Judge Declares National Day Of Prayer Unconstitutional

[SANDMAN5]

What's the point of having a government mandated day of prayer then?

No, a "mandated" day of prayer would be illegal. That would mean you HAVE to pray. As
I understand it, the day of prayer is for everybody that prays to say a prayer to their
God asking for blessings on this country and it's people. With all the stuff going on in the
world, especially in D.C., we could sure use some help!!

[John Schmidt]

Some interesting background on the Day of Prayer.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Last week, Barbara Crabb, a federal judge appointed by former president Jimmy Carter, declared that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. Bizarrely, she said it is a violation of the First Amendment.

Yet the tradition of national days of prayer goes back to our very first congress and our first president. Just two days after members of Congress passed the First Amendment, they asked President George Washington to declare a national day of thanksgiving and prayer. In response to this request from Congress, President Washington, less than a week after passage of the First Amendment, issued just such a proclamation on October 3, 1789.

From a merely historical point of view, this makes it clear that it is preposterous to suggest that there is anything unconstitutional about a national day of prayer. Judge Crabb seems dangerously unaware of American history and the true meaning of the First Amendment, which was designed to protect freedom of religious expression, not stamp it out."

[Hellcat]

Treaty of Tripoli... Ratified by unanimous vote by the US Senate on June 7th, 1797, signed by president John Adams... (I.E. A whole lot of those fellows who were the founders were still involved and voted to ratify this treaty) included the following passage:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

That is a great find. I will have to go find a list of members of Congress in June 1797. One of them will be Thomas Jefferson, Vice President and therefore President of the Senate.

[highcountry]

Doubtful that will be the last we hear judicially on that judge's ruling.  I don't see how it can stand constitutionally.

[Robert]

Serk thanks It makes sense if I were a country just formed just out of protection from helping naval powers and fighting a internal struggle I guess I could understand some to sign a treaty with the devil. But as in all things he is a liar and the father of all lies and that treaty fell through too. The deal was made with Muslim pirates from the Ottoman empire. Personally to me it shows what happens when you turn away from God and not rely on His hand. This is one thing that I have learned when in trouble dont reason, ask and trust the one that knows how to give good gifts to His children and He will deliver you. I guess Obama was following protocol when he went to Muslim nations and declared almost the same thing. We never learn do we?
  
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers
The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Barbary Coast War or the Tripolitan War, was the first of two wars  fought between the United States of America (briefly joined by a small Swedish  fleet) and the North African states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the independent Sultanate of Morocco, and the three Regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, which were quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Ottoman Empire.

Pirate ships and crews from the North African states of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers (the Barbary Coast),although nominally governed by the Ottoman Empire, were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and holding their crews for ransom provided the rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. In fact, the Roman Catholic Religious Order of Mathurins had operated from France for centuries with the special mission of collecting and disbursing funds for the relief and ransom of prisoners of Mediterranean pirates.

The monarchy of Morocco, which had been under its current government since 1666, was well known by the time of the Barbary Wars for supporting piracy.[1] But since it had signed and recognized a treaty with the United States in 1777, and never harassed American ships, Morocco was not involved in the Barbary Wars like the other North African states.

Before the United States obtained its independence in the American Revolution, 1775–83, American merchant ships and sailors had been protected from the ravages of the North African pirates by the naval and diplomatic power of Britain. British naval power and the tribute or subsidies Britain paid to the piratical states protected American vessels and crews. During the Revolution, the ships of the United States were protected by the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France, which required the French nation to protect "American vessels and effects against all violence, insults, attacks, or depredations, on the part of the said Princes and States of Barbary or their subjects."

However, by 1783 America became solely responsible for the safety of its own commerce and citizens with the end of the Revolution. Without the means or the authority to field a naval force necessary to protect their ships in the Mediterranean, the nascent U.S. government took a pragmatic, but ultimately self-destructive route. In 1784, the United States Congress allocated money for payment of tribute to the Barbary pirates and instructed her British and French ambassadors (John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, respectively) to look for opportunities to negotiate peace treaties with the Barbary nations. Unfortunately, the price demanded for these treaties far exceeded the amount that Congress had budgeted.

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

    It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Unfortunately people take things out of context this applies to the Bible as well as understanding history or anything. This is why wars have been fought and we are now battling secular humanism in our society. Jesus said one thing that should ring out loud. when asked by the disciples and followers when we assemble the horses for war and when will we go to war Jesus response was our weapons of warfare are not cardinal in nature but powerful through prayer in the pulling down of strong holds. He could have vaporized the all the inhabitants of the earth but chose to come for the salvation of man not man's destruction. How many forget this one simple thing in going to make for themselves a kingdom in the name of God or for personal gain.

[fstsix]

….Benjamin Franklin explained the threat democracy poses to liberty thusly: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” . . . The Founders elected to make God the Guarantor of American civil liberties because what the Creator endows, government cannot take away. Unless the Creator is a myth. If the Creator is a myth, so are your God-given rights. The government then has authority over them as a matter of course….

[Wizzard]

LOL,, ole Ben Franklin was out flying his kite and it kept nosediving into the ground. His wife yelled out the window,, "Ben, you need more tail" . Ben said "Dangit,, last night you told me to go fly a kite" 

[Gryphon]

  Similarly, the Second Amendment is broadly written to allow people to own and bear firearms.  Do you support the narrow definition that people can only own or bear firearms if part of a militia?

