Quantcast


Twitter icon


Facebook icon

About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Your first visit?
Contact us
External links
Good books
Visitors' essays
Our forum
New essays
Other features
Buy a CD
Vital notes

World religions
BUDDHISM
CHRISTIANITY
 Christian def'n
 Shared beliefs
 Handling change
 Bible topics
 Bible inerrancy
 Bible harmony
 Interpret Bible
 Persons
 Beliefs & creeds
 Da Vinci code
 Revelation 666
 Denominations
HINDUISM
ISLAM
JUDAISM
WICCA / WITCHCRAFT
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing Religions

Non-theistic...
Atheism
Agnosticism
Humanism
Other

About all religions
Main topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt & security
Quotes
Movies
Confusing terms
Glossary
End of the World?
True religion?
Seasonal events
Science vs Religion
More information

Spiritual/ethics
Spirituality
Morality & ethics
Absolute truth

Peace/conflict
Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious freedom
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
10 commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Cloning
Death penalty
Environment

Same-sex marriage

Homosexuality
Human rights
Gays in the military
Nudism
Origins
Sex & gender
Sin
Spanking kids
Stem cells
Transexuality
Women-rights
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news

Sponsored links

 

!!!!!!!! Search error!  If the URL ends something like .htm/  or .htm# delete the character(s) after .htm and hit return.

Court rules National Day of Prayer is constitutional,
but the government's declaration of NDP isn't

Positive and negative
responses to the court ruling

horizontal rule

Sponsored link.

horizontal rule

Federal government reactions to the court ruling:

  • White House: Shortly after the ruling was made public, the White House sent out a Tweet saying that President "Obama intends to recognize a National Day of Prayer." They did not specify how he plans to do this. In the Spring of 2009, he issued a proclamation for the NDP as required under the law that had not yet been declared unconstitutional.

    The previous year, President George W. Bush issued a proclamation and hosted a White House observance. Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), wrote:

    "President Obama is a constitutional scholar, and knows the issues at stake. He couldn't possibly have read the 66-page historic ruling by Judge Crabb 1 at the time of this Tweet." 2

    Later, White House spokesman Matthew Lehrich wrote to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that President Obama would make his 2010 proclamation. He wrote:

    "We have reviewed the court's decision, and it does not prevent the president from issuing a proclamation." 3

  • Justice department: On 2010-APR-22, the Justice Department said that it would appeal the District Court's ruling.

  • Congress: By APR-22, members of Congress had introduced two resolution in an attempt to undercut the decision by the District Court judge.

horizontal rule

Positive reactions to the court ruling:

  • The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State wrote:
    "This decision is a tremendous victory for religious liberty. Congress has no business telling Americans when or how to pray." 3

  • The Center for Inquiry [CFI], a group promoting the secularization of the U.S., applauded Judge Crabb's decision, saying:

    "... CFI believes this ruling represents an important step toward achieving a secular state in which the government takes no position on religious issues, which is one of the purposes of  the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. ..."


    "CFI’s president and CEO Ronald A. Lindsay called the decision 'a long overdue recognition by the federal courts that the government should stay out of the prayer business entirely,' adding further that 'determining which religious exercises to engage in—if any—is a matter best left to the conscience of the individual. The government should not tell us to pray—or tell us not to pray. We can decide for ourselves." 4

horizontal rule

Sponsored link:

horizontal rule

Negative reactions to the court ruling:

  • A statement by Joel Oster, senior counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund -- a fundamentalist Christian legal defense organisation -- said:
    "It's important to remember this about the National Day of Prayer: It's America's heritage, and this day belongs to Americans. The court should not have struck down this statute." 5
  • A statement by Jordan Sekulow, attorney at the American Center for Law and Justice, said:
    "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. ... This decision runs counter to well-established legal precedent, and we're confident that this flawed decision ultimately will be overturned." 5

horizontal rule

2010-APR-16: Debate on the law creating the NDP:

Megyn Kelly of Fox News and Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United debated the constitutionality of the law creating the Day of Prayer. It is difficult to follow in some places becuase Ms. Kelly kept interrupting Rev. Lynn, and it is difficult to separate their voices:

6

horizontal rule

References used:

This information source was used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlink is not necessarily still valid today.

  1. "Opinion and order 08-cv-588-bbc," 2010-APR=15, 66 pages, at: http://www.scribd.com/
  2. David Gibson, "National Day of Prayer unconstitutional, Judge rules," Politics Daily, 2010-APR-16, at: http://www.politicsdaily.com/
  3. "Wis. Judge Strikes Down National Day of Prayer ," AOL News, 2010-APR-17, at: http://www.aolnews.com/
  4. "CFI applauds ruling striking down National Day of Prayer," Center for Inquiry, 2010-APR-16, at: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/
  5. "Wis. Judge Strikes Down National Day of Prayer," AOL News, 2010-APR-17, at: http://www.aolnews.com/
  6. "Barry Lynn debates the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer with Megyn Kelly on Fox News," Americans United, 2010-APR-16, at: http://www.au.org/

horizontal rule

Site navigation:

Home > Christianity > Christian history, etc > Prayer > NDP > Constitutionality > here

Home > Christianity > History, beliefs... > Practices > Prayer > NDP > Constitutionality > here

or Home > Spiritual topics > NDP > Constitutionality > here

or Home > Religious information > NDP > Constitutionality > here

horizontal rule

Copyright © 2010 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally published: 2010-APR-16
Most recent update: 2010-APR-23
Author: B.A. Robinson
line.gif (538 bytes)
Sponsored link

horizontal rule

Go to the previous page, or to "Constitutionality of the Federal NDP legislation" menu, or choose:

Google
Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.

 

Sponsored link: