May 05, 2006
National Day of Prayer and the "Lemon Test"
After deciding Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971 what has been referenced as the “Lemon Test” came into use. Three questions applied to a statute to see if it violates the Establishment Clause. While the origin of a National Day of Prayer extends even farther back then 1952 when President Truman signed a joint Congressional Resolution declaring the existance of a National Day of Prayer, have we gone beyond the original scope?
No matter your individual belief in God or the discussion as to are we truly a Christian Nation or not; it's important to look at what the original intent of this joint resolution was versus how it is being used today. Let's first look at what the requirements have been stated for the "Lemon Test":
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive entanglement” with religionIn 1988 the 1952 Resolution was amended to read:
The President shall set aside and proclaim the first Thursday in May in each year 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.Taking President Bush's statements made today as quoted by the Washington Post
"America is a nation of prayer. It's impossible to tell the story of our nation without telling the story of people who pray," Bush said during a White House celebration of the National Day of Prayer. "At decisive moments in our history and in quiet times around family tables, we are a people humbled and strengthened and blessed by prayer."According to the Post he also added this statement:
"We are a people united by our love for freedom, even when we differ in our personal beliefs," the president said. "In America, we are free to profess any faith we choose, or no faith at all."It would be difficult to argue that the President went beyond the intent of the original statute that has been stated meets the three requirements. Yet there are organizations out there that are using this National Day of Prayer in my opinion, that clearly violate the orginal intent and violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. If you do a search term on "National Day of Prayer", one of the first hits is National Day of Prayer, The Official Website.
First impression given the National Day of Prayer was the result of a Joint Congressional Resolution is this is a government sponsored website. If you look thru the site and go to the make a donation page you finally discover:
The National Day of Prayer Task Force is a project of the National Prayer Committee, Inc. with a 501(c)(3) status. We rely on individual donations, foundation support and resource sales. We receive no funds from the federal government or Focus on the Family.The actual organization, the National Prayer Committee, Inc., is also listed on the "Presidential Prayer Team", Dr. Robert Bakke their Executive Director is listed as a member. In doing a more specific search on National Prayer Committee, Inc., you discover it is stated they are located in the same building as Focus on the Family and were established in 1972.
You don't learn that information from their "About" page. You are told:
We are the Judeo-Christian expression of the National Day of Prayer which was established in 1952 by a joint resolution of the United States Congress and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman. The United States was born in prayer and founded on a relationship with God while instituting His biblical principals and moral values.Like President Bush in today's statement they are quick to add:
The National Day of Prayer was created by an act of Congress and is, therefore, intended for all peoples of faith to pray to the God of their understandingHowever, our expression of that involvement is specifically limited to the Judeo-Christian heritage and those who share that conviction as expressed in the Lausanne Covenant. If peoples of other faiths wish to celebrate in their own tradition, they are welcome to do so, but we must be true to those who have supported this effort and volunteered their time to promote it. National Day of Prayer is not a function of the government and, therefore, a particular expression of it can be defined by those who choose to organize it. This is not a church/state issue.
The mention of the Lausanne Covenant, ends any speculation as to the focus and purpose of this group. Yet they are organizing events across the United States, many locations where these events are being held are Government owned property. Using my State of Ohio as an example; Stark County Courthouse, Ross County Court House, Hamilton County Courthouse, Ohio Statehouse, and Greenville City Hall, just to name a few.
Should this organization be allowed to sponsor events on Federal or State property? It goes well beyond the scope of the original intent for the National Day of Prayer. By now you may be asking, why should it matter? No one is being forced to attend these events.
The impression given by organizations such as this one that they are "government approved" by declaring themselves to be the "Official Website" and after clearly stating their agenda holding these events on government property is what I take issue with. It gives the public implied consent of the Government to their beliefs. I am not stating that groups like this do not have the right to exist or even to hold events, however I do not believe they should be allowed to market themselves as they are and I do not believe groups like this should have the right to hold these events at some of their chosen locations. The amended resolution as signed in 1988 only lists one physical location, churches, not government property. Those of us who do believe in God should have just as much of an interest in making sure statutes are not violated or abused by groups such as this. Their goal is to establish something that goes against the very reason our country was even founded, the creation of a National Religion. In their own words:
We, members of the Church of Jesus Christ, from more than 150 nations, participants in the International Congress on World Evangelization at Lausanne, praise God for his great salvation and rejoice in the fellowship he has given us with himself and with each other. We are deeply stirred by what God is doing in our day, moved to penitence by our failures and challenged by the unfinished task of evangelization. We believe the Gospel is God's good news for the whole world, and we are determined by his grace to obey Christ's commission to proclaim it to all mankind and to make disciples of every nation. We desire, therefore, to affirm our faith and our resolve, and to make public our covenant.While it is known that almost every religion has a written or oral statement relating to seeking converts to that particular faith, this one is using a day designed by statute to further theirs.
