Major Network Seems Not to Like Phrase 'Under God'

Maybe it's time for a refresher on the Declaration of Independence. It contains a very important phrase, which points out that our rights are endowed by our Creator. That phrase was important as we sought independence from England and England's king. There are rights that are not the King's to give; they would not be the yet-to-be formed U.S. Government to give; they are rights given by God to human beings. Doesn't that seem like an important concept?

To be specific, those words from the Declaration of Independence are, "We hold these truths to self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." Is there any reason to be ashamed of those words?  Aren't those same words indicative of people of all races having the same rights? We certainly aren't ashamed of that concept today.

And given that thought, it seems easy to accept the words "under God" that are in our Pledge of Allegiance. After all, that phrase was part of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. After a bold statement in our Declaration that our rights are given by our Creator, and the landmark Gettysburg Address saying we are a nation under God, having it in the Pledge seems consistent.

Yet, it seems that NBC is not at all comfortable with those words. In this weekend's broadcast of the U.S. Open Golf Championship, NBC played a moving "Americana" segment with the Pledge interwoven. But NBC decided to move the words "under God" out of the script. They are a non-governmental company (although there are serious ties these days between the Federal Government and the parent company of NBC), so they can do what they want. But if I ran the company and didn't care one way or the other about history, God, etc., I still might have guessed differently about which version might offend fewer members of the audience.

Read more here:
NBC Cuts 'Under God' From Pledge of Allegiance

Hawaii Senate Feels Pressure and Discontinues Prayer

The senate of Hawaii had a practice of opening meetings with prayer. Apparently these prayers sometimes invokes Christian phrases, and now the senate has received notice from the American Civil Liberties Unions (ACLU) that they must stop of face a lawsuit. The ACLU bases such actions on the so-called "separation of church and state." The senate considered using a non-sectarian prayer instead, but finally voted to just discontinue prayer altogether.

To say that such a prayer is unconstitutional is an interesting concept, but is inherently misdirected. The very men who wrote the Constitution opened their first official meeting with a prayer, and the presiding chaplain read from a psalm. Did these men not understand the document they wrote? Were they hypocrites? Or is it possible that modern courts have essentially re-written the Constitution to fit their ideological views?

After the 1947 Supreme Court decision that started to erode the rights of religion, the veryACLU mentioned above said that the decision "gave new meaning to the Establishment Clause." That says it pretty well. Unfortunately, it is not the job of the court to give new meaning to laws. They are supposed to decide how to fairly apply the laws as they were written by the people charged with creating them.

Read the Hawaii story below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/us/22brfs-AFTERCOMPLAI_BRF.html?_r=1

Graduation Ceremonies in Churches Need Protection?

You can find other posts on this blog about controversy over churches serving as the venue for high school graduations and some other functions. Often, one group or another will take the matter to court to try to block the use of the church. Sometimes it has worked and other times the school has succeeded with their planned use.

There are some very good reasons that schools have chosen to use churches in these stories. Generally the churches have offered ample seating capacity at a price lower then secular venues in the same areas. Often the churches have comforts not found in high school facilities, such as air conditioning, more comfortable seating with a better overall view, better parking, better sound systems, and large-screen monitors.

That seems logical, and would be considered a good business decision in most circumstances. Perhaps if you are new to this blog, you are wondering what the objection could be. Almost without exception, the issue raised is a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state." As a reminder, the "separation" phrase comes from a letter of Thomas Jefferson. It is not a phrase contained in our legal founding documents, but rather was intended as a convenient metaphor to describe one aspect of the First Amendment. That amendment covers religion, and in fact the first two short clauses are called the Religion Clauses. The first of those two is called the Establishment Clause, and the second is called the Free Exercise clause. The whole First Amendment is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Clearly the word "separation" is not found there. The context of this is a limitation on the actions of the Federal Government ("Congress"). Many believe the 14th Amendment places the same limitation on the state governments, in that it guarantees that the rights of a citizen under the constitution may not be abridged by any state.

In all of that, where do we justify not allowing a high school to hold a graduation ceremony inside a church facility? Does that establish a state law? Does is prohibit the free exercise of one's religion?

The Liberty Counsel has stepped in now to help various schools in Georgia that may have been threatened with legal action for planning to hold graduations in churches. Matt Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel, said:


"Clearly, public schools can use religious venues -- churches and other venues -- just like anyone else [and can] make a common-sense decision based upon size, location and costs," he contends. "The First Amendment does not interfere with that decision."