If you go by the definition that a militia is:"An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers."   Then, technically, any Citizen of the United States is a member of a militia.  As a Citizen, I should have unrestricted authority to own and possess firearms. 

It should also be noted that if you research history, and some of the correspondence from the framers of the Consitution, that one of the reasons for the Second Amendment was to ensure that tyranny would not be a problem in the future.  In a nutshell, an armed populace will not be subject to a tyranical government because they have the means to remove it by force. 

I looked at the National Day of Prayer as a suggestion and not a requirement.  As such, I didn't see the Constitutional conflict.  If it were a requirement or made an official governement holiday, we have a problem.

Just an opinion, YMMV, etc, etc......

Gryphon

[3fan4life]

Treaty of Tripoli... Ratified by unanimous vote by the US Senate on June 7th, 1797, signed by president John Adams... (I.E. A whole lot of those fellows who were the founders were still involved and voted to ratify this treaty) included the following passage:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The following is an excerpt from: "Is America a Christian Nation" written by Carl Pearlston
(The entire article is too long to post here but it is worth taking the time to Google it)


The Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli was signed in 1796 in Arabic, and was later translated into English by Joel Barlow, United States Consul General at Algiers. Except for the typical phrases "Praise be to God" and "whom God Exalt", there is no reference to religion other than the aforesaid remarkable Article 11, which reads,

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (sic) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The treaty, with this language, was submitted to the Senate by President Adams, and was ratified. Thus, opponents of the 'Christian nation' concept point to this seemingly official repudiation of the very idea. Yet the language is less a repudiation of the role of Christianity in the nation's heritage than a reminder that there was no national established church in the United States as there was in the European states with which Tripoli had previously dealt. This provided reassurance to the Moslem Bey and his religious establishment that religion, in of itself, would not be a basis of hostility between the two nations. None of the other similar treaties with the Barbary states, before or after this treaty, including the replacement treaties signed in 1804 after the Barbary Wars, have any language remotely similar.

And there is a deeper mystery: As noted in a footnote at page 1070 of the authoritative treatise by Bevans, Treaties and other International Agreements of the United States of America, citing treaty scholar Hunter Miller.

"While the Barlow translation quoted above has been printed in all official and unofficial treaty collections since 1797, most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.' does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point"

[fstsix]

Defending The National Day of Prayer

A federal district court in Wisconsin has issued a decision declaring the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.

As you may recall, we represented 31 members of Congress in an amicus brief defending the National Day of Prayer in a federal lawsuit filed by the The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a Wisconsin-based organization, which challenged the constitutionality of a 1988 federal law giving the President the authority to designate the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer.

In a decision released Thursday, U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb declared the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.  

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.  We will be filing a brief representing members of Congress challenging this federal district court decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  If the appeals court fails to reverse this decision, we're confident the Supreme Court will hear the case and ultimately determine that such proclamations and observances like the National Day of Prayer not only reflect our nation's rich history, but are indeed consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

This is the first step in what could be a lengthy legal process that ultimately puts this issue before the Supreme Court.  This issue could very well be decided by the next appointee to the high court.  An issue like this underscores the importance of why it's so critical for the nominee to answer direct questions about their judicial philosophy, how they view the role of judges, and their view of the rule of law.

In our amicus brief filed in this case, we noted that the country has a long history of recognizing a national day of prayer dating back to the late 1700's with the Continental Congress recommending that the states set apart a day for prayer and thanksgiving.  The brief stated that "the historical evidence establishing a National Day of Prayer as deeply embedded in the tradition and history of this country is indisputable."

We've produced a history of the National Day of Prayer.  You can read it here.

In our brief filed with the federal district court in Madison, Wisconsin, we represented 31 members of the 111th Congress – including Rep. J. Randy Forbes of Virginia, who chairs the Congressional Prayer Caucus.

We represented the following U.S. Representatives who are serving in the 111th Congress:  J. Randy Forbes, Robert B. Aderholt, Michele Bachmann, Roscoe G. Bartlett, John A. Boehner, John Boozman, Eric Cantor, K. Michael Conaway, Mary Fallin, Virginia Foxx, Trent Franks, Scott Garrett, Louie Gohmert, Wally Herger, Peter Hoekstra, Walter B. Jones, Jim Jordan, Doug Lamborn, Thaddeus G. McCotter, Patrick T. McHenry, Mike McIntyre, Jeff Miller, Sue Wilkins Myrick, Randy Neugebauer, Pete Olson, Mike Pence, Joseph R. Pitts, Heath Shuler, Adrian Smith, Lamar Smith, and Joe Wilson.

As we prepare for this expected appeal, we want you to join with us in defending the National Day of Prayer.  In addition to representing members of Congress in our amicus brief to be filed at the appeals court, we are representing the ACLJ's Committee to Protect the National Day of Prayer.

Now you can add your name to this committee and stand with us in defending the National Day of Prayer.  Add your name now to the Committee to Protect the National Day of Prayer. http://www.aclj.org/

 

Posted: 4/16/2010 12:00:00 AM