Applying the "Lemon Test" to the way this organization is using the statute:
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; as being applied by this organization in my opinion it clearly is motivated wholly by an impermissible purpose. It is impermissable to promote one religion over another.
Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; this organization clearly is advancing religion, a specific religion.
Finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive entanglement” with religion; allowing this organization to use State and Government owned property to hold these events as well as the impression their website and material gives a perception that it is a government sponsored organization. In my non-lawyerish opinion this organization would fail this test as well as the two above.
In closing, I do agree with what President Bush said yesterday::
"In America, we are free to profess any faith we choose, or no faith at all."I'd prefer to keep things that way...
Posted by Lisa Renee Ward at May 5, 2006 09:16 AM
I’m not religious but in most cases I don’t see a major problem with such “state sponsored” events as you call them. I think there are much larger issues which demand more attention than issues of this scope.
Posted by: Zeek at May 5, 2006 09:35 AMI agree there are more important issues Zeek, but why I wrote about this is it helps contribute to creating more division and anger/frustration.
One of the primary reasons behind a National Day of Prayer was to foster unity. Allowing an organization like this to go beyond what is the purpose doesn’t foster unity. It makes people feel as if they have even less of a voice.
I heard quite a bit of frustration over this yesterday which is why I started doing more research on it. Which resulted in this post. It wasn’t focused on the National Prayer day itself, it was focused on the location these events were being held and that it was not inclusive to all religions.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at May 5, 2006 09:49 AMI can claim or make any kind of statement that will imply that the Government approves of what I’m doing. That doesn’t make it so.
Is any money coming from any government?
Did they pay for use of the court houses?
Has any government issued a resolution supporting them?
Are they promoting the use of government to force folks to pray?
I believe that more folks need to pray. And my church observed the National Day of Prayer. But that’s as far as it goes. I can’t and my church can’t force anyone to pray anymore than we can force anyone to believe the way we do.
Ron Brown:
The point is that courthouses are government buildings. That gives the implication of approval if they are used for things like this, rented or not.
Posted by: womanmarine at May 5, 2006 12:50 PMThey don’t have to pay for using a Courthouse or a City Hall to make this improper. They are promoting the use of government by taking a day designed by statute that is supposed to be open to all and clearly having another agenda.
It’s also a part of a much larger issue because lines of where government and religion should be separate they are not. National Prayer Committee, Inc., is one example of how and where these lines get crossed.
Breaking this down to it’s most basic issue, there are rules that a Church has to follow to keep their non-profit status as far as endorsing candidates. That is an established line that is not supposed to be crossed. Court Houses and City Halls should not be locations used to promote or endorse a particular religion.
Here in Ohio with the recent primary win of Ken Blackwell this blurring of the line between Church and State is becoming a major concern.
This goes beyond believing more people should pray, this goes to promoting how people should pray and which religious tenets they should follow.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at May 5, 2006 01:02 PMThanks womanmarine, that’s breaking it down to even a shorter statement than I did.
:-)
Posted by: Lisa Renee at May 5, 2006 01:05 PMLisa,
Awesome post. Now I have to go back and read some your classics while the trolls think of what to say.
Thanks…
Posted by: Dave at May 5, 2006 01:09 PMRon Brown:
The point is that courthouses are government buildings. That gives the implication of approval if they are used for things like this, rented or not.
Posted by: womanmarine at May 5, 2006 12:50 PM
Then we can assume that the Government approves of abortioin, doesn’t approve of war, want’s to save the trees, doesn’t want to save corporations, and so on. Court houses are used by these type groups.
Good Post Lisa. IMHO,I think what is important for people to realize is that most people and organizations when given an inch take a mile. There always have been and probably always will be people who want a Theocracy in this Country. Today they are called Dominionist. They exist. They have a purpose and they go all out to make their views the prevailing laws of the Country. That is why every little thing remotely involving Church and State must be taken to task. Of course there is nothing wrong with prayer and I beleive that most Christians are very good people who are not trying to take over control of the government, however because of the few that are we must be vigilant.
Posted by: j2t2 at May 5, 2006 01:26 PMLisa
Would you call a church that’s renting a school auditorium for Sunday services crossing the line? There are no posters in the school telling about the church. It’s not announced on the PA that they’re there. None of the students or faculty are invited on school time to attend services. They just rent the space.
The auditorium is also rented to other groups that want to use it. And a lot of times posters are put up in the school announcing the meetings. and they’re even announced on the PA.
Is this OK while it’s not OK for the church to announce their meetings?
“Then we can assume that the Government approves of abortioin, doesn’t approve of war, want’s to save the trees, doesn’t want to save corporations, and so on. Court houses are used by these type groups.”
Can you be more specific? I know quite a few people use courthouses for legal processing and government interactions… but are you suggesting that these courthouses are reserved for these other specific purposes? (And no, protests do not count, because this would fall under the right to assemble - as oppose to use of space for religious encouragement/promotion.)
Posted by: tony at May 5, 2006 01:33 PMRon, I don’t have a problem with a group renting a space to provide services. That is a bit different than an organization using National Prayer Day as a reason for not only existance but to promote their particular religion. Now if a Public School started endorsing that church to students or parents I’d take issue with it.
I don’t care if this organization exists, it doesn’t bother me if they want to host events for that day. What I take issue with is the impression that they are “approved” and the use of Courts/City Halls to host these events given they are clearly outside of the original intent of the statute written for National Prayer Day.
Dave, I didn’t realize I had “classics”.
:-)
Posted by: Lisa Renee at May 5, 2006 01:41 PMLisa;
I read your first post last. I’m really glad to have you back. You are like a breath of fresh air, stirring the leaves of community, which this entire country dearly needs.
I DO get your point about use of government property for religious purposes. However, I believe this same thing has been going on for more years than I can count. The problem today is, the religious right has decided to convert everyone to their beliefs.
We have all seen what happens all over the world when religion gets in the way of politics. WAR!
Thank you Jack, I don’t disagree with you that this has happened for quite some time, this particular group started in 1972. Part of the reason I think people are talking about this now is it has been either growing or they are noticing it more. From my own perspective it seems as if these groups are growing. Which in itself is fine as long as they remember constitutional boundaries.
When you start talking to people about what concerns them this is of course way down the list. Their primary concerns are jobs, education, health insurance, the federal budget, the war in Iraq but religion has come up more frequently. Many fear the growing presence of politicians who are themselves skirting very closely to the line of not just being public servants but clearly representing a religious interest as a priority.
Which is why I thought it was worth starting a discussion on.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at May 5, 2006 04:51 PMLisa
So then you also would object to Greenpeace using earth day and using the court house to promote their religion. Right? And it is a religion even though they don’t admit it. They worship the earth.
Would you object to Satanist using Halloween and the court house to promote their religion?
Or is it just Christian organizations your opposed to doing this?
Does the county in any promote the meetings?
Are county employees forced to attend?
Is anyone forced to attend?
tony
Yes. I’m suggesting that the court houses are being reserved for these organization to forward their agenda.
I believe that the National Prayer Committee is wrong in implying that they have the approval of the Government. But if these other organizations can meet in public owned buildings, then they should be able too.
Ron, I already stated in the initial post that “no one is forced to attend”.
Is Greenpeace listing themselves as the “Official Website of Earth Day”? Is there a statute designed as far as a National decree for Earth Day? If so, is Greenpeace going beyond what that statute calls for?
Is a Satanic group listing themselves as the “Official Website of Halloween”? Is there a statute designed as far as a National decree for Halloween? If so, are the Satanists going beyond what that statute calls for?
If you present that information, I’d be happy to comment as far as how I felt this compared to National Prayer Day and the National Prayer Committee, Inc.
:-)
Lisa,
I haven’t heard of or seen a group calling themselves the official website for either Earth Day or Halloween. And I don’t know of any federal resolutions for these days. But at least your consistent. You believe they’d be going over the line.
Good to be locking horns with you again.
Ron, thank you it’s nice to be back and to have you keep me on my toes.
:-)
Posted by: Lisa Renee at May 6, 2006 02:37 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
