Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Public Calls to Prayer are Legitimate

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry, regarding the National Day of Prayer, it is certainly strong evidence that a practice is consistent with the First Amendment if it predates the Amendment and was supported by our Founding Fathers. This is especially true where, as here, no coercion is involved. No person is forced to pray, or not pray, by the government (nor should they be).

 

While it is clear that you disagree with the government’s decision to continue the National Day of Prayer, the fact is that it is constitutional for the government to do so. The current makeup of our nation’s religious demographics does not justify rewriting or reinterpreting the Constitution to invalidate longstanding traditions like the appointment of legislative chaplains, the opening of legislative sessions with prayer, or the declaration of national days of prayer and thanksgiving. People who believe that these centuries-old traditions should be abandoned are free to state their case to their elected officials, but the courts should not invalidate such practices by ignoring the historical background of the First Amendment.

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(31)
post a comment
Mary-Lee

posted March 27, 2009 at 9:46 pm


Jay, you seem to be extremely invested in idea of a national day of prayer.
Most people pray all the time. Even atheists have been known to marvel at a beautiful sunset and enjoy a fall day. Everyone is spiritual, if not specifically religious.
Why do you need a national day of prayer? What’s the point of it?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 27, 2009 at 11:01 pm


==Jay, you seem to be extremely invested in idea of a national day of prayer.==
So what if he is?
==Most people pray all the time.==
To whom?
== Even atheists have been known to marvel…==
That’s not “prayer.”
==Everyone is spiritual, if not specifically religious.==
Christianity is not a religion. It’s a relationship. So, those who are born again are not religious, either, given that Jesus tells him not to be.
==Why do you need a national day of prayer?==
Why do you not?
== What’s the point of it?==
What’s the point of not needing it?



report abuse
 

Nicholas

posted March 28, 2009 at 12:18 am


Mr Incredible,
So you agree with Jay then.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 28, 2009 at 2:00 am


To set Christianity apart from other religions, some like to use this line when witnessing to others. They will say that Christianity is not a religion in the dictionary sense that involves a system of impersonal rites, rituals and worship to an abstract impersonal deity. But rather, it involves a personal one-one-one relationship with Jesus Christ. And that’s what makes it special because you are having a personal relationship with a living being.
However, if you look at the American Heritage Dictionary definition for “religion”:
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
You will see that mainstream Christianity as it is believed and practiced certainly falls into these definitions without a problem.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted March 28, 2009 at 10:39 am


Mr. Incredible, I simply do not see any need for a national day of prayer… your comments notwithstanding.
I would appreciate reading an answer to my question. Why is a national day of prayer necessary when people can pray any time they want to, and they do so already?



report abuse
 

dsjulian

posted March 29, 2009 at 7:37 am


Mr. Incredible: Why not?
DSJulian: Because it’s blatantly unconstitutional. That’s why Sekulow has to resort to “tradition” instead of valid constitutional argument.
Mary-Lee: Why?
DSJulian: Because the Religious Right has been soundly defeated in nearly every recent court-challenged attempt to sneak religion back into our public square. They are hoping that the National Day of Prayer will set a constitutional precedent for a National Prayer, which will in turn be the precedent for returning to the equally unconstitutional process of requiring all school children to recite the Lord’s Prayer every day. That, in turn, would be used as the precedent to teach Creationist religious beliefs in science classes and to rewrite our secular laws into compliance with the Law of Moses. Sekulow and Mr. Incredible would be less than honest if they attempted to deny that there are people in their camp advocating all of those things right this minute…
Sekulow: Because the practice predates the First Amendment…
DSJulian: A lot of things predated the constitution and they are all irrelevant and immaterial. Anyone can read the minutes of the Constitutional Convention at the Library of Congress and see how many of these pre-constitutional religionist ideas were presented and then summarily dismissed by the convention delegates.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted March 29, 2009 at 8:51 am


DSJulian, thank you.
They do plan ahead, don’t they?
I’m frankly tired of fighting the same battles over and over again, but as long as they don’t quit, I guess I can’t quit either.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 30, 2009 at 11:10 pm


==I simply do not see any need for a national day of prayer… ==
Then do with the Liberals tell us when pornography ambushes us: change the channel.
So, when the National Day of Prayer comes along, change the channel in your head.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 30, 2009 at 11:11 pm


The dictionary is not a lawgiver.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 30, 2009 at 11:13 pm