Read more below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1253638

No Christianity Allowed in Home Schooling

The New Hampshire Supreme Court just declared that a home-schooled child must now be sent to public schools. It did not start as an uncommon story. The child's parents are divorced. Custodial Mom was doing the home schooling, Dad preferred public school.

Often divorced parents don't agree on how children should be treated in any number of ways. It would not be too surprising to hear a judge side with the notion that a home-schooled kid was too sheltered, or did not get a quality education. In this case, though, the student was doing very well academically and all agreed she was happy and doing well socially.

No, this time the objection was that the mom was too "Christian" in her approach. The court said:

"It would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view. Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

That statement assumes that the courts have the right to say the custodial parent does not have the right to teach her own religious beliefs to her child. Can someone point to the clause in the U.S. or New Hampshire constitution that gives the state the right to determine what is a proper religious upbringing (assuming no laws are being broken and no harm comes to the child). In fact, the U.S. Constitution specifically says it is not the government's business at all, which is expressed by saying that the government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Read more below:

http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/religious-freedom/mom%E2%80%99s-homeschooling-views-work-for-her-child-but-not-for-nh-judge/

Donations OK, but Not to Churches?

In Polk Country, Florida, the Sheriff's department is in the news. They are donating no-longer-needed basketball equipment to eight local churches. But the Atheists of  Florida are complaining because they say that government money is supporting churches.

The Sheriff's motive appears to have been directed at the best use of the equipment. They are particularly concerned with providing a place for teens to assemble productively - the "get them off the streets" in other words. This is a common goal of law enforcement and community groups. The equipment will be outside, rather than behind locked doors.

Suppose the department had donated the equipment to the parks department or to a non-religious community group. Would there have been a complaint then? I personally believe there would not have been the same reaction. Would it be OK if these tax-provided leftovers were donated to any group except a religious group? That seems like reverse discrimination to me. Once again the so-called "separation of church and state" was invoked by the group complaining. Is this action the same as a body of law establishing an official religion? That is what "separation of church and state" intended to address, if one stops to read the First Amendment of our Constitution.

Read more below:

http://www.polkcountydemocrat.com/articles/2011/01/08/news/local/doc4d279881bd109186895037.txt

Thomas Jefferson - Importance of Freedom of Religion

As you may already know, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in our Constitution. In informal surveys I have done, however, many people this it IS found there. Thomas Jefferson used that phrase in one letter to describe a facet of the First Amendment to the Constitution (the first of the 10 "Bill of Rights"). It was not intended to completely describe the Establishment Clause of the Amendment, which simply says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

In most of his writings on the topic, Jefferson was more likely to use phrases like "freedom of religion" or "religious freedom" to describe the need for a Bill of Rights. Consider the quote below, which is courtesy of the University of Virginia's collection of Jefferson's writings:

"In our early struggles for liberty, religious freedom could not fail to become a primary object." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808. ME 16:317

See more of his writings at:

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm

Charlie Brown and School Prayer

I was reading the Sunday comics recently and noticed the Peanuts strip. Charlie Brown's sister came into the house after school and found Charlie watching television. She indicates to "Chuck" that she wants to talk to him. Then she leads him to another room, looks around to make sure no one is in earshot, and whispers to him, "We prayed school today!" Obviously she knew this could be big trouble if anyone found out!

The strip's creator, Charles Shulz, died 10 years ago, so this is not exactly a new strip. And it's not a new issue this year. But perhaps it IS a new issue in the last few decades, compared to the rest of our history. It used to be a practice in some classrooms. Some school systems even had officially-suggested wording for the prayer. I don't know if any teachers were required to do a prayer in class, but I suppose it could have happened.

Why is this such a forbidden concept today? Is it because of the Constitution? Not exactly, in my opinion. The Constitution addresses religion in the First Amendment, where it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." The word "respecting" is interesting it that context. Many states at the time had official religions. One could easily think that the Founders who wrote it this way intended that the federal government should not make a law that interferes with one of those existing religion establishments, and that they should also not make a law that establishes a "higher-level" federal religion. I believe that is logical.

But the courts in recent decades apparently believed that the Founders wanted to keep any religion out of any level of government, from opening a town council meeting with prayer, to allowing religious displays in city parks, to prayers at high school graduations, to...

One certainly could argue that since the people's rights in the First Amendment have been carried down to the states by later Amendments, then the "official" prayer that New York state had some years ago would be a problem. But is it more of a stretch to say that praying in class in unconstitutional? Not for the courts, perhaps, but it stretches me considerably.

