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whether the ruling by the Wisconsin District Court finds Memorial Day to be unconstitutional as well because it was originally enacted as a day for people to pray for peace.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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT