A federal judge on Thursday struck down the federal statute that established the National Day of Prayer, ruling that it violates the constitutional ban on government-backed religion.

"ts sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function," a Wisconsin judge wrote in the ruling

Sykotyk wrote: So, it seems to be a rather pointless proclamation anyways.

Sir, — I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.

I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

I again express my satisfaction that you have been so good as to give me an opportunity of explaining myself in a private letter, in which I could give my reasons more in detail than might have been done in a public answer: and I pray you to accept the assurances of my high esteem & respect.


( Thomas Jefferson, letter to letter to Rev. Samuel Miller, from Washington, January 23, 1808; Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings, New York: Library of America, 1994, pp. 1186-1187. )

Writerbuckeye wrote: While I deeply respect our learned forefather -- I don't see any problem with government entities passing PROCLAMATIONS OR DESIGNATIONS like setting a national day of prayer.

This type of practice has been going on for hundreds (?) of years and nobody has been hurt. I'd say experience alone has taught us where the line is and how not to cross it.

We needn't use the force of law (a judge's ruling) to eliminate something that is OPTIONAL and doesn't carry the force of government behind it.

That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion.

QuakerOats wrote: I didn't realize obama was a man of faith. What faith, what church is he regularly attending?

QuakerOats wrote: I didn't realize obama was a man of faith. What faith, what church is he regularly attending?

Bigred1995 wrote: So in order to be a person of faith, going to church regularly isn't enough, you have to go to one particular church?

QuakerOats wrote:

Bigred1995 wrote: So in order to be a person of faith, going to church regularly isn't enough, you have to go to one particular church?

I asked two simple questions; if you can't answer them then why waste your time?

QuakerOats wrote: I didn't realize obama was a man of faith. What faith, what church is he regularly attending?

superman wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: I didn't realize obama was a man of faith. What faith, what church is he regularly attending?

Greenside Baptist featuring Pastor Putter and Deacon Driver.

ts1227 wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/15/wisconsin.court.prayer/

I know I won't do anything different on May 6, but should the government even suggest that we do?

jhay78 wrote: but I don't think the First Amendment guarantees anyone freedom from any and all religious references or from feeling offended by someone else's exercise of his/her religion.