And that is not to say I'm necessarily in favor of having prayers in class. I'm simply saying that doing so is not a breach of the U.S. Constitution.

See the comic strip I mentioned at the link below:

http://comics.com/peanuts/?DateAfter=2010-10-24&DateBefore=2010-10-24&Order=d.DateStrip+ASC&PerPage=1&x=30&y=9&Search=

Ignorance of First Amendment at Law School

You can read the "long version" of this story at the links below. Here is the short version, which goes to the point of this blog.

There was a debate at a between Chris Coons and Christine O'Donnell on October 19, 2010, for Delaware's open U.S. Senate seat. The debate was held at Delaware's Widener Law School (that's an important fact). The debate at some point wandered into whether local schools could teach creationism or should stay with Darwinism, and the phrase "separation of church and state" came up. O'Donnell then asked, "Where in the Constitution is "separation of church and state?" The law school audience laughed and some were heard to say "Whoa!," and the context seems to be that they were laughing at O'Donnel. Coons claimed that is is in the First Amendment and made light of her question.

I would think a room with a high population of law students would not laugh at the question, hoping they would know that those words are not in the First Amendment. When quoted, the reference is to a private letter of Thomas Jefferson, and in the legal world that should be an important distinction. Not that the phrase should be overlooked, but its context is important. Also important is the fact that the Founders signed a document that did not contain that phrase. But the laughed at her. In my opinion the [sad] joke is on them, not her.

You will read in some of the text below that some in the media are also making fun of O'Donnell's question. Political journalists should know the Constitution and some of the important Supreme Court cases well enough to understand her question. Clearly they do not all meet my own preferred standard. But I'm not paying their salaries, I don't live my life around what they tell me, and I don't hold them as accountable as I do law students. That's partly because I keep hoping that law schools will point out that in the 1947 Supreme Court case that first brought "separation..." to a legal status, the court only used that quote without actually quoting from the words of the First Amendment and without looking at prior decisions and court writings. They can agree or not with the spirit of that 1947 court decision, but they should take note of the distinction between personal writings and the dictates of the Constitution.

Now that I re-think all this, I don't know why I am surprised. I have done random testing with various demographics and learned that it is probably the majority of the U.S. population who believe that "separation of church and state" is literally in the Constitution. That's my primary motivation for starting this blog in the first place.

Read more at the three links below (one include a media file):

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/19/odonnell-takes-coons-constitution-courtroom-debate

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/10/19/christine-odonnell-separation-church-and-state-not-constitution-msnb

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/19/chris-coons-cant-name-the-five-freedoms-in-the-first-amendment/

Do the Courts Understand the First Amendment?

That's a provocative headline, and probably is not fair. But I fear that the courts, even the Supreme Court of the United States, still have ideologues among them. We all have opinions, and it would be super-human for a judge or justice to be totally objective. In some cases, there ARE some human judgments that have to be made; the laws don't give complete guidance in all cases.

But the Founders were prolific writers, and the words and deeds are well preserved in various libraries and compilations. The original introduction of the metaphor "separation of church and state" was in 1947, I believe. In any case, I'm quite sure that was the first time the phrase was used without further justification from actual quotes of the Constitution. The metaphor is from a letter of Thomas Jefferson and certainly gives a small piece of insight into his views on the First Amendment. But if one searches his writings, one finds almost no other use of that phrase, but rather a repeated use of "freedom of religion" or "religious freedom" to describe the need for a Bill of Rights.

There is a good article on the Examiner's site discussing this. Follow the link below to learn more:

The truth about "separation of church and state"

Just How Broad IS the First Amendment?

This blog is mostly about the First Amendment, and also has many posts about court decisions that turned the original meaning of the First Amendment on its head. Perhaps it will be useful to look at a recent circuit court decision on another part of the First Amendment, the free speech provision. Here is the entire text of the First Amendment (underlining added):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's simple enough.  The underlined portion is the free speech clause. We all want free speech, right? As with the religion clauses, we would hope to understand the intention of the Founders in order to properly interpret the Amendment in court. Is free speech unlimited? Free honest speech is, and I'm sure that was part of the intent. Free political opinions are protected, and that may have been one of the primary motivations for the clause. But it also seems reasonable that the Founders did not intend people to get away with dishonest speech. We don't accept libel or slander. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Etc.