==Mr Incredible,
So you agree with Jay then.==
Uh, yes.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 30, 2009 at 11:15 pm


do with the Liberals —–> do what the Liberals



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 12:02 am


==Why is a national day of prayer necessary when people can pray any time they want to, and they do so already?==
Fellowship, and the knowledge that there are others like us on a national scale doing it at the same time and, generally, in the same way. This, God likes.
Atheists don’t like it because it is a show of Godly force.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 12:04 am


==… it’s blatantly unconstitutional.==
It is not. You would like it to be so, but it is not.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 12:06 am


“In the Year of our Lord,” is in the Constitution.
Is that phrase unconstitutional?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 12:11 am


The phrase, “In the Year of our Lord,” in the Constitution, they will say, is just a way of dating. It’s a religious phrase, but they will try to excuse it, of course, though it refers to God in His Covenant Name. And, so, God is in the Constitution.
So, however, even though The Ten Commandments is a historical Document, they want to deny that on public property cuz, they say, it is “religious.”
However the phrase, “In the Year of our Lord,” is also a “religious” phrase, and, yet, they’re willing to permit that cuz, they say, it is something else.
We wish that they would make up their minds.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 31, 2009 at 12:10 pm


“In the Year of our Lord,” is in the Constitution.
Is that phrase unconstitutional?
————————————
Tecnically yes, but still a rather minor Constitutional transgression given the context. “In the year of our Lord” was simply a common way to reference the date in colonial times. As a common figure of speech, I doubt the framers ever considered it a religious opinion of the type the Constitution clearly forbids government to promote. If the framers were such devout Christians, I wonder why they didn’t go any further than this oblique reference to Christianity and specifically mention God or Jesus more directly in the document? And I wonder why government documents don’t use that phrase any more?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 12:32 pm


==”In the Year of our Lord,” is in the Constitution.
Is that phrase unconstitutional?
————————————
Tecnically yes, but still a rather minor Constitutional transgression given the context.==
Oh, so, now, it’s not a matter of principle, rather discounting it so that it can fit into your agenda. We see.
== “In the year of our Lord” was simply a common way to reference the date in colonial times.==
However, the Founding Fathers, Christians, felt compelled to include it, and that’s funny because you people say that so-called “separation of Church and State” is in the Constitution, and, yet, there’s THAT phrase.
== As a common figure of speech, I doubt the framers ever considered it a religious opinion…==
So, even though the phrase includes the word, “Lord,” you’re saying that, as Christians, they were oblivious to the connection?? You’re saying that they weren’t aware of
(Isa 61:2) To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
(Luk 4:19) To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
as just two examples?? It’s just not believable that they would overlook the connection.
==… of the type the Constitution clearly forbids government to promote.==
It’s not clear at all.
== If the framers were such devout Christians, I wonder why they didn’t go any further than this oblique reference to Christianity and specifically mention God or Jesus more directly in the document?==
Cuz it was not the mission. Anyway, “In the Year of our Lord” references God, in His Covenant Name, directly enough.
== And I wonder why government documents don’t use that phrase any more?==
Dunno. Don’t care.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 12:38 pm


==”In the Year of our Lord,” is in the Constitution.
Is that phrase unconstitutional?
————————————
Tecnically yes, but still a rather minor Constitutional transgression given the context.==
It should be the principal to you, not whether you can clean it up with some fancy explanations and justifications. It appears you’re trying to establish degrees of principle here.
If the phrasing, “In the Year of the Lord,” is offensive to the Constitution, even though it’s in the Constitution, you should be working to get it out, just on principle.



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted March 31, 2009 at 3:05 pm


“It should be the principal to you, not whether you can clean it up with some fancy explanations and justifications. It appears you’re trying to establish degrees of principle here.
If the phrasing, “In the Year of the Lord,” is offensive to the Constitution, even though it’s in the Constitution, you should be working to get it out, just on principle.”
————————————
I agree.
It is a matter of principle, that’s why I answered your question in the affirmative.
And yes, there are varying degrees of violating the principle. This one being particularly small and inadvertant if you ask me. That’s just an explanation of my opinion, not a justification for that phrase.
Printing “In God We Trust” on our money is a somewhat bigger violation of the principle but is still relatively harmless in comparison to others.
Forcing our children to worship the flag (idol worship) or coercing them to pledge allegiance to a god they do not worship, is an even bigger violation.
If the government were to force us to attend a State church and pay taxes to support it against our will, that would be a bigger violation, wouldn’t you agree?
If the government passed a law that prevented you from attending or supporting the church of your choice, that would also be a bigger violation of the principle.
If the government were to burn me on the stake because I refused to worship their god(s) … well I think you get my point.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 6:52 pm


==”It should be the principal to you, not whether you can clean it up with some fancy explanations and justifications. It appears you’re trying to establish degrees of principle here.
If the phrasing, “In the Year of the Lord,” is offensive to the Constitution, even though it’s in the Constitution, you should be working to get it out, just on principle.”
I agree.
It is a matter of principle, that’s why I answered your question in the affirmative. ==
However, until you do something about it, it’s in the Constitution. That means that the Founders intended for it to be there. That means that you’re confused as to whether they actually meant “separation of Church and State” in the First Amendment cuz that would be a conflict. A contradiction. So, if a man for there to be “separation of Church and State” in the First Amendment to the Constitution, why did they include God, in His Covenant Name, in the Constitution? Were they stupid? Were they drunk?
==And yes, there are varying degrees of violating the principle.==
But not varying degrees of principle. Since you people make such a big deal out of it, that “minor transgression” shouldn’t be minor.
== This one being particularly small and inadvertant if you ask me.==
Principle is principle. If so-called “separation of Church and State” is so important, in principle, the phrasing, “In the Year of our Lord,” should be a real problem for you. It should be a real problem for you particularly since it conflicts with the interpretation of you people that there is a “separation of Church and State” in the Constitution.
==That’s just an explanation of my opinion, not a justification for that phrase.==
The Founders already justified by including it.
==Printing “In God We Trust” on our money is a somewhat bigger violation of the principle but is still relatively harmless in comparison to others.==
You mean to tell me — tell US — that you think “In God We Trust” is a bigger violation of the principle of the so-called, alleged “separation of Church and State” than the phrasing, “In the Year of our Lord,” in the Constitution??? My goodness.
==Forcing our children to worship the flag (idol worship)…==
They aren’t worshiping the Flag as a god. They worship the principles for which it stands.
==… or coercing them to pledge allegiance to a god they do not worship, is an even bigger violation.==
They are not pledging allegiance to God. They are pledging allegiance to the Flag and the principles for which it stands.
==If the government were to force us to attend a State church and pay taxes to support it against our will, that would be a bigger violation, wouldn’t you agree?==
==If the government passed a law that prevented you from attending or supporting the church of your choice, that would also be a bigger violation of the principle.==
If it’s a violation of principle, it’s a violation of the same principle, and you should be offended equally by all violations of the same principle.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 31, 2009 at 8:38 pm


However, the Founding Fathers, Christians, felt compelled to include it,
Boris says: Could you please tell us which of our founders were Christians? We can’t wait for you to put your foot in your mouth again Incredible. Come on now. You said they were Christians name ‘em and claim ‘em. Was Thomas Jefferson or John Adams a Christian? Watch me reel him in again folks and then bring the hammer down on more of his lies.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2009 at 4:38 am


==Could you please tell us which of our founders were Christians? We can’t wait for you to put your foot in your mouth again Incredible. Come on now. You said they were Christians name ‘em and claim ‘em. Was Thomas Jefferson or John Adams a Christian? Watch me reel him in again folks and then bring the hammer down on more of his lies.==
“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” — Jefferson
“I believe in one God… and I hope for happiness beyond this life. — Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Page 8
The writer of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States wrote to Charles Thomson in 1816:
I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.
“The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because (sic) Christianity is the only religion that changes the
heart.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“Can the Liberties of a nation be thought secured when we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of the
People that these Liberties are the gift of God, that they are not to be violated but by His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings.”
Thomas Jefferson
President Thomas Jefferson, 1781
Notes on the State of Virginia
“God who gave us Life gave us Liberty. And can the Liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these Liberties are a gift of God ? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath ? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
President Thomas Jefferson
“I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure, benevolent and sublime which have ever been preached to man…”
President Thomas Jefferson
“The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.”
Thomas Jefferson,
To William Canby, 1813
“Of all systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus.”
Thomas Jefferson,
From his will:
“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
From Websters 1828 Dictionary
Constitution
6. A system of fundamental principles for the government of rational and social beings.
The New Testament is the moral constitution of modern society.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 1, 2009 at 2:20 pm


