A Colorado appellate panel has handed down a major ruling that the state’s Day of Prayer is unconstitutional as a violation of religious liberty under the state’s constitution. The unanimous panel ruled in favor of a challenge from the Freedom From Religion Foundation — originally filed in 2008. Judge Steve Bernard (shown here), with Judges Alan Loeb and Nancy Lichtenstein overturned a lower court decision in ruling that the day favored believers over non-believers.
The question in the case is increasingly arising in both state and federal courts: the rights of atheists and agnostics who object to proclamations and demonstration of faith. Even while nondemoninational, such proclamations associate the government with faith and the belief in God.
The panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that “[a] reasonable observer would conclude that these proclamations send the message that those who pray are favored members of Colorado’s political community, and that those who do not pray do not enjoy that favored status.”
The practice, they ruled, ran afoul of the Preference Clause of the Religious Freedom section of Colorado’s Constitution” because such proclamations are “predominantly religious; they lack a secular context; and their effect is government endorsement of religion as preferred over nonreligion.”
The federal courts have rejected this type of argument under the federal constitution — upholding ceremonial prayers to open legislative bodies etc. However, the Court noted in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53-54 (1985):
At one time it was thought that this right [to choose one’s religion] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the [United States Supreme Court] has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual’s freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects – or even intolerance among “religions” – to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.
Despite such language, the Court has proven fairly hostile to claims of freedom “from” religion as opposed to freedom “of” religion. Some members of the Court have long held a narrow view that the religion clauses were meant primarily to protect against the establishment of a state religion as opposed to separation church and state entirely.
The Colorado panel noted that such practices “have the primary or principal effect of endorsing religious beliefs because they convey or attempt to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.” The panel distinguished cases of allowing legislative prayers and the alike:
The proclamations serve a different purpose than legislative prayers. . . .Here, the proclamations are not designed to solemnize a public occasion, and they are not part of the “ceremonial deism” that does not violate the Establishment Clause. See Elk Grove Unified School Dist., 542 U.S. at 37-44 (O’Connor, J., concurring). They are not a small part of something larger that serves a secular purpose. Rather, they stand, individually and collectively, as a call to “actual worship or prayer” that “has as its purpose placing the speaker or listener in a penitent state of mind, or that is intended to create a spiritual communion or invoke divine aid.” Id. at 40.
The proclamations serve an exclusively religious purpose. They encourage people throughout Colorado to engage in the religious practice of prayer, even if such prayer is generally nondenominational.
Indeed, these Days of Prayer are often cited as an effort to reaffirm the commitment to God in the face of increasing secularism. National leaders have portrayed secularists as akin to terrorists as a threat to the nation (here and here and here and here).
Here is the full opinion which is worth the reading:
“Good. I’m glad this issue is getting more confrontational.” (DonS)
I agree
There is NO harmless proclamation where any government at any level uses it’s legislative authority to promote religious beliefs and dilute our secular government. We’ve endured quite a lot of overt subversions of the US Constitution at the hands of religious fanatics (In God We Trust, “…under God…”, prayers before Congressional sessions–Muslims need not apply,Nativity scenes in public parks, etc.) that not one more offense should ever be tolerated.
I’ll bet rcambell is offended at Mormons baptizing Einstein and others who are not of their faith. Talk about getting ones panties in a wad over stupid things! Think you have a right to sue somebody if they make the sign of the cross over you? JEEZ!
These prayers cannot truly be called non-denominational. If one prays to Goddess in a public event, this would create quite a stir of offense. That is why I know that arguments advanced by the religious are disingenuous! Talk about taking your life into your own hands! Try that kind of prayer in this situation and see what happens! As governor, I will now mandate a day of prayer to the Goddess! Yeah, that will go down really well!!!
I thnk that if they make one for honoring Eid for Muslims, it will not be so out of place. My guess is that they probably have made such a proclamation for Muslims and possibly other religions as well. You can also apply to get one for atheists too. Whether or not it will be effective is another question.
I’m waiting for the day that a Bible isn’t used in the oath of office for Pres. I have been told to put my hand on the Bible when taking an oath and I did not. After a moment of confusion that I dared refuse, we proceeded. I said an oath that I meant, but it wasn’t theirs. In my view, putting my hand on the Bible and swearing an oath to their God was hypocritical and meant nothing. Stating my own oath meant something, at least to me. I wonder what other non-Christians do.
