ILNews

Indiana joins fight for National Day of Prayer

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana has joined the fight to reverse the holding by U.S. District Court in the Western District of Wisconsin that the federal law providing for a National Day of Prayer violates the Establishment Clause.

The amicus brief before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by the Texas Attorney General and others, argues the ruling calls into question the traditional state practice of issuing proclamations acknowledging their residents may choose to pray together during difficult times, and state proclamations issued in conjunction with the National Day of Prayer.

The brief also says that providing for a day of prayer is constitutional because the law doesn’t require the engagement in any religious activity of any kind by any person or governmental body. It also calls into question whether the ruling by the Wisconsin District Court finds Memorial Day to be unconstitutional as well because it was originally enacted as a day for people to pray for peace. The National Day of Prayer statute was enacted in 1952.

Indiana is one of 29 states that signed the Texas amicus brief. Other nearby state signers include Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio.

The suit was filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation - a Madison, Wisc.-based group working for separation of church and state - against President Barack Obama and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, challenging the authority of the president to designate the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer. Judge Barbara B. Crabb ruled in April that 36 U.S.C. Section 119 is unconstitutional.

“I understand that many may disagree with that conclusion and some may even view it as a criticism of prayer or those who pray. That is unfortunate,” she wrote in the opinion. “A determination that the government may not endorse a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant or undeserving of dissemination. Rather, it is part of the effort to ‘carry out the Founders' plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society.” McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 882 (O'Connor, J., concurring).’”

Oral arguments in the appeal have not been set, according to the court docket.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT