When I first heard that the National Freedom From Religion Foundation was suing President Obama over the National Day of Prayer, I was a little puzzled about their motivation.  I've never been tempted to sue over National Talk Like A Pirate Day, even though I'm definitely not a pirate. 

And I was further surprised when Federal District Judge Barbara Crabb declared it unconstitutional. Haven't the courts allowed the display of the Ten Commandments and protected "Meet Me At The Flagpole" events? Don't we open legislative sessions with prayer? What pick on a day of prayer? What's the harm?

As a Buddhist, I hadn't gotten my feathers ruffled about something called a "National Day of Prayer" because I always assume that when someone says "God" they mean "higher power as you understand it" (thanks, AA) and when they say prayer they mean "positive practice that brings you strength and comfort". 

Because I didn't initially see the point in striking this down, I read the whole darn decision - all sixty plus pages - and I've decided that Judge Crabb was absolutely right. Here's a link, just in case you'd like to read it for yourself

ffrf.org/uploads/legal/SummaryJudgementG...

If you have something better to do on a Saturday night, here are the key reasons that I agree with Judge Crabb:

First, the scope: What  Judge Crabb declared unconstitutional is tightly focused. She did not say that there could not be a National Day of Prayer. She did not say the President Obama could not proclaim a National Day of Prayer if he so chose. What she declared unconstitutional was 36 U.S.C. § 119, a law passed by Congress that requires the President to proclaim the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer - and based on the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution, I'd say she's on pretty firm ground.

Second, the context: There are only a very few special "Days" that are officially recognised by congressional statute, including Mother's Day, Flag Day, and Thomas Jefferson's Birthday. They, along with National Day of Prayer, are included in a section of the U.S. Code titled "Patriotic and National Observances". Given that, It's hard not  to see National Day of Prayer as an endorsement of the practice

But is it bad for congress to endorse a National Day of Prayer, even if not everyone is inclined to pray? No one complains about Mothers Day, even though not everyone is a mother. After reflection, I have to say: yes, it is. First of all, the constitution speaks specifically to limitations of the government's powers when it comes to religion, and those limitations must be honored. Secondly, placing the statute in this section links prayer to patriotism, and I can certainly see why an atheist, or someone whose religious practice doesn't include prayer, could find that exclusionary and offensive.

Thirdly, and perhaps most disturbingly to me, it appears that however well intentioned the original proclaimation, the National Day of Prayer has become the tool of  a particular subset (evangelists) of a particular religion (Christianity) for promoting their belief system over those of moderate Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans and any other creed you care to name.  This should never be the case. Our Federal laws must remain neutral when it comes to religious observances, neither endorsing or repressing them in general or in specific.

Based on these and several other points, I believe that Judge Crabb was correct  to declare 36 U.S.C. § 119 unconstitutional. However, that does NOT mean that I think a Day of Prayer is a bad thing.   I just don't think that there should be a law requiring that the President proclaim one, and frankly, I don't understand  why folk feel the need for such a law.

In this country, the right to pray, either privately or with like-minded others, is protected. People are certainly permitted to pray, and I hope they will, especially on the first Thursday in May (which happens to be my birthday this year - throw a word in for me, will you?) I hope millions of people of all demoninations and religions pray all kinds of prayers with words and silence and songs and dance and flags and mandalas. I hope the agnostics pray, even if they address their prayers "To Whom It May Concern", and I hope the atheists think good thoughts for a happy future for both themselves and their friends, family and neighbors. I'm fine with prayer, see nothing wrong with prayer, but legislated prayer? That's something I want no part of.