18 April 2010

JUDGE SAYS NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER UNCONSTITUTIONAL


You read that right. A judge at the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled last week that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional. The FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, representing it's 13,700 members (LAWSUIT TO STOP NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER [Examiner.com]), was filed in 2008. Click HERE for a brief summary of the suit. The suit which has been going through the courts

Judge Barbara Crabb ruled on April 15, 2010 that the National Day of Prayer, established in 1952 but dating back to 1775 (click HERE), is unconstitutional.

Judge Crabbs' reasoning for the FFRF had standing to bring the suit in the first place was as follows:

"The primary injury plaintiffs allege is the feeling of unwelcomeness and exclusion they experience as nonreligious persons because of what they view as a message from the government that it favors Americans who pray. That injury is intangible."

That must be just about the most sideways reasoning of any judicial opinion I have ever seen. And I have seen some "doozies" in my time. "Unwelcomeness" from what? "Exclusion" from what? Of course, leftist activist Judge Crabb did not explain these simple questions. It's because she can't. Because of "what THEY view"? Sounds like a personal problem to me that less than 14,000 people (there are Facebook pages with more members than that!) should not be wasting my tax dollars on.

Judge Crabb's further off-the-wall reasoning continues:

"Religious freedom under the First Amendment contains two components, the right to practice one's religion without undue interference under the free exercise and the right to be free from disfavor or disparagement on account of religion under the establishment clause."

Let's take a look at something very subtle here. ". . . the right to practice one's religion without UNDUE interference . . . " "UNDUE?" Exactly who defines "UNDUE"? How much interference with the right to practice religion (let's just go ahead and say it here: practice Christianity; this suit does not refer to the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Church of Satan, or any one of the other myriad religions in our country)? ANY interference is undue. Apparently, Judge Crabb believes that the practice of Christianity can be interfered with by the government. Judge Crabb needs to read the First Amendment and pay attention to it.

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF . . . " I don't see anything there that permits ANY level of interference, "undue" or otherwise. When the National Day of Prayer was established in 1952, it was not a law establishing any religion. The government did not tell us the only religion we were permitted to practice was _________________ (fill in the blank). It's a national observance in which those who are not religious can choose to not participate and go on about their daily lives.

The National Day of Prayer is no different than the government establishing Thanksgiving and Christmas as national observances. This is part of the continuing attack on Christianity by a tiny minority of people, in this case, less than 14,000, trying to force their will on the majority of Americans by any stretch of the imagination. Leftist wingnut groups like this avoid the legislative process to advance their agenda like the plague. They carefully pick and choose their cases and file lawsuits to bypass the American people by bypassing Congress and the President.

If this travesty is allowed to stand, I will see to it there will be a day of prayer set aside each year in my community. It's not too much to ask to contact all the church pastors in this area to organize it and gather at the courthouse to pray. There will be copies of the First Amendment available should anyone from the AMERICAN COMMUNIST LIBERTIES UNION, the FFRF, or any other leftist anti-Constitution groups choose to try to stop me from exercising my freedom.

Oh, by the way, a couple of other points.

There's a little leftwing propaganda (i. e. lies) floating around calling the National Day of Prayer REAGAN'S PRAYER RITUAL. It was former President HARRY S. TRUMAN who signed it into law April 17, 1952 after a unanimous vote of both houses of Congress. President Truman was a Democrat. Guess that's why the left prefers to "credit" former President Reagan than admit it was a Democrat who signed it into law.

The FFRF did not count on this: President Obama says he will sign the proclamation to observe the National Day of Prayer despite the lawsuit (NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT OBAMA WILL RECOGNIZE IT ANYWAY - CBS News.) Wonder what they gonna do 'bout it?

4 comments:

Carolyn said...

Dirk, thanks for posting this. I've read it before. I think that these people need to spend some quality time in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and some other countries then come back and see how free they are to non worship.
Injurous?!! Since when. This society is the most wimpy, thin skinned bunch. We have to expect this though, and will only get worse. Soon enough it will be harder and harder for Bible believing Christians.
Thanks Dirk. God Bless!

I'm Just Musing said...

The Democrats seem to forget alot of things. Who brought us into WW1? A Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. Who brought us into WW@? FDR, a Democrat, Korea? Truman. Viet Nam? Kennedy, other than WW2 we were never attacked, and then only by Japan not Germany. It seems Liberals and Democrats have very selective memories.

Heli gunner Tom said...

Hi Dirk,
I agree with friend, Carolyn, and pity Americans who have not any skin in the game. |I live in beautiful Wisconsin, but confess that I am ashamed at how the Progressives took it over on a ratio of 60/40 %... so sorry.
Keep up the good work.

Bro. Tom

RIVER Organization Christian Church said...

There are few things that Obama does that we can approve, this was one good one.

This is one thing about our nation I don't like or agree with. Not only does a small minority get to overrule the majority, a single person, one judge can overrule the majority and that is dead wrong.

With the Internet today, we don't need all these judges and politicians making the rulings, we could all vote over a secured Internet connection and poor folks like me could go to the public library. If we voted ourselves then we'd have real voice.

If you are forced to march on your community and exercise the First Amendment, my friend, Dirk, be sure you exercise the Second Amendment at the same time.

Cliff