Legal Skirmish Colors National Day Of Prayer

From the Religion News Service via the Huffington Post:

As Rep. Randy Forbes sees it, the decision by a Wisconsin federal judge that the law creating a National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional is little more than one person's opinion.

Millions of Americans, Forbes said, think otherwise.

"That's not what the Constitution says," the Virginia Republican declared Wednesday (April 21), surrounded by other members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus. "That's what one unelected judge says the Constitution says."

On Thursday (April 22), the Justice Department said it would appeal the decision, capping a week of political uproar from conservatives after Judge Barbara Crabb of Madison, Wis., issued her April 15 ruling.

And

Jews on First and the Interfaith Alliance, two groups that have accused the National Day of Prayer Task Force of hosting exclusionary Christian events, sent a joint letter to Obama asking him to issue a proclamation that promotes inclusive observances.

"We're certainly going to encourage people to have interfaith, inclusive events but the line that we're going to take now is it's important for there to be a healthy separation as well as a healthy respect for religion," said Rabbi Haim Beliak, one of the co-directors of Jews on First.

More here.

You know, I've always loved church/state controversy. It's a fun and interesting issue that drives people insane on both sides. For the record, I'm one of those Americans who strongly support keeping the government out of religion, and vice versa. I'm in good company: it was founding father Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state." In spite of all the bullshit we hear about how we were founded as a "Christian nation," and how all the founders were men of faith, the reality is that many, if not most, of them were deists, that is, not at all Christians in the way we understand the term today. And as rational Enlightenment era men of conscience, they were strongly disturbed by centuries of sectarian strife in Europe, cynically used by nation states for their own benefit. Thus, they included in the first amendment guarantees for religious freedom, as well as prohibitions against government establishing its own official religion.

Separation between church and state, right? Pretty easy. But what, exactly, does it mean to "establish" an official religion? There's the rub. If you're Pat Robertson, or any other fundamentalist thinker, it means there cannot be a Congressionally created organization, funded by tax dollars, known as the Church of America or somesuch. And that's it. For these types, establishing an official religion does not mean funnelling tax dollars into religious coffers, or requiring prayer in school, or keeping religious symbols away from government properties and offices. That is, to Christian fundamentalists, the government can favor religion all it wants. As long as there isn't an official organization called the Church of America, it is in compliance with the first amendment.

Of course, that's total bullshit. If you use the fundamentalist interpretation, you might as well just throw the whole "establishment" clause out of the window because it essentially has no meaning. That is, from their point of view, the government can indeed establish an official religion, preferably one that is fundamentalist Christian in nature, as long as they don't actually call it a religion. Unfortunately for them, this interpretation is utterly out of line with some fifty years of Supreme Court rulings on the subject. Generally, these decisions have interpreted the word "establish" to mean the government showing any sort of favoritism to any sort of religion. Which is a good thing because, really, it's all a slippery slope. It may not be creating an organization called the Church of America when we require students to pray in school, but it sure as hell constitutes the state ramming religion down the throats of American citizens, and that's close enough.

Anyway, to the point. The National Day of Prayer, a government sanctioned activity, clearly violates the first amendment. The government has no business encouraging people to pray, just as it has no business discouraging prayer. But I, personally, don't get so worked up about it. It strikes me as a rather meaningless gesture, a bone thrown to the faithful among us, with minimal tax dollars involved. Beyond making the observation that it violates the Constitution, I have no plans to fight the good fight on the issue.

But prayer in school, which just keeps coming back like Nixon or a zombie, is something that infuriates me. Ditto for "intelligent design" as a stealth vehicle for creationism inserted into biology classes. Same thing with "faith based" initiatives, or, more correctly, handing over tax dollars to religious organizations for their "charitable," which means "proselytizing," activities. That is, there are numerous real threats, with teeth, to our sacred wall of separation between church and state.

Taking down that shit, that's the good fight.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$