National Day of Prayer

There is something known as "civic religion" in which public events have a religious aspect. In this country, it is often seen appropriate for this to have an inclusive aspect that lightly suggests some sort of higher power. The assumption of some sort of deity suggests an overlap with "ceremonial deism," a related concept. This includes both public officials and some sort of official sanction as seen by oaths ("under God") and "God Save This Honorable Court" and related things.

The practice over the years often had a more sectarian quality, at times clearly Christian in nation. There was some controversy in early presidential administrations regarding official statements of prayer and thanksgiving. President Thomas Jefferson argued that it was a violation of the First and Tenth Amendments for a president to officially encourage prayer or offer thanksgiving proclaimations with a religious connotation. The First Amendment particularly highlighted to him that any "law" in that fashion was not in the power of the federal government.

The origins of the National Day of Prayer was clearly religious in nature, supported by specific evangelical Christian groups. A district court found this to be so, but as is often the case in such challenges involving official actions that amount to establishments but are deemed merely hortatory (though in reality have effects), the court of appeals held there was no specific harm to make it a "case or controversy."*

Let us find in our prayers, however they are delivered, the determination to overcome adversity, rise above our differences, and come together as one Nation to meet this moment in history.

A continual thing that I look for in the official presidential announcements for the National Day of Prayer (set for the first Thursday in May) is how exactly it is worded.  President Biden honors the constitutional right to pray, how prayer helped people over the years while reaffirming that there are a variety of beliefs in this country, freely exercised.

I invite the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I join all people of faith in prayers for spiritual guidance, mercy, and protection.

This sentiment overall is fine as a matter of President Biden expressing his personal beliefs and is a basic part of his message.  But, I continue to find it problematic to have an official instruction to the President to "invite" people to do a specific religious act.  To use a basic constitutional technique, the "purpose and effect" is problematic.  The purpose of these "days of prayer" or prayer conferences etc. repeatedly for some reason keeps on being expressed in selective terms.  Not only "to God," but repeatedly Christian in some fashion.  But, it's hard to avoid a religious purpose and effect even with more diverse sentiments here. 

Prayer is a specific type of religious activity, even if there is a diversity of ways to pray.  It is also a perfectly fine thing, again particularly since the many ways available provide a method that can fit the needs of the individual. Prayer is not merely the typical "Our Father" sort of thing.  There are many ways to pray.  Nonetheless, this is not merely a honoring of religion or conscience. No matter its diversity, it is a specific type of act, one in this context clearly with religious aspects.

The National Day of Prayer is a sort of ceremonial religion that regularly overlaps into ceremonial deism.  Prayer as commonly understood is to someone.  It need not be -- prayer can honor nature or whatever without specifically being thanks or honoring or a petition or whatever to a deity.  Like religion, we are talking multitudes here.  So, especially when done by someone who is honestly expressing his spiritual nature like Biden, the whole thing might be seen as acceptable on some level.

As I regularly note, I am well aware of a sense of perspective here.  A day of prayer as compared to trying to craft one (or pick people who do) or a direct honoring of God ("under God") has an open-ended particularly vague quality to it all.  Nonetheless, as a matter of principle, especially given how it has been applied over the years, I would take the Jeffersonian position here.  This is especially the case because public officials will honor prayer generally anyway, especially those who for good or ill give the matter particular attention -- which in some fashion was every president since Carter with the possible exception of the first Bush.  And, many before as well.

We need not and should not have days that honor and invite people to do selective religious type acts like prayer. Instructions as to pray is a private thing, that should be left to private choice and private instruction. Again, public officials personally might wish to do so.  Public officials have religious beliefs and so forth.  I'm inclined to rather some not to narrowly preach to the public at large in this fashion, different than mixing in religious messages in their speeches and so forth expressing how they personally see the world.  But, it is up to them really.

This is a more official act and minor or not is an establishment of religion and in a big picture way when you benefit religion in that way, you are likely to also burden the free exercise of it as well.  

ETA: Two takes by separation organizations for this year.   

Also ... The Religion Clause Blog cites a 1997 version of the law involved and it is blatantly unconstitutional be it on a limited: 

"The President shall set aside and proclaim the first Thursday in May in each year as a National Day of Prayer, on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals."

 This is not just honoring "prayer," but honoring a specific day for people to "turn to God" with "prayer" favored as is doing so "at churches" though other stuff is mixed in.  The gospels specifically instruct private prayer.  But, "churches" clearly are favored here.  The language can be expressed in an open-ended way, but with the blessing of the state has a specific Christian emphasis that reflects the people who encouraged its passage.  Bad pool.  

---

* I have mixed feelings regarding the federal courts (and I guess state courts) generally avoiding to decide such cases. A basic pragmatic response is that if they were forced to decide, I would not really like the result.  Perhaps, certain types of constitutional injuries are best dealt with away from the courts. On that level, however, maybe the complete answer is that how we should do that is complicated and flawed.  That is, a bigger debate.