It is irrational beyond description to assert that government can only serve a "secular" purpose

From Dave Welch:

The ruling by Carter-appointee federal district Judge Barbara Crabb declaring the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional is, at the end of the day, not just about prayer.  The basis of this decision is grounded in a fundamental hostility against public expression of the Christian faith.

Read the First Amendment language carefully – then read an excerpt from the opening of Crabb's decision:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …

In my view of the case law, government involvement in prayer may be consistent with the establishment clause when the government's conduct serves a significant secular purpose and is not a "call for religious action on the part of citizens." (emphasis added) ( Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama/Gibbs)

All other legal complexities and the series of bad court decisions that our current judges are using as precedent to make more bad decisions aside, the cleansing of Judeo-Christian faith and values from law, government and culture is what this is about.  In her decision, Crabb references a quote from John Adams' letter to his wife, Abigail, describing the opening of the first session of the Continental Congress in September of 1774.  In his letter, Adams relates that delegates Jay and Rutledge of New York asserted the body was "so divided in religious Sentiments ... that We could not join in the same Act of Worship."

All our founders' inspiring, biblical quotes in one place – a must-have for your library: "America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations"

She also mentions, "Eventually, Samuel Adams convinced the other delegates to allow the reading of a psalm the following day."  What she adroitly fails to include is another section of the letter where John writes that his cousin Sam:  

… moved that Mr. Duche, an Episcopal clergyman, might be desired to read Prayers to Congress tomorrow morning. … the motion was passed in the affirmative."

John Adams described with great clarity the powerful impact that Rev. Duche's prayer and reading of the 35th Psalm had on all present:  

I never saw a greater effect upon an audience.  It seemed as if heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on that morning.  After this, Mr. Duche, unexpectedly to every body, struck out into an extemporary prayer, which filled the bosom of every man present.

Given that the majority of that body also comprised the First Congress, which drafted and presented the language of the First Amendment, it is obvious to a rational, objective person who is not a "religiophobe" that Congress was neither religion-free nor anti-religious. 

What many don't know is that the Bill of Rights was adopted largely because of the passionate opposition to the proposed Constitution by George Mason and Patrick Henry of Virginia.  They did not believe that individual rights were adequately protected as defined in the 1689 English Bill of Rights.  Madison, Hamilton and the other Federalists supporting ratification essentially had to promise a Bill of Rights to achieve Virginia's ratification vote.

According to constitutional scholar and historian John Eidsmoe in "Christianity and the Constitution," there was deep concern that too much power had been placed in the hands of a central government.  Eidsmoe points out that, "The Antifederalists had some legitimate objections, and in some ways may have been more farsighted than the Federalists."  He also quotes George Washington's writing about the opposition:

…it has called forth, in its defence, abilities which would not perhaps have been otherwise exerted that have thrown new light upon the science of Government, they have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and explained them in so forcible a manner, as cannot fail to make a lasting impression.

Very clearly, the Constitution and the first 10 amendments as the Bill of Rights are intended to create a constitutional republic and then explicitly place a cage around it to restrain its power.  Since every formational document, from the Mayflower Compact in 1620 to every state's constitutional preamble, refers to our dependence on God, it is irrational beyond description to assert that government can only serve a "secular purpose."

Comments

[Timothy Fountain]

FDR's nationally broadcast prayer as the Allies landed in Normandy... Lincoln's 1863 Thanksgiving Call to Prayer (national repentance, even!)... This judge's ruling is absurd.

Sometimes, it seems like the "culture wars" are less about competing world views and really between coherence and incoherence, between thought and emotional sputtering.

[Guard]

I'm a person of Faith, but, I do not for one minute believe our Government should be in the business of playing God. Sibby, take a look at Iran. Now that's a government who believes their purpose goes beyond secular in to the religious. And another thing: I said a person of the "Faith," not Religion (which is doctrine based by man, not God).