More on Prayer

Revised Commentary for the Herald Times.

Its interesting that just after I finished a commentary for the Herald Times today, concering the National Day of Prayer, word came that a brave young man in Indianapolis had just won his suit against Greenwood High School concerning prayer at the school's graduation ceremony. Here is the text of the article.

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (AP) - "A federal judge ruled against a student-led prayer during Greenwood High School’s graduation ceremony late Friday."

"School officials said graduating students were given ballots to vote if prayer will be part of their graduation ceremony. The students voted in favor of including a prayer in their May 28th graduation ceremony.
Valedictorian, Eric Worman, filed a lawsuit objecting the voters’ decisions and to nullify the results of the student election.
The case moved into federal court where Judge Sarah Evans Baker issued a preliminary injunction against Greenwood High School Friday. Barker's ruling says the vote to allow the prayer and the prayer itself violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. School district officials say they do not plan to appeal the ruling."

Two things leap right out. First, the young man who brought suit was the class Valedictorian. Second, its hard to imagine the courage it takes to do something of that sort; to stand up as a minority of one in a class of over a hundred. I have argued before; its easy to be a "believer" and to have "faith". It takes no courage at all. And certainly no critical thinking skills. Believing is so easy you can pull a belief right out of thin air; no evidence required. Or you can let your preacher tell you what you should believe...which is even easier. The preacher claims his belief comes from "revelation."

But as Thomas Paine said in "The Age of Reason", a revelation is a revelation to the first person only. When it passes to the second person and from a second to a third and so on, it is merely hearsay. For example when a Mormon tells me that his prophet received a revelation from an angel named Moroni, I can choose to believe it or not. Its not encumbent on me to believe something just because someone tells me it was a revelation to him. In fact, without evidence I would be stupid to believe it.

But about the revised commentary:

I have a friend here in Bloomington, a retired linguistics professor who also has a law degree and has taught contract law here at IU and at U. of Michigan in Ann Arbor. When Mavis read the original piece she told me it was awful. She said it was sure to be rejected because 1. It failed to follow the original theme (constitutional law) and 2. It took Catholics and Mormons to task when it jumped the narrative track. So I asked Paul for some help in editing. He generously agreed. (This guy is so good it was like asking President Obama to check on my social security check.) So Paul, Mavis and myself came up with a revised version which the paper received today.

Here is the new improved version:

The National Day of Prayer is Unconstitutional.

So ruled U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb in mid April when she agreed with the Freedom From Religion Foundation that the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer, and requiring a National Day of Prayer proclamation by the President, violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The law, designed to promote Christian beliefs and practices, passed Congress in 1952after an intensive campaign waged from the steps of the U.S. Capital by evangelist Billy Graham.

Consequently, President Truman decreed: "The President shall set aside and proclaim a suitable day each year, other than a Sunday, as a 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." Every President since Truman has made the same proclamation, despite the fact that all objective studies have shown that prayer produces no measurable or tangible results.

President Obama, Harvard Law graduate that he is, must have been sleeping in constitutional law class, otherwise it is hard to explain why he asked Judge Barbara Crabb to dismiss the case in March 2009. Having lost in district court, on what basis one might ask, apart from playing cynical politics, would he then appeal Judge Crabb's very reasoned and conservative decision.

In her ruling Judge Crabb wisely explained “No one can doubt the important role that prayer plays in the spiritual life of a believer. . . . However, recognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it, any more than the government may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic."

In an earlier case, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner wrote: "Government cannot endorse the religious practices and beliefs of some citizens without sending a clear message to non-adherents that they are outsiders or less than full members of the political community."

But of course “non-adherents” are considered less than full members of the political community. For example, a friend running for political office knows it would be impossible for her to win if her skepticism regarding religion were revealed. To win elections, hypocrisy is not a detriment, it is a requirement. Although, excluding Catholics and Baptists, non-believers in this country outnumber the next ten religions combined --- some 46 million people admit they do not believe in supernatural beings -- all candidates for office understand that they must pretend to be pious churchgoers or their political careers are dead in the water.

Meanwhile, religious leaders are feverishly, even tearfully, raising tens of million of dollars to help in the fight to overturn Judge Crabb’s decision.

But why? Any American is free to pray, alone or in groups, any day they care to. The First Amendment guarantees this right. The Founding Fathers understood that freedom of religion (including non-religion) was only possible if the government kept its hands off matters of personal conscience and belief. People should pray because they want to, not because the President or Congress tells them that they ought to. And that is why truly religious people, as opposed to super rich televangelists and political opportunists exploiting religious fear and hatred, should applaud Judge Crabb's decision, not oppose it.

Her ruling upholds the principle of religion as well as freedom from religion. It represents traditional American values at their very best. END COMMENTARY

My friend, the retired professor and attorney tells me that he believes if it goes to the Supreme Court that the court will rule against Judge Crabb. Why? Because six of the nine members are Catholic. In other words, two thirds of the court are delusional. When he told me that I went a little weak kneed. It was like suspecting you have cancer and then the doctor telling you that you have cancer. Another friend and attorney, Eddie Tabash who stayed at my home here last year when he was here to give a lecture, would probably agree with Paul. Eddie said something that night that I will never forget. He told the students that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Eddie is very worried where the nation is going with the Supreme Court we now have in place. They just gave corporations unlimited power to influence our politicians. So we shouldn't be surprised they will leave the National Day of Prayer law in place edging us closer to a theocratic nation.