Recently in Prayer Category

Barry, you pose an interesting question.  I believe that end of life decisions should be made primarily between an individual and that individual's family and trusted advisors, including spiritual counselors.  An individual should certainly be able to consult his physician, if the individual so chooses.  I would imagine that most health care plans would cover an annual physical exam during which a person could consult with his physician. 

I do think it is inappropriate for the government to give physicians an incentive to initiate this conversation and mandate what should be covered in the counseling.  That could all too easily lead to a scenario where the federal government makes care decisions based on life expectancy.

And, now from the category... if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.  That's exactly what Michael Newdow, an atheist, and his fellow plaintiffs are doing - this time in a federal appeals court - this time appealing a lower court decision that dismissed their lawsuit challenging prayers offered at the presidential inauguration - including the phrase used in the oath, "So help me God."

Not surprisingly, we have such a different view about fetuses and their alleged "rights" that we haven't resolved the issue of coverage of "reproductive health" and abortion in the healthcare bill. You would grant constitutional rights to what the Religious Right calls the "preborn."

Let me ask what your view is on the "already born."  News accounts this morning chronicle the beginnings of a second-degree homicide trial for a father who allegedly allowed his young daughter to die from juvenile diabetes.  (The mother has already been convicted.)  His defense, in part, is that he didn't know his daughter had a serious illness and that he was praying for her recovery, whatever she had.  Do you believe that his presumably authentic and deep-rooted spiritual belief in divine intervention in curing illness should be a legal defense in a criminal trial?

I don't want to get into a big debate here about the value, if any, of prayer.  However, this is the National Day of Prayer, so designated by an act of Congress back in 1952.  President Obama, as required by law, signed a proclamation making it official for 2009.   He did not, however, hold any special event at the White House as had his predecessor George W. Bush.

So, did any readers pray more, longer, harder, with greater clarity or wisdom, or in any other improved fashion today because Congress told you to?  I'm thinking that no one can answer "yes" with a straight face.

To subscribe to "Lynn v. Sekulow" click here.  

Jay, I don't see American history helping you much on your bootstrapping argument about past practice and the National Day of Prayer.

Remember that Thomas Jefferson actually vetoed day of prayer resolutions as President-and those were usually focused on some special event.  I can find no record at all of any effort to set aside one specific day every year as a countrywide time for religious ritual.  Can you?

Moreover, even though we all know that some states had "official religions" at the time the First Amendment was ratified, there is no doubt that the same "federalist" principle that lead some to question the wisdom of a national army would lead to reticence about a national day for religiosity.

Barry, regarding the National Day of Prayer, it is certainly strong evidence that a practice is consistent with the First Amendment if it predates the Amendment and was supported by our Founding Fathers. This is especially true where, as here, no coercion is involved. No person is forced to pray, or not pray, by the government (nor should they be).

While it is clear that you disagree with the government's decision to continue the National Day of Prayer, the fact is that it is constitutional for the government to do so. The current makeup of our nation's religious demographics does not justify rewriting or reinterpreting the Constitution to invalidate longstanding traditions like the appointment of legislative chaplains, the opening of legislative sessions with prayer, or the declaration of national days of prayer and thanksgiving. People who believe that these centuries-old traditions should be abandoned are free to state their case to their elected officials, but the courts should not invalidate such practices by ignoring the historical background of the First Amendment.