The recent case, decided by the 9th Circuit Court by 2 to 1, is about a Federal law that makes it illegal for someone to misrepresent his/her own military valor. The case is about a man who claimed to have won the Bronze Star, a very high honor for military members. This man, probably for political advantage, claimed to have won that award even though that is not the case. The court said the Federal law violates his free speech rights because his lie does no harm.

So the voters are left to think, by his own claims, that he is a man of different character. He also diminishes the honor of those who have actually won the award (if anyone can claim it, then it will not strike people as much of an honor to say, even honestly, that one earned the award). Would it be a logical extension to say that the military's uniform regulations, which allow the wearing of only awards actually received, is unconstitutional? Does that do any actual harm to the others in uniform?

What about perjury? If the false testimony does not change the outcome of the case, is it illegal? How about lying about my age on an application of one kind or another? Lying about my age to get into the military? Lying about my age to be able to make that Presidential run I've been secretly planning? Isn't it my free speech right to "embellish" my resume, even to the point of outright lies?

Do we want courts interpreting the Constitution this way? How much of this kind of interpretation will it take before the Constitution becomes meaningless?

Read more details below:

http://www.military.com/military-report/court-rules-stolen-valor-act-illegal?ESRC=miltrep.nl

Putting a Mosque at Ground Zero Not Protected by First Amendment

If you listen to people heartily discuss, or in some cases tiptoe around, the subject of building a mosque right beside the site of the World Trade Center, the First Amendment is often invoked... wrongly.

The gist of many opinions is that, while the builders have a First Amendment right to build there, they should decide not to based on the hurt it will cause at this particular site. I agree with the second part of that point. It is a matter of sensitivity, which has come into play historically in other similar situations.

But look at what the First Amendment says about religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Where in that is the guarantee of a right to build a house of worship anywhere one pleases? It prohibits Congress from certain actions, among them anything that would prohibit the free exercise of religion. But our Founders would not have meant that to allow anything, anywhere, any time. A congregation could not walk in during a session of Congress because they wanted to worship and sing hymns in the gallery, for example. A church would not be allowed to build next door to my house. Churches have been prohibited from ringing the carillons except at certain times.

The legal right to build this mosque does not really involve the First Amendment. It is controlled by zoning, and in this case by definitions of historic buildings. The man pushing this is responsible for following other laws as well, including those that regulate funding from certain overseas sources (no matter what kind of building is being proposed). It remains to be seen if the funding will stand up to investigation.

There is also nothing to say that people may not protest its proposed site. That does not violate the First Amendment. I hope commentators will keep the First Amendment out of these discussions, particularly when they make a passing reference to a right that is not in fact present in this context.

Where Is Our Government Getting Their Powers Lately?

I remember learning about American History in a class by that name in public school, followed the next year by a class called American Government. The teachers didn't consider me at the top of the class (fairly enough), but I did learn a few things. One clear theme had to do with our Constitution and the Founders' intent for the document. They wished to keep the citizens as free as possible, leaving with them as many rights as possible. They also wanted to severely limit the powers of the Federal Government, leaving anything not specifically authorized for the feds to belong to the states or the citizens.

Watching all three branches of our Federal Government these days, one might wonder how those folks did in their schools' history and civics classes. More and more the central government is taking control of rights that used to belong to citizens and states. Hence we have many states today bringing suits against the Federal Government over health care requirements or immigration control. We could blame both the Legislative and Executive branches in those cases. And the courts have been leaning toward government and away in many cases, such as the Kelo case, where homeowners had to give up their property so a local business could build on their lots.

The U.S. Constitution's 9th Amendment says:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the 10th says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

One can't really call that language "legalize" because its meaning is clear. The Federalist Papers are considered good insight into the Constitution's meaning and the Founders' intentions. Federalist 45 says, in part:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

To the point of this particular blog overall is to protect the rights our Founders intended us to have in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. Reading the above quotes, does it seem Constitutional for the Supreme Court of the United States to tell a city's public school that it can't have prayer at a graduation ceremony? Look at the tag Discrimination Examples or Revisionism here to see examples, and then apply the three quotes above to see if they pass Constitutional muster.

Much of the current Tea Party phenomenon is fueled by frustration over seeing the Federal Government seemingly willing to ignore Constitutional limitations and the clear will of the people. We'll see what the election shows this fall. One might suspect that Tea Parties won't go away no matter what the outcome, because there are still many politicians of both major parties who not in good standing with the people they were elected to serve.

