Conservatives: Obama’s DOJ not sufficiently pro-prayer

Tony Perkins

In April, Justice Barbara Crabb declared the National Day of Prayer legislation, which requires the US President to annually exhort the nation to prayer, unconstitutional. The Obama administration appealed.

Yesterday, the Family Research Council and the Liberty Institute, two pro-theocracy Christian organizations, filed an amicus brief in the case. They also moved to be permitted to join in the oral argument of the case. FRC President Tony Perkins commented in a statement released yesterday:

“President Obama’s Justice Department filed a brief that doesn’t go far enough in defending the National Day of Prayer, which is why we are petitioning the court to participate in oral arguments. The President’s attorneys failed to cite any of the key cases that would require immediate dismissal of this lawsuit because the plaintiffs lack standing to bring it. FRC plans to mount a robust defense of this important national event that a liberal judge has attempted to scrub from the public square,” Perkins said.

Ken Klukowski, Director of Family Research Council’s Center for Religious Liberty and lead counsel for FRC’s amicus brief in the case, added to Perkins’ remarks:

“In recent months, Obama Administration officials have stated a willingness to defend the ‘freedom to worship’ but much more is at stake in this case – our First Amendment right to freedom of religion, which goes far beyond just worship.

“FRC is respectfully requesting that the court allow us to participate in oral arguments to ensure a vigorous defense is made against a lawsuit that claims a national day of prayer – a tradition as old as the country itself – is unconstitutional. It is our hope that the Court will recognize that the American people deserve and expect their elected leaders to vigorously defend our constitutional right to religious freedom.

“The courts cannot ban free religious expression by citizens who participate in the NDP because such participation is not imposed. Neither the Constitution nor the NDP itself require any religious activity by anyone, anywhere. So, if permitted, we intend to present a convincing case that this is a perfect example of a harassing lawsuit that should have been dismissed at the outset,” concluded Klukowski.

As we have previously noted at Secular News Daily, the issue at hand is not the government requiring Americans to pray, nor the right of Americans to pray when and where they desire. The NDOP legislation requires the US President to issue a proclamation of a national day of prayer, in conjunction with the Evangelical National Day of Prayer Committee.

This amounts not only to government-sanctioned religion — already forbidden by the Constitution — but government sanction of one particular religion.

Thanks to Howard Friedman at Religion Clause for the tip.

Related articles:

1. Obama Pander-o-Rama: Will Defend Unconstitutional National Day of Prayer
2. FFRF's NYT Ad re: Nat'l Day of Prayer
3. Nat’l Day of Prayer appeal begins, politicians show support
4. House 'Prayer Day' Resolutions Divide America, Violate Constitution
5. Obama administration sides with Vatican on sovereign immunity

Jenny Donati is webmistress and co-editor of Secular News Daily. Jenny is an outspoken secularist who believes firmly in the separation of church and state. She demands evidence to support arguments, and holds herself to the same standard. She doesn't write about herself in the third person . . . but there's a first time for everything.

You can follow comments on this article through the RSS Comment Feed. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry.