Obama Flouts Court Decision

          A federal district court judge ruled last week in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama that the statute creating the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. The statute passed in 1952 in response to a campaign by evangelist Billy Graham to return the nation to faith in Almighty God. Although the legislators called on Catholics, Jews, and Protestants to participate in the prayers, Graham's clear interest was in returning the nation to Jesus Christ. The statute is unconstitutional, the court concluded, because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context. In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience. 

          The judge was right; under the Establishment Clause, the government should not promote, encourage or endorse religion or religious practice. Prayer is the quintessential religious practice. Federal legislation promoting a day of prayer sends a message to non-believers that they are outsiders, less than full members of the political community, while the religious insiders are favored. The government is not supposed to favor religion over irreligion but remain neutral. 

          Anticipating the inevitable political fallout from her legal decision, Judge Barbara Crabb's opinion also observed that individuals remain free to pray. Indeed, it is in order to promote individual religion that the Establishment Clause protects citizens against the government's preferring or encouraging religion. 

          The White House immediately announced that the president would ignore the ruling, proclaim a National Day of Prayer on the first Thursday in May, as the statute requires, and call upon the nation to pray. Thus the president confirms, as his prior practices and speeches predicted, that he is a champion of his own religion rather than religious freedom, a Defender of the Faith rather than the Constitution. 

          Judge Crabb's decision documented the exclusionary nature of the Day of Prayer in exquisite detail:

• In 2008, a national Jewish organization complained that the National Day of 

Prayer has been “hijacked by Christian conservatives,” who are “excluding and 

dividing us on religious lines.  Dkt. #93-43; 

• In Plano, Texas, a multicultural group and a group of Christians held “dueling 

prayer services” on the National Day of Prayer after fighting over the right to 

hold their events at the city council building and threatening to file a lawsuit. 

Theodore Kim, “After threat of suit, city steps aside in prayer,” Dallas 

Morning News, May 2, 2008, at 16B; 

• In San Antonio, Texas, a local resident threatened to file a lawsuit over the 

mayor’s involvement in National Day of Prayer events. “Day of Prayer 

Lawsuit Dropped,” San Antonio Express-News, November 29, 2008, at 5B; 

• In Richmond, Virginia, a Jewish organization criticized a National Day of 

Prayer event attended by various state officials at the state capitol because the 

event’s sponsor excluded non-Christians.  Robin Farmer, “Diverse gathering 

marks day of prayer: Christian-oriented event leaves some feeling excluded,” 

Richmond Times Dispatch, May 2, 2008, at B1; 

• In Anniston, Alabama, a church pastor complained that the National Day of 

Prayer has been "hijacked by evangelical Christians" because the National Day 

of Prayer Task Force has “establish[ed] a policy of excluding not only those of 

other faiths but also moderate and mainline Christians."  Brett Buckner, “A 

Nation Divided?”  The Anniston Star, May 1, 2008; 

• In Bakersfield California, a Christian group created controversy when its 

coordinator stated that “[t]he National Day of Prayer is actually all about the 

Lord. So we're representing the Christian community.”  A local rabbi stated 

that "I think the National Day of Prayer, if it was ever inclusive—which I'm 

not sure it ever was entirely—has morphed into something else."   Louis 

Medina, “Day of Prayer spawns Christian event that some call divisive,” The 

Bakersfield Californian, May 1, 2008; 

• In Buffalo, New York, Jewish and Muslim groups complained that the local 

National Day of Prayer events are “more about politics than prayer” and that 

the day is more accurately called the “Christian National Day of Prayer.”  Jay 

Tokasz, “Prayer Day events spur complaints of co-option by evangelicals,” The 

Buffalo News, May 1, 2008; 

• In Memphis, Tennessee, local groups complained that the National Day of 

Prayer “mak[es] members of minority religions feel that unless they adhere to 

Christianity they are unpatriotic” and that "[p]eople of minority faiths are 

very alarmed by” the exclusively Christian nature of the events.  Lindsay 

Melvin, “National Day of Prayer is controversial—Some find it divisive and 

unconstitutional,” Memphis Commercial Appeal, May 1, 2008; 

• In Victorville, California, local residents complained that "Hindus, Buddhists, 

Muslims and Sikhs are being excluded” from the National Day of Prayer event 

at the town hall. The organizer responded, “this entire nation was founded on 

Christian faith. The reason we are a great county is because we're Christian. 

In the Muslim countries, you can get shot if you're Christian." Brooke 

Edwards, “Faiths clash over Day of Prayer,” Daily Press, April 27, 2008; 

• In Springfield, Illinois, organizers of a National Day of Prayer event at the 

state capitol were criticized after saying that event is "only about Jesus and 

                                     Jesus the Savior alone"; they had “no problem having [members of other religions] 

participate, though not in speaking roles.”  Steven Spearie, 

“National Day of Prayer returns to Capitol,” Springfield State-Journal 

Register,  April 30, 2006, at 19; 

• In Troy, Michigan, a Christian group and an interfaith group fought over 

access to city hall to hold an event on the National Day of Prayer, both sides 

threatening law suits.  When the mayor announced that she would attend the 

interfaith event, she was accused of promoting “witches and Satanists.” An 

effort to recall the mayor was started later.  “Troy prayer day stirs recall 

effort,” Detroit News, May 23, 2005, at B1; “Day of Prayer splits Troy,” 

Detroit News, May 4, 2005, at K15; 

• In 2004, religious leaders and nonprofit groups accused the “White House of 

using prayer for political purposes” after the President broadcast National Day 

of Prayer remarks “over several Christian and television and radio networks 

as part of an evangelical concert.” Dkt. #93-39; 

• In Salt Lake City, Utah, Mormons were excluded from National Day of Prayer 

of events because they are not “in accordance with the evangelical principles 

[of] the task force,” including a belief in the “Holy Trinity” and that the Bible 

is the “only written word of God.”   Travis Reed, Associated Press, May 4, 

2004; 

• In Muncie, Indiana, the organizer of National Day of Prayer event denied 

requests to speak by Unitarian, Muslim and Jewish leaders, “sharply 

divid[ing]” city residents.  Stephanie Simon, “Dispatch from Muncie, 

Indiana,” Los Angeles Times, May 1, 2003; 

• A federal judge ruled that a school district violated the establishment clause 

by sponsoring National Day of Prayer events.  Doe v. Wilson County School 

System, 564 F. Supp. 2d 766, 801-02 (M.D. Tenn. 2008); 

Nonetheless, the White House stands with the intolerant majority. 

          The Constitution protects individuals against the tyranny of the majority. It is time for the president to end the tyranny of the religious majority and to enforce the courts' constitutional rulings. That is the best way for the government to promote the freedom of the individual's conscience.