ADF Defends National Day of Prayer

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is in the news again. This time they brought a lawsuit against the National Day of Prayer, in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama.

This particular annual recognition of our religious roots began in 1952. However, the tradition actually started even before our country was officially born and has been there throughout our history since our founding. In fact, all 50 states have also issued proclamations for a day of prayer.

The Continental Congress in 1775 called for such a day of prayer, which was recognized. But "Wait!" you say - that was before our Constitution was written. People objecting to the day of prayer now claim that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. I suppose one could argue on either side of what the Establishment Clause means, but if we take the word of those who wrote it, there is no justification for the current lawsuit. The same Congress that debated and ratified the Constitution almost immediately called upon President Washington to declare a national day of prayer and fasting (which he did). After risking life and property in a tough war, and after countless hours of debate in crafting the words of the Constitution, are we to assume that one of their first acts violated our primary legal document? That's not an assumption I would make.

Read more about the case here:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=5337

Abandoning the Concepts of Rights from Our Creator

If you watched much television in late June you may have seen the hearings for Elena Kagan as a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. There weren't too many surprises here. People expected President Obama to appoint a liberal person and she seems to have a record that would support that.

However, I found it a bit disturbing when a senator pressed her on the Declaration of Independence as an influence on her presumed future decisions. We are used to hearing such nominees duck many questions, and that is what she did here. Ms. Kagan did not affirm that the Declaration is a guideline for our system of government.

But our own United States Code says that the Declaration of Independence is one of the four documents that defined the organic law of the United States. And what is special about the Declaration? Simply that it states clearly that our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not come from the government, but rather are given to us by our Creator. If we ignore that guideline, then the government can take away those rights by simply passing a law.

I don't know about you, the reader, but I know that I would very much like our highest court to acknowledge that we have rights from God. Those are "above" the government. Read the posts in this blog and you will find ample acknowledgment by our Founders that they were grateful to God for our many blessings. The recognized this in writing and in oratory.

Read a little more about organic law here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_law

John Adams on the Declaration of Indepence

As mentioned in the post yesterday, the Founders believed that future celebrations of the 4th of July would include a religious tone. These men believed our freedom was part of a divine providence. Consider the letter below from John Adams to his wife, Abigail:

Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776

The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.

Read the whole letter here:

http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=L17760703jasecond

Disclaimer for the Constitution - Reader Beware!

Wilder Publicatioins has produced a convenient set of our original documents, including the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps as a reflection on attitudes in some quarters today, the publisher said they had to include a disclaimer because of complaints from some customers. The disclaimer says, in part, "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today."

Well, I suppose a person could misunderstand many works that were written in past years. Would they put a disclaimer on the Bible? Wilder publishes The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus, and also the Manifesto of the Communist Party. I don't think they have not put a disclaimer on those titles.

Yes, the Constitution was written at an earlier time. Yet somehow it has been copied by many other countries and is still in force (in a manner of speaking) well over 200 years after its birth.

Read more here:
Newsbusters

Delaware Constitution Required Belief in God to Hold Office

Delaware was one of nine states that had constitutions of their own before the U.S. Constitution was written. For those who don't think faith was important to our Founders, or who think our Founders wanted to keep religion far away from government with some kind of high wall, consider this constitution.

If you wished to hold public office in Delaware in those days, you had to take this oath, found in Article 22 of that constitution:

"I, [name here], do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

(As found on the University of Chicago website: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_3s2.html)

National Day of Prayer Proclamations, 1900-1910 (13 in all)

A previous post here (Judge Declares National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional) discussed a federal judge declaring that our 235-year-old tradition of declaring a national day of prayer was not constitutional. So after 230 years of this tradition, started by the very men who wrote the Constitution, only now does someone think it an offense to the Constitution?

Here are 12 examples from the years 1900-1910:

1900 - William McKinley Proclamation on October 29, 1900. A day for “thanksgiving and praise” set apart on November 29, 1900. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1901 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on September 14, 1901. A day of “mourning and prayer” set apart on September 19, 1901. The assassination of President McKinley motivated the call to prayer.

1901 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on November 2, 1901. A day of “praise and thanksgiving to God” set apart on November 28, 1901. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1902 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on October 29, 1902. A day of “festival and thanksgiving to God” set apart on November 27, 1902. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1903 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on October 31, 1903. A day of “praise and
thanksgiving to God” set apart on November 26, 1903. Reflecting on the closing
year motivated the call to prayer.

