« Is Church Charitable Enough For Property Tax Exemption? | Main | Court: City Didn't Try Hard Enough To Find Non-Christian Prayers »
May 17, 2012
Court: Colorado Day of Prayer Is Unconstitutional
Governors’ proclamations 'undermine the premise' that believers and nonbelievers are served equally, Colorado Court of Appeals rules.
Proclamations by Colorado governors for a state Day of Prayer are unconstitutional, the Colorado Court of Appeals recently ruled.
The three-judge panel ruled on state Day of Prayer proclamations issued from 2004 to 2009 after the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) challenged them. The court unanimously agreed that Colorado’s Day of Prayer is “predominantly religious,” thereby violating nonbelievers’ constitutional rights.
“[The proclamations] reflect an official belief in a God who answers prayers,” the court wrote. “At the same time, for those who do not believe in such a God, the proclamations tend to indicate that their nonbelief is not shared by the government that rules the State. In doing so, they undermine the premise that the government serves believers and nonbelievers equally.”
The court did not make any judgment on the National Day of Prayer, and it was quick to point out that its decision did not affect anyone’s right to pray.
Instead, the court wrote, the decision centered on the idea that “religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State [sic] affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer.”
In 2010, a U.S. District Judge ruled the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional after the FFRF filed suit. The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later overturned that ruling, stating the FFRF did not have standing because “a feeling of alienation cannot suffice as injury in fact.”
But the Colorado court ruled the FFRF had standing for this case, noting, “Unlike the narrower federal test for standing, plaintiffs in Colorado benefit from a relatively broad definition of the concept.”
The case was sent back to a trial court, which will consider whether a permanent injunction should be issued to prevent further proclamations for a Day of Prayer.
Comments
It's obvious the Colorado court hasn't read the Constitution. It doesn't say separation of church and state as the atheists would have everybody believe. That's a phrase they made up so they could convince everybody religion should be denied and destroyed which is what they want. It says establishment of religion and in the context that it was written it meant no church could be declared the national church of the country which has never been done in the U.S. as in Islam countries and some European countries with national religions. It says people have the right to worship and a day of prayer is recognition by the gov't of this fact. If this is not the case, than why do we have African American month when the majority in this country are not African American or Mexican or whatever. I put up with a lot of gov't recognized holidays and parades surrounding ethic peoples and their religions of this country but so far there is no European ethic holiday. Do I use the law to stop these holidays declared by the gov't. No, I figure as long as they're citizens, let that segment of the population have it. It's called freedom as long as there's no violence. And since atheism is a religion, they should be denied what they are denying others. It works both ways
Posted By: Original Anna | May 19, 2012 8:33 PM
It should not be supposed that the government, by remaining separate from and neutral toward religions, somehow thereby favors atheism over theism. There is a difference between the government (1) remaining neutral in matters of religion and leaving individuals free to choose, exercise, and express their religious views without government intrusion and (2) taking sides in matters of religion and promoting one view (whether theism [in one, any, or all its various forms], atheism, or whatever) to the detriment of others. It is one thing for the government to endorse the idea that god(s) exist or, alternatively, endorse the idea that god(s) do not exist; it is quite another for the government to take no position on the matter and respect the right of each individual to freely decide for himself.
Posted By: Doug Indeap | May 20, 2012 1:12 PM
Post a comment: