Freedom From Religion can't silence public prayer

“Freedom of expression,” said Supreme Court Justice Cardozo, “is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every form of freedom.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. (FFRF) wants to end all public expression of faith in any Christian observance or holiday.

FFRF is a family run entity founded by Anne Nicol Gaylor in 1975, the same year she wrote her first book, “Abortion Is a Blessing”. It has been controlled by she and her daughter, Annie Laurie Gaylor, ever since.

In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case in which the FFRF had filed a brief in support of atheist Michael Newdow, a non-custodial father, who did not want his child to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Supreme Court in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow  noted the child and her custodial mother wanted the child to have the right to say the Pledge, and then held: “[The] cases simply do not stand for the proposition that Newdow has a right to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion.”

In 2007, the Supreme Court again ruled against the FFRF in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. The FFRF had sued Pres. George W. Bush for establishing the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and they also sued then-Secretary of Education Rod Paige for having said in a speech that: “President Bush does this because he knows first-hand the power of faith to change lives—from the inside out. And the reason he knows this is because faith changed his life.”

The Supreme Court ruled FFRF had no right to have even brought the suit: “The rule respondents propose would enlist the federal courts to superintend, at the behest of any federal taxpayer, the speeches, statements, and myriad daily activities of the President, his staff, and other Executive Branch officials. … The Court should not authorize the constant intrusion upon the executive realm that would result from granting taxpayer standing in the instant case.”

A persistent hope of the FFRF is that they can unilaterally silence the National Day of Prayer, a tradition which Congress has said will be celebrated annually on the first Thursday of May.

In 2009, Colorado Judge R. Michael Mullins ruled against the FFRF in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Ritter, stating: “Plaintiffs here have alleged that they are ‘made to feel as if they are political outsiders’ because of the Colorado Day of Prayer Proclamations. There is no ‘right’ or ‘privilege’ provided to Colorado citizens to ‘feel’ any particular way.”

This year, on April 14, 2011, the 7^th District U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against the FFRF in FFRF v Obama and said FFRF had no right to sue Pres. Obama for issuing his National Day of Prayer Proclamation. “Plaintiffs contend that they are injured because they feel excluded, or made unwelcome, when the President asks them to engage in a religious observance that is contrary to their own principles.”

The Court of Appeals noted that “hurt feelings differ from legal injury,” and concluded: “Those who do not agree with a President’s statement may speak in opposition to it; they are not entitled to silence the speech of which they disapprove.”

The FFRF believes in the myth that a National Day of Prayer is somehow unconstitutional. Fortunately for the freedom of all Americans, that is not true.

Prayer is, after all, our ultimate expression.

Sharman’s column runs every Tuesday. He practices law in Culpeper.