Day of Prayer? Day in court

Posted on December 16, 2008 by Heather Mac Donald

 The Freedom from Religion Foundation has sued to stop Colorado Governor Bill Ritter from issuing a proclamation in support of the National Day of Prayer, reports the Los Angeles Times.  My instincts are with my co-bloggers– secularists should stay out of court as much as possible.  Litigating these religion cases only increases what Wally has described as the religious right’s skillfully cultivated “sense of being besieged and persecuted.”  Better that politicians should worry that a significant number of voters will find a National Day of Prayer laughable than that they will be hauled into court.  Besides, the anodyne, generic version of Christianity—now expanded to Judeo-Christianity—presented in most such public assertions of piety has been so thoroughly tamed by Enlightenment principles of tolerance that it’s a far cry from the sectarian, life-or-death, bloodshed-producing religion that the Founders rightly worried about.  If the proponents of these public pronouncements maintain that non-believers shouldn’t take the claims seriously enough to find a Constitutional violation, let’s call that a victory. 
      (I could be persuaded otherwise in this particular case, however, depending on the details.)

This entry was posted in law, politics, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Day of Prayer? Day in court

  1. Cassandra Gleason says:
    December 16, 2008 at 7:06 pm

    I’m a non believer, and to be honest, Christmas doesn’t bother me one bit. It’s tied in with my history, memories of family, etc. A cultural thing. I agree that non believers should stop litigating, unless it truly infringes on our rights.

  2. tcg says:
    December 16, 2008 at 8:19 pm

    I’m with cassandra on this. This national day of prayer is not the same as holding a national day of prayer in Andrew Jackson’s time.

    This stuff now is traditional. If you want to pray: then pray. If you don’t: then don’t.

    But don’t have a cow, man.

  3. Steel Phoenix says:
    December 16, 2008 at 8:37 pm

    I see no benefit to this. They are wasting our tax dollars. They waste them by talking about it. They waste them because it is nothing they should be involved in, they waste them because they could be doing something useful, and they waste them because it invites endless and stupid litigation. Stop it before it starts. It only encourages that “it is a religious nation” nonsense. This is like giving the bears just a little of your camp food so they will quit bugging you.

  4. Grant Canyon says:
    December 17, 2008 at 4:30 am

    I strongly favor these litigations. As a constitutional matter, the fact that this is “non-sectarian” prayer should be irrelevant. It still promotes religiosity.

    If, on the one hand, it is so tame as to not be a constitutional violation, then there is no rational basis for the law, and they should have no problem simply not doing it. The more strongly they argue against the suit, however, the more it is clear that the argument that this is tame is a lie, and that they are trying to use the government to promote religion.

    I also favor litigation in every one of these cases for another reason: it will eventually sink in to these morons that they can’t do this kind of thing in a nation of laws, one of which protects the rights of the people not to have their government push religion.

    And even if they don’t get it, it may come to pass that their insurance carriers (for those municipalities which carry insurance, which is most) will start writing exclusions which eliminate coverage in these types of claims. The municipalities will have to foot the bill for the litigation, verdict, if any, or settlements themselves. Trying telling your constituents that the town has to fire some cops or firemen because some dumbass politician decided to ignore the clear mandate of the law to promote jesus-think.

    So I say, let it promote a “victim mentality” among our opponants. It’s not as if they don’t already create it in themselves already. And it’s not like politely asking them to follow the law is either going to be effective or to lessen the “victim mentality” in the least.

  5. mikespeir says:
    December 17, 2008 at 5:00 am

    I’m not sure this is the fight to pick, either.

  6. Caledonian says:
    December 17, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Given that Evangelist credophiles have explicitly promoted a ‘wedge’ strategy, it would be madness not to oppose such behaviors in court.

    In a system ruled by conventions and precedents, letting a prohibition be violated is almost the same as letting it lapse altogether. Permitting ‘days of prayer’ and the like weakens the separation and makes it much easier to argue in the future that mixing politics and religion is no big deal.

    Well, it IS a big deal – and it cannot be tolerated.

  7. SmokeVanThorn says:
    December 17, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Comments #3, 4 and 6 verge on self parody.

  8. Steel Phoenix says:
    December 17, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    @SmokeVanThorn: Thats just how I roll.

    As modern knowledge continues to shoot holes in the primitive beliefs of the early religions, I think their followers are tired of being constantly reminded by the world around them that their beliefs are silly, and I think this holiday is them begging for a day of peace to live in their fantasy land. But we already have days like this all throughout the year, and every week for that matter. I still blame bible thumpers for what a useless day Sunday has become for getting anything done.

Comments are closed.