National Day of Prayer ruled constitutional
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 13 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 121

Thread: National Day of Prayer ruled constitutional

  1. #1
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,685

    Default National Day of Prayer ruled constitutional

    Do you agree with this decision? Disagree? Discuss.

    Last April, federal judge Barbara Crabb found that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, writing that 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."

    Today, however, a federal appeals court panel voted 3-0 to overturn that ruling. The decision was based on the finding that the group that challenged the law did not have standing to do so.

    The lawsuit was brought by a group of atheists and agnostics called the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which argued that it violated the separation of church and state.

    The National Day of Prayer was established by Congress in 1952, and in 1988 was set as the first Thursday in May. By law, the president must proclaim a national day of prayer every year. Despite the initial ruling President Obama proclaimed a National Day of Prayer last year; in his proclamation, he said in part, "In prayer, we have expressed gratitude and humility, sought guidance and forgiveness, and received inspiration and assistance, both in good times and in bad." He also called on Americans to "pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings."

    The administration, which appealed the initial ruling, argued that the National Day of Prayer was legal because it simply acknowledged the role of religion in the United States. The ruling finding the day unconstitutional sparked outrage last year from some lawmakers, among them Texas Republican Lamar Smith, who asked, "What's next? Declaring the federal holiday for Christmas unconstitutional?"

    In asserting that the Freedom From Religion Foundation lacked standing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said that "unless all limits on standing are to be abandoned, a feeling of alienation cannot suffice as injury in fact." It found there was no injury in part because the proclamation can essentially be ignored by an individual.

    The Freedom From Religion Foundation said it would seek a rehearing before the full appeals court.

    "Congress and the president of the United States have no business telling me or any other citizen to pray, 'to turn to God in prayer at churches,' much less setting aside an entire day for prayer every year and even telling me what to pray about," said Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor.

    The social conservative group The Family Research Council, meanwhile, applauded the ruling.

    "Today's ruling sends a message to Judge Barbara Crabb and any other activist judge who would rewrite the Constitution to advance a hostile treatment of religion in public life," said the group's president, Tony Perkins.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...27-503544.html
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Mega Poster elleon17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    4,200

    Default

    I agree with the ruling

    I'm not overly religious, fall into the very spirtual category, but in the attempt to uphold the rights afforded by the consititution it seems that rights are being eroded.

    If its national hot dog day does not mean I need to eat a hot dog that day. national prayer day does not mean you have to pray that day.

    Maybe they could be satisfied with a national do not pray day. Then the group is equally represented. and then in our legal happy nation, maybe a group for prayer can sue the goverment for alienation.
    Lilypie Fifth Birthday tickers
    Lilypie First Birthday tickers

  3. #3
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    The President and his wife have been calling for people to recycle and eat healthier. How many people feel the need to sue instead of just ignoring the advice?

    Today's tax day. Almost half of us don't pay any. Should we sue?

    I wish this group would focus on something positive or that was actually harmful to the people they are trying to protect. How much is all this legal back and forth costing us?

  4. #4
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    6,123

    Default

    This decision said that the group who brought the suit didn't have standing. That does not speak to the actual constitutionality of the legislation. The decision just says that the court doesn't uphold the lower court's decision because the plaintiffs in the case shouldn't have been allowed to bring it before the court.

  5. #5
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    6,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wlillie View Post
    The President and his wife have been calling for people to recycle and eat healthier. How many people feel the need to sue instead of just ignoring the advice?

    Today's tax day. Almost half of us don't pay any. Should we sue?

    I wish this group would focus on something positive or that was actually harmful to the people they are trying to protect. How much is all this legal back and forth costing us?
    What does the bolded have to do with the OP?

  6. #6
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CalBearInBoston View Post
    This decision said that the group who brought the suit didn't have standing. That does not speak to the actual constitutionality of the legislation. The decision just says that the court doesn't uphold the lower court's decision because the plaintiffs in the case shouldn't have been allowed to bring it before the court.
    Doesn't this pretty much say that no one could have standing in this case?

    In asserting that the Freedom From Religion Foundation lacked standing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said that "unless all limits on standing are to be abandoned, a feeling of alienation cannot suffice as injury in fact." It found there was no injury in part because the proclamation can essentially be ignored by an individual.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    6,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Doesn't this pretty much say that no one could have standing in this case?
    I don't believe you can have legislation where no one has standing to be able to sue. That doesn't really make sense.

  8. #8
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CalBearInBoston View Post
    I don't believe you can have legislation where no one has standing to be able to sue. That doesn't really make sense.
    So what circumstances could exist that would make it so that an individual woudn't be able to ignore the proclamation of the National Day of Prayer, if a feeling of alienation cannot suffice as injury?
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    6,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    So what circumstances could exist that would make it so that an individual woudn't be able to ignore the proclamation of the National Day of Prayer, if a feeling of alienation cannot suffice as injury?
    Well, I think an issue on this board is people seem to be under the impression that whatever the last court decided will stand. That's not necessarily true. This decision could be deemed invalid. Will it happen in this case, who knows? The Freedom From Religion Foundation is going to appeal to have it go before the full court and we'll see what happens. There are ten justices that sit on that court and only three of them heard this case.

  10. #10
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CalBearInBoston View Post
    Well, I think an issue on this board is people seem to be under the impression that whatever the last court decided will stand. That's not necessarily true. This decision could be deemed invalid. Will it happen in this case, who knows? The Freedom From Religion Foundation is going to appeal to have it go before the full court and we'll see what happens. There are ten justices that sit on that court and only three of them heard this case.
    So I guess that means you can't answer the question. Which is that NO ONE can prove harm. And it was unanimous among the 3 that heard it. Just because they appeal doesn't mean they have to hear the case, they also have the option to just let it stand.

    But Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Foundation didn't have legal standing to sue, since the president's proclamation of the National Day of Prayer caused them no harm.

    "All they have is a disagreement with the president's action. But unless all limits on standing are to be abandoned, a feeling of alienation cannot suffice as injury," Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook said in the opinion.

    "Although this proclamation speaks to all citizens, no one is obligated to pray any more than a person would be obligated to hand over his money if the president asked all citizens to support the Red Cross and other charities," he added.

    "The president has made a request. He has not issued a command," the judge continued. "No one is injured by a request that can be declined."
    http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/A...of-Prayer-Ban/
    Last edited by GloriaInTX; 04-18-2011 at 03:34 PM.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 13 1234511 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions