Is the National Day Of Prayer Unconstitutional?

@laglen (19782)
United States
April 16, 2010 11:18am CST
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4153953/controversy-over-national-tradition What do you think of this judges opinion. Do you think this is a matter of separation of Church and State. They do not REQUIRE anybody to pray. It looks like this will go on to the Supreme Court. What is your opinion here?
3 responses
@Latrivia (2889)
• United States
17 Apr 10
I wrote a thread about the unconstitutionality of the National Day of Prayer a few years ago. Now, however, I just don't care. The text of the code in question: [i] "The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals." [/i] At best you could say the reference to "God" (a singular proper noun), violates the first amendment as it only refers to the Christian god. The concept itself doesn't inherently violate the first amendment, but one could always argue that the text does. Change the text just the right way and the religious can keep their day of prayer.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19782)
• United States
17 Apr 10
I am not sure how it refers to the Christian God, what text would be more acceptable. This I am asking respectfully because I really do want to know. I would like to understand how this violates rights.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
17 Apr 10
Seems to me the, "may turn to God...," takes away the violation.
1 person likes this
@Latrivia (2889)
• United States
17 Apr 10
No, "may turn to God" is what calls the constitutionality of it into question. There's a very easy fix for it - one which wouldn't reference anyone's god and still maintain the day of prayer. [i]"The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may pray and meditate at churches, in groups, and as individuals."[/i]
1 person likes this
@nzinky (822)
• United States
18 Apr 10
The judge probaley never read the Constitution if they had of they would know the amendement says, That the governorment can not have a state run church...Doesn't say a thing about praying......Anyone my age had to know what the constitution said cause we studied it in school.....That amendent was made becaue our for fathers didn't think we should have a state run church.......Like the King of England had.... I think one of the things Judges should have to do is study what the constitution says and know what it means before they take the bench.......But no one in congress has studied the constitution cause they make up things as they go.....
@laglen (19782)
• United States
20 Apr 10
so true and that is probably just another thing to take out of the Constitution. Nobody seems to use it any more.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
16 Apr 10
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." What religion is being established? To whom are we asked to pray? Those atheist and agnostics who brought the law suit could pray to the god of gripers and crybabies or not pray at all just as many people will be doing. I don't agree with Judge Crabb. This is not unconstitutional. I don't think it says too much for a federal judge who doesn't know how to reason, and it doesn't say too much for whomever put her on the bench.
@laglen (19782)
• United States
16 Apr 10
Amen, now if it was the National Day of Mandatory Prayer, there may be a bit of a case...