Federal Court rules that the “National Day of Prayer” violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause

Yesterday, I received an email from the Center For Inquiry indicating that, in 2008, Freedom From Religion Foundation had filed a lawsuit (Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc v. Obama) to prevent the federal government from declaring a “National Day of Prayer.” The U.S. District Court, Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin, struck down 36 U.S.C. §119, which establishes a yearly National Day of Prayer. Here’s the text of the statute:

The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as 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.

As discussed in the Court’s Opinion, the National Day of Prayer was established in part, due to the efforts of Reverend Billy Graham in 1952. One of Graham’s speeches included the following:

We have dropped our pilot, the Lord Jesus Christ, and are sailing blindly on without divine chart or compass, hoping somehow to find our desired haven. We have certain leaders who are rank materialists; they do not recognize God nor care for Him; they spend their time in one round of parties after another. The Capital City of our Nation can have a great spiritual awakening, thousands coming to Jesus Christ, but certain leaders have not lifted an eyebrow, nor raised a finger, nor showed the slightest bit of concern. Ladies and gentlemen, I warn you, if this state of affairs continues, the end of the course is national shipwreck and ruin.

Congress then took the reins, lead by [appropriately named] Representative Percy Priest, who introduced a bill to establish a National Day of Prayer. Here is the Court’s description:

In addressing the House of Representatives, he noted that the country had been “challenged yesterday by the suggestion made on the east steps of the Capitol by Billy Graham that the Congress call on the President for the proclamation of a day of prayer.” In support of the bill, Representative Brooks stated that “the national interest would be much better served if we turn aside for a full day of prayer for spiritual help and guidance from the Almighty during these troublous times. I hope that all denominations, Catholics, Jewish and Protestants, will join us in this day of prayer.” Representative Peter W. Rodino, Jr., stated that “it is fitting and timely that the people of America, in approaching the Easter season, as God-fearing men and women, devote themselves to a day of prayer in the interest of peace.”

[The Court added a footnote: "This part of the report is not accurate. 1 Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 787(1983) (“[P]rayers were not offered during the Constitutional Convention.”] I downloaded the entire ruling from the federal district court in pdf format and I’m making it available here. The Plaintiff argued that Plaintiff the statute is unconstitutional “because it endorses prayer and encourages citizens to engage in that particular religious exercise.” [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingFederal Court rules that the “National Day of Prayer” violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause

Judicial Temperment

Judges are supposed to stay above the emotional fray. They are supposed to apply the law even-handedly. The attached court Order (which I recently found in some of my old paperwork) is a strikingly honest admission by one judge that he would have been unable to maintain judicial composure in a particular case.  It's an Order recusing himself from the case of a man that had been accused and convicted of murdering a police officer as that officer slept. This is not a case I handled, but it was a case of which I was aware.  I once met this judge (back in the 1980's), and he was a generally pleasant man. A clerk from the Phelps County, Missouri Court verified for me that this case was actually handled in that Court. I'm posting this Order signed by Judge John Brackman of Franklin County, Missouri, because I find it to be a stark reminder that most judges maintain their composure, despite what they might be feeling inside.  This Order is one of those glimpses inside one judge's psyche, reminding us that judges are capable feeling strong emotions, which reminds me of this earlier post on emotions and decision-making. brackman-order-1

Continue ReadingJudicial Temperment

Alabama Supreme Court restricts sales of dildos and vibrators based on “public morality”

In the recent decision of 1568 Montgomery Highway v. City of Hoover, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the Alabama Legislature's prohibition of dildos and vibrators, basing this decision on "public morality." More specifically,

In its second counterclaim, Love Stuff asks to have Ala. Code § 13A-12-200.2 (which generally bans the sale of sex toys) deemed unconstitutional.

The trial Court had found that "The target market for Love Stuff [the name of the store in question] consists of females, ages 32-52." The Court held that commercial public sales of devices geared toward masturbation can be prohibited (though the Court suggested that the decision would be otherwise if the devices were handed out gratuitously or if they were sold at private "Tupperwear"-like parties). Geoffrey Stone harshly disagrees with the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court and properly characterizes this as an improper exercise of religion:

[W]hat is it about the use of a vibrator or a dildo that affronts the "public morality"? Why is a person who uses such a device "immoral"? The answer, I submit, turns entirely on religion. The pivotal shift from the world of the classical Greeks to our contemporary world, in this respect, was the advent of Christianity, with its emphasis on sexual pleasure as sinful. Much of this can be traced to Augustine, who reasoned in the fifth century that sexual pleasure was integrally related to Adam's Fall from Grace. Adam's original sin, he argued, had not been one of pride or disobedience, but of sex. Thus, sexual pleasure was born out of evil, and man's best hope for redemption lay in repudiating the sexual impulse and, with it, the burden of guilt inherited from Adam. Sexual pleasure was therefore deemed defiling and shameful.

I agree with Stone's thorough analysis.

Continue ReadingAlabama Supreme Court restricts sales of dildos and vibrators based on “public morality”

Making children say the pledge of allegiance over and over is “teaching them history.”

I remember how, back in the 1960's,  I was forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day in grade school. Those were the days when we had nuclear bomb drills: we lined up and marched to the school basement, where we would presumably be safe from the fallout of atomic bombs. Some of my neighbors even had bomb shelters dug out in their yards. [caption id="attachment_9484" align="alignright" width="150" caption="Image by Crafteepics at Dreamstime (with permission)"]Image by Crafteepics at Dreamstime (with permission)[/caption] Based on my own experience, children don't like saying the pledge. It  is mind-numbing to children; as proof, consider that you never see children saying the Pledge on their own.  They only say the Pledge when they are forced to do so by insecure adults.  All honest and rational people know that the children say the pledge only because they are forced to do so.  All honest people also know that one can be a patriot without ever saying the Pledge of Allegiance.  As proof, none of the following people ever said the Pledge of Allegiance:  George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine . . . [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingMaking children say the pledge of allegiance over and over is “teaching them history.”

One of the most egregious parts of the “Patriot Act” is held unconstitutional

Yesterday, one of the most egregious parts of the "Patriot Act" was held unconstitutional by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.   This decision was a no-brainer, but you can never take things for granted.  The ACLU website summarizes the decision.   Here's an excerpt: A federal appeals court today upheld,…

Continue ReadingOne of the most egregious parts of the “Patriot Act” is held unconstitutional