What Are We Computers To Shuffle And seperate Our Moral Value System. Its Nice To See Your Work Here On belief Net Guys. I Always Support Support, Which Seems Like The Case Here As Possible, “my bedroom” Politics Are Fished, We Know What Sustains Life Now, We Know What A Merriterd Moral VAlue Is As Well As What Merits, Were Aware Of Individuality With Shared Existence Dwelling Be. Freedom’s Here Now, We Want It To Be, Act On Your Capability, Try labelism.moogo.com Try…



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2009 at 10:56 am


“Public Calls to Prayer are Legitimate”
I hear they do it all the time in Saudi Arabia, and other theocracies. Via loudspeaker off minarets.
America is not a theocracy.
Yet, anyway.
And thank God for that, he added, ironically.



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted April 2, 2009 at 2:49 pm


“If it’s a violation of principle, it’s a violation of the same principle, and you should be offended equally by all violations of the same principle.”
————————————————
Not so. Stealing is usually wrong but there are varying degrees of violating that principle. I am usually offended when this principle is violated but my reaction always depends on the circumstances.
For instance, a homeless man stealing a loaf of bread to keep his family from starving is very different than a Bernie Madoff stealing millions from people so that he can by 6 more beach houses.
By your logic, both should serve the same prison sentences. After all, stealing is stealing.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 2:57 pm


==America is not a theocracy.==
GOSH! You have an amazing grasp of the obvious!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 3:08 pm


==”If it’s a violation of principle, it’s a violation of the same principle, and you should be offended equally by all violations of the same principle.”
Not so.==
Ok, so you have floating standards. A convenient method to excuse some behaviors for others for personal pleasures. We get it now.
== Stealing is usually wrong…==
“Usually”????
==… but there are varying degrees of violating that principle.==
No, there are varying degrees of dealing with it, dependng on the choice of the one dealing with it who can choose to violate his principles for personal convenience. However, the principle is the there will be punishment, and That is a constant.
==I am usually offended when this principle is violated…==
“Usually”????
==… but my reaction always depends on the circumstances.==
So, how can the community depend on you? If you’re my neighbor, giving your floating standards, I can’t trust you.
==For instance, a homeless man stealing a loaf of bread to keep his family from starving is very different than a Bernie Madoff stealing millions from people so that he can by 6 more beach houses.==
A homeless man’s stealing a loaf of bread to keep his family from starving is understandable. Not justifiable.
The standard for a bank teller handling $.50 is the same for the bank teller handling $50,000.
By your logic, both should serve the same prison sentences. After all, stealing is stealing.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 3:12 pm


Forgot this —
== By your logic, both should serve the same prison sentences. After all, stealing is stealing.==
Punishment is certain. It is a constant. It is the amount of the punishment that varies. It is the amount that is subject to choosing. Both are punished. Stealing is always wrong.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 3:26 pm


is the there —> is that there



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted April 17, 2009 at 1:52 am


The National Day of Prayer is a big social event for the Conservative Christians. It’s their way of showing the country how “righteous” they are. Of all the sects in Christianity, the conservative sects and RR are the ones who push it the most.
It reminds me how Jesus spoke about those who prayed on the corner, they receive their reward. Jesus talked about praying in secret so I’ve learned to look at the alternate reason behind their actions.
I’ll just ignore it and go on with my life. Why give them the attention they so crave and why reinforce their behavior?
In another post the comments were made:
==… or coercing them to pledge allegiance to a god they do not worship, is an even bigger violation.==
They are not pledging allegiance to God. They are pledging allegiance to the Flag and the principles for which it stands.
This isn’t true at all. In saying the pledge of allegiance, you are effectively swearing to god, the Christian god. The title of “god” for most religions reflects the idea that god is an entity. In Christianity, they refer to their god as god, his name, so for them, it reflects both ways.
When saying the pledge, I drop this part as I will not swear to a god that is not my own.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted November 16, 2009 at 5:57 pm


I agree that the history and tradition of prayer in America and the use of this practice by our Founding Fathers warrants that this tradition continue without violation of the Constitution. It is rather interesting and impressive that the use of prayer in Congress predates the First Amendment. History, tradition, and the use of God in the text of the Declaration of the Independence, other historical documents, and prayers of government leaders must prevail so that there is a recognition of the United States as a Christian nation under God.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.