1904 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on November 1, 1904. A day to “give thanks unto Almighty God” set apart on November 24, 1904. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1905 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on November 2, 1905. A day of “thanksgiving for the past and of prayer for the future” set apart on November 30, 1905. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1906 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on October 22, 1906. A day of “thanksgiving and supplication” set apart on November 29, 1906. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1907 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on October 26, 1907. A day of “general Thanksgiving and Prayer” set apart on November 28, 1907. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1908 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on October 31, 1908. A day of “general thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 26, 1908. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1909 - William Howard Taft Proclamation on November 15, 1909. A day of “general thanksgiving... [for] praise and thanks to Almighty God” set apart on November 25, 1909.

1910 -William Howard Taft Proclamation on November 5, 1910. A day of “National Thanksgiving and Prayer” set apart on November 24, 1910. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

The quotes above and the citations for them can be found in the ACLJ's amicus brief linked from this page:

ACLJ: Court Decision Declaring National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional 'Flawed' - Case Could End Up At Supreme Court

The REST of the First Amendment

The First Amendment covers several topics, although I have focused only on the Religion Clauses. Here is the entire Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

If you have followed the news lately, you may have heard that some of the largest news outlets are in major financial trouble. You may have also heard speculation about a government bailout for these companies. How did the discussion even get that far? What if a church or denomination were in financial trouble, and what if the government were thinking about a bailout for them? Wouldn't the phrase "separation of church and state" come up immediately? (That phrase is too often used to "summarize" the Religion Clauses.) Why, then, do we not hear immediate and strong objections to the very mention of government aid to news outlets?

The first few words of the Amendment, "Congress shall make no law..." applies to all the clauses that follow. So whatever restriction there is on Congress about religion would apply to the freedom of the press as well. How about "separation of media and state" or some similar phrase?

Both religious organizations and media organizations would want to be careful to avoid the government obtaining a measure of control. There is already some entanglement because of tax policies, which applies in different ways, but perhaps no less strongly, to the press as to religion.

Just food for thought.

Presidents Harrison, Cleveland, McKinley Proclamations for Prayer

A previous post on this blog reviewed the news of a federal judge's ruling that our tradition of declaring a national day of prayer is not constitutional. This was despite evidence presented of 164 such declarations starting with our first Congress (who wrote the Constitution).

Below are the 13 proclamations made just in the years between 1889 and 1899:

1889 - Benjamin Harrison Proclamation on April 4, 1889. A day to “implore the favor of God” set apart on April 30, 1889.65 The centennial of George Washington’s inauguration address as the first President of the United States motivated the call to prayer.

1889 - Benjamin Harrison Proclamation on November 1, 1889. A day of “national thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 28, 1889.66 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1890 - Benjamin Harrison Proclamation on November 8, 1890. A day of “prayer and thanksgiving” set apart on November 27, 1890.67 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1891 - Benjamin Harrison Proclamation on November 13, 1891. A day of “joyful thanksgiving to God” set apart on November 26, 1891.68 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1892 - Benjamin Harrison Proclamation on July 21, 1892. A day to express “gratitude to Divine Providence for the devout faith of the discoverer and for the divine care and guidance which has directed our history and so abundantly blessed our people” set apart on October 21, 1892.69 Celebrating the four hundredth anniversary of Christopher Columbus’ discovery of America motivated the call to prayer.


1892 - Benjamin Harrison Proclamation on November 4, 1892. A day for “thanksgiving to God for His mercies and of supplication for His continued care and grace” set apart on November 24, 1892.70 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1893 - Grover Cleveland Proclamation on November 3, 1893. A day of “thanksgiving and praise” set apart on November 30, 1893.71 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1894 - Grover Cleveland Proclamation on November 1, 1894. A day of “thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 29, 1894.72 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1895 - Grover Cleveland Proclamation on November 4, 1895. A day of “thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 28, 1895.73 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1896 - Grover Cleveland Proclamation on November 4, 1896. A day of “thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 26, 1896.74 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1897 - William McKinley Proclamation on October 29, 1897. A day of “national thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 25, 1897.75 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1898 - William McKinley Proclamation on October 28, 1898. A day for “giving thanks to Almighty God” set apart on November 24, 1898.76 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1899 - William McKinley Proclamation on October 25, 1899. A day for “general thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 30, 1899.77 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

The quotes above and the citations for them can be found in the ACLJ's amicus brief linked from this page:

ACLJ: Court Decision Declaring National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional 'Flawed' - Case Could End Up At Supreme Court