public schools. In the culture wars, as in real ones, sometimes you need to choose your battles.
-- Michael McGough
Reading up on the Founding Fathers, it is clear that they would find it a bizarre concept that a National Day of Prayer would violate the First Amendment. Clearly, they never intended such an interpretation.
Go back and check the records. Some of the original states has official Christian denminations well into the 19th Century. Where I can agree with the radical secularists is that the Founders did not want the Union picking/favoring a national denomination of Christianity, and I agree that states should not have them now, either. But I do not agree that prayer needs to be banashed from the public square or government events.
Posted by: Ken | April 16, 2010 at 11:35 AM
Michael McGough, it doesn't bother you that the NDOP's website "Mobilizes Christian community members to intercede for America and its leadership in government, military, media, business, education, church and family" and is overtly backing one establishment of religion, mentioning taking back the nation for Jesus? That other faiths, including other forms of Christianity (Mormonism) have been discriminated against? That National Prayer Breakfasts and weekly prayer meeting are used by the Family to build support for a Christian Dominionist takeover of the U.S. government? Are you blind?
What other "trivialities" shouldn't the federal government concern itself with: the Jewish high school student forced to pray in class, the family harassed because they are Muslim, the practitioners of Buddhism and Taoism who don't believe in a God at all? The Native Americans forced to surrender their language and culture and ripped from their families to be educated in Catholic orphanages? The atheist told that s/he is "not really a citizen" because of no God-belief, or the atheists whose murder the police refused the investigate (the O'Hairs) because they, being "just atheists," obviously took off with the money?
I cannot understand why you do not find it troubling that a federal law would mandate that the President declare a National Day of Prayer. This is a ruling for common sense.
Posted by: Kristine | April 16, 2010 at 12:14 PM
It's too bad that reporters don't actually read court decisions before reporting on them and that some commenters don 't read them either. The judge ruled that the law that required a federal establishment of a national day of prayer and that required the President to make the proclamation was unconstitutional. The ruling does say that private individuals can't celebrate one or that the president can't decide to make such a proclamation.
There is no valid purpose for the government to inject itself into people's lives on questions of religion. It's clearly the right ruling.
Posted by: John | April 16, 2010 at 04:10 PM
There is an oxymoron here somewhere.
Freedom of religion must include freedom "from" religion to actually be a freedom entitled to us all under our constitution.
Freedom "of" religion implies that my government has the authority to make me choose among religions available to me. However it does not give me the freedom to choose no religion.
A national day of prayer, in god we trust on our money, and under god in our pledge infers that in order to be considered a loyal citizen of these United States,my government has the right to require me to choose a religion preferably a christian religion, or at least a monotheistic religion.
There can be no such thing as freedom of religion without freedom from religion.
I support the right for religious people to practice their religion freely in these United States. They can pray, display their religious symbols on their privately owned properties all they want as long as they don't break the law of the land.
For example, the catholic church broke the law of the land when they did not report child abusers to the proper authorities.
Well, what can I say. I as an atheist I resent a national day of prayer imposed by my government. If the catholic church, or any other religious institution wants to promote a day of prayer, fine.
But my government should not impose on me, that I should observe a day of prayer.
Marilyn LaCourt
Posted by: Marilyn LaCourt | April 16, 2010 at 06:44 PM
I'm sure you wouldn't think it was "de minimis" if the shoe was on the other foot. Let's proclaim a national day of praising Allah and see how fast it takes you to file a lawsuit.
Posted by: Raytheist | April 16, 2010 at 09:02 PM
I am ashamed to know that freedom from religion group exists in my state of Wisconsin. Especially since this country was founded on religious principles and at a time when things are running amuck due to lack of true religious beliefs. Even the financial system (lying, cheating, stealing) is affected, right down to the schools (no respect, unusual forms of discipline,bullying etc.) We need religious input into this culture.
Posted by: BL | April 17, 2010 at 04:21 AM
If Mr. McGough's rationale is correct, then the government shouldn't waste further money appealing the case, since the matter is "de minimis".
Posted by: Guss | April 17, 2010 at 04:24 AM
"I'm sure you wouldn't think it was "de minimis" if the shoe was on the other foot."
I have to agree with this. If it was a National Day of Runic Magic/Chanting/Tarot Cards Reading or National Day of Blasphemy, I bet you would be filing pretty fast. Heck, why have only one National Day of Prayer, Muslims countries have call to prayers 5 times a day.
Read the judge's 66 page opinion on this, it's spot on.
Posted by: Sasah | April 17, 2010 at 04:56 AM
I might think that a National Day of Prayer is trivial, a waste of breath trying to communicate with a non-existent fictional entity who is supposed to already know what you think and what's best for you in any case.
If we could all agree that prayer is trivial, we might start to address more important problems. But I don't see that happening.
And I agree with the other posters who have pointed out that this commentator doesn't seem to have read the opinion, which is a model of intelligent analysis and good historical research.
The title of this page is "The best in Southern California opinion journalism, Monday through Friday." It must be signficant that this shoddy piece appeared on Saturday.
Posted by: Toto Katt | April 17, 2010 at 03:09 PM
Everyday is a national day of prayer for me. I really don't need the government to tell me to dedicate one special day a year for this purpose. How can you pray at any public event without insulting someone's religion? Assuming that you are praying from a Christian perspective. Maybe just a minute of silence and let everyone pray, not pray, or meditate on their own would be the best alternative.
Posted by: Candytoenails | April 17, 2010 at 07:32 PM
There is a separation from Church and State...and thank God for it, I dont need the state to tell me when to pray, but I wonder why the birth of Christ is a national Holiday.
Posted by: Jcuenca | April 18, 2010 at 04:46 PM
The law in this country either works all of the time or it works none of the time. No injustice is too small to be ignored or glossed over. The legal idea of "de minimus" is more along the lines of "no harm, no foul". But there is definate harm if our constitutional protections can be swept away by the will of some majority. This is exactly the kind of fight that must be fought.
Posted by: Dexter Fox | April 18, 2010 at 05:13 PM
For the record, I did read the opinion, which I recommend as an example of the purist (and somewhat mechanical) separationist view.
Posted by: Michael McGough | April 19, 2010 at 10:30 AM