“Humanist” instead of “Humanitarianism” — for the sake of the bumper stickers.
And suggestions? Anything with “cease and deist” in it?
Gene? Pete?
“cease and deist”
LOVE IT! LOL!
“Some members of the Court have long held a narrow view that the religion clauses were meant primarily to protect against the establishment of a state religion as opposed to separation church and state entirely.”
Therein lies the nub of the problem. If the clause were meant merely to mitigate against the establishment of a State religion, then it would be easily
neutralized by the political pressure that would make public professions of Christianity necessary to obtain public office. Laws wouldn’t be needed since community pressure and censure would do the enforcing. Oh wait, never mind, that’s already happening in many locales isn’t it?
LOL……
ArthurRandolphErb, I wish you were right, but my gut says you’re not.
Go and READ the proclamation. It is about as harmless as one can be. They sign such things en masse damn near every week.
Elaine M., Yeah, well, I’ll take a godless infidel humanitarian over a god fearing reactionary (nicest word I could think of) any day.
DonS,
A Humanitarianism Day in lieu of a Prayer Day? Perish the thought, you godless infidel!
I wonder how a state “Humanitarianism Day” would be received?
I don’t think that would raise any objection from even the religious. You might wish to make it humanist day or deist day and that might get a poor response from them, but I don’t think that would be any worse than the current prayer proclamation and would be just fine too.
I am an atheist and while I will not be joining in the day of prayer, I think this ruling is silly. I read the Proclamation and all it does is to memorialize the day of prayer. They sign so many of these and it has NO government support in terms of days off, money, or any other form of governmental preference that this ruling is absurd.
It reminds me of what I tell folks who wish to pray for me when I am ill or otherwise in trouble. I thank them for their kind wishes, and that I know that prayers, unlike much of medicine will do no harm. If they feel it will do some good in their eyes, I am all for it.
I also think that if I were Guv of CO, I would have no problem signing that one either. It has no effect one way or the other on non-believers, and is like saying such and such a day is German American day. SO WHAT?
@Andy: Consider Newt’s abandonment of wives with cancer, his cheating, his hypocrisy and lying in office (he admits to cheating on his wife while leading the impeachment of Clinton).
Consider Mitt Romney’s outright lies and trickery to prospective companies and their employees while leading Bain Capital.
I think you will have your answer; their primary concern is themselves no matter who gets hurt or how much pain they cause, physically or financially or psychologically.
This is encouraging. As an apathetic agnistic I have tried to live and let live but the (growing number of) attacks (see the prof’s links) are suggesting the other side does not share my view. My question is, do Blair, Newt, Mitch, et al really beieve this crap or are is it just part of a program to gain more control/power?
I sort of like the idea of forced religion. Once it is firmly established it will be fun to watch each of the “right” religions demanding they get preference over all the apostate ones.
It will be a joy to watch the fundie Baptists and Methodists exclude the Mormons and again turn against the “Papist idolators”. Meanwhile the Catholics will be expressing their superiority over these new comers. Maybe the various branches of the Lutheran Church can devourer each other. Maybe we can have a Federal office of the Inquisition. Once down this path we can issue little yellow stars and red crescents for “those people”
Yes, that will be fun times.
I think it is better for politicians if people are religious, whether the politicians themselves are or not. The religious are more easily controlled; by definition the defer to authority and unfounded assertion, by definition they are uncritical thinkers that accept almost any claim of their tribal (party) leaders, religious leaders, or some “authority” they quote as being inherently factual.
It is hard to imagine a politician that doesn’t want that kind of obedience, deference, and presumption of righteous integrity. It makes shearing the sheep so much easier.
I have refused to participate in locally sponsored always early in the morning activities held on conjunction with the National Day of Prayer because of my own 1st amendment concerns. When chastised by some church members. I asked whether they are willing to meet me at the church early in the morning for prayers the other 364 days. No takers.
Good. I’m glad this issue is getting more confrontational. If the right wingers and fundies want to to dictate how a state, or a nation, must conforms in ‘spiritiual’ matters, they should be confronted. And the cowardly politicians who see no downside in supporting state sanctioned prayer, etc. ought to wake up. Just because the vocal opposition may be small is scant reason to go along with the Bible thumpers. Perhaps they haven’t noticed all the baggage that slides along that slippery slope. Or perhaps they have and they don’t care.
Thank you, Colorado, from an atheist.
Rick Santorum is going to go postal.