Bryan Fischer
Refuting Day of Prayer judge: so easy a caveman could do it
By Bryan Fischer
A federal judge ruled Thursday that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution's prohibition against the government establishment of religion.
It is so easy to refute this judge on constitutional grounds that a caveman could do it.
Shoot, you don't even need the caveman. The Geico lizard probably knows more about the Constitution than this benighted, misguided, robe-wearing tyrant.
"Establishment" had a quite technical definition at the time of the founding. It meant to grant one specific Christian denomination preference in law, make it the official church of a nation or state, and compel people to support it through their taxes.
The Founders had observed what happened in England with an established church, the Church of England. Many of them experienced the religious oppression that accompanied an official national denomination, fled to America for freedom, and determined that the fledgling nation would not repeat the mistakes of the mother country.
A national day of prayer, of course, doesn't violate the establishment clause in any sense whatsoever. Since every Christian denomination believes in prayer, there's no problem there. The law recognizing the Day of Prayer doesn't even mention a specific Christian denomination let alone grant one some special preference in law. So, no problem there. And it doesn't compel Americans to do anything at all, so there's no problem there. In other words, there is no constitutional problem here of any kind, except in the fevered imagination of this hyperactive judge.
As Justice Clarence Thomas has often observed, for a violation of the First Amendment to occur, at minimum there must be some kind of compulsion. No compulsion, no problem.
End of judicial controversy, except in an America where the Constitution has been twisted and distorted into something the Founders would not even recognize. Not only does this judge make hash out of the establishment clause, she blatantly violates the free exercise clause, because whatever else her harebrained ruling does, it prohibits elected officials and their constituents all over the fruited plain from exercising their God-given right to free religious expression.
The First Amendment was intended to protect the free exercise of religion, not snuff it out. Apparently Senior U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb didn't get the memo. Somebody needs to get an actual Constitution into the hands of this woman, quick, before she shreds the few remaining parts of it that are left.
© Bryan Fischer
April 16, 2010
A federal judge ruled Thursday that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution's prohibition against the government establishment of religion.
It is so easy to refute this judge on constitutional grounds that a caveman could do it.
Shoot, you don't even need the caveman. The Geico lizard probably knows more about the Constitution than this benighted, misguided, robe-wearing tyrant.
"Establishment" had a quite technical definition at the time of the founding. It meant to grant one specific Christian denomination preference in law, make it the official church of a nation or state, and compel people to support it through their taxes.
The Founders had observed what happened in England with an established church, the Church of England. Many of them experienced the religious oppression that accompanied an official national denomination, fled to America for freedom, and determined that the fledgling nation would not repeat the mistakes of the mother country.
A national day of prayer, of course, doesn't violate the establishment clause in any sense whatsoever. Since every Christian denomination believes in prayer, there's no problem there. The law recognizing the Day of Prayer doesn't even mention a specific Christian denomination let alone grant one some special preference in law. So, no problem there. And it doesn't compel Americans to do anything at all, so there's no problem there. In other words, there is no constitutional problem here of any kind, except in the fevered imagination of this hyperactive judge.
As Justice Clarence Thomas has often observed, for a violation of the First Amendment to occur, at minimum there must be some kind of compulsion. No compulsion, no problem.
End of judicial controversy, except in an America where the Constitution has been twisted and distorted into something the Founders would not even recognize. Not only does this judge make hash out of the establishment clause, she blatantly violates the free exercise clause, because whatever else her harebrained ruling does, it prohibits elected officials and their constituents all over the fruited plain from exercising their God-given right to free religious expression.
The First Amendment was intended to protect the free exercise of religion, not snuff it out. Apparently Senior U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb didn't get the memo. Somebody needs to get an actual Constitution into the hands of this woman, quick, before she shreds the few remaining parts of it that are left.
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
