Are Religious Proclamations of Thanksgiving Right?
Have religious proclamations of thanksgiving, prayer, or fasting had any practical problems, or are all the objections just theory? In point of fact, problems began with the very first proclamation from George Washington. This is significant because opponents of church/state separation frequently point to George Washington's early proclamations as a basis for arguing both that religious proclamations are constitutional and that they justify greater breaches in the wall of separation.
According to James Madison, Washington issued his first proclamation at time when the nation was heavily divided on a number of contentious issues and that as a result, people interpreted that proclamation as a political act. This interpretation was predicted by Washington's own cabinet. On the original draft of the document, Secretary of State E. Randolph had written "In short this proclamation ought to savour as much as possible of religion, and not too much of having a political object," obviously concerned that a religious statement might be seen as a political ploy.
The Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, realized that there was no way to avoid the possibility of people seeing it that way and responded with the statement, "A proclamation of a Government which is a national act, naturally embraces objects which are political." Thus, whenever religious duties are assumed by political leaders, there is simply no way around giving the impression that religious acts have a political dimension.
Thomas Jefferson never issued any religious proclamations for prayer, thanksgiving, or fasting. Jefferson believed that no politician has any religious authority whatsoever over other citizens, which means they have no right to order, ask, or even recommend that people engage in any particular or general acts of religious worship, expression or observance. This is simply outside the president's purview, just as it is beyond the office of every other politician.
In a letter to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808, Thomas Jefferson made arguments against the legitimacy and constitutionality of religious proclamations that were very similar to those made by James Madison. In his letter to Miller, Jefferson was trying to explain why he had never issued religious proclamations:
Neither presidents nor any other politicians seem to have heeded his words. On February 17, 2002, Dennis Kucinich, United States Congressman from Cleveland, Ohio, gave a speech expressing opposition to some of the actions taken by the Bush administration both at home and abroad in dealing with international terrorism. The speech, interestingly enough, is framed as a prayer: throughout the text he repeates the liturgical formula "Let us pray..."
This was, without question, a political speech - there are constant references to specific government policies, programs, actions, and even amounts of money spent on military defense. Yet it is also deliberately framed in obvious religious terms, thus the Congressman was using religious language and religious expression in an effort to rally political support for political goals.
There is very little which would be a more inappropriate mixing of religion and politics, and this is a case where even devout religious believers should agree. This was not a situation where religious beliefs are infiltrating political decisions (the usual case when anti-separation activists are happy). Instead, it was one where religion was being prostituted for political gain — and that is usually what happens when politicians try to mix religion and politics.
If the president or any other politician were able to ask people to pray, that means the same politician can also ask or recommend people not to pray. Imagine the cries of rage, however, if someone actually did that! People would complain that this person has no right to recommend that religious people not pray and that it is, in fact, a sign of prejudice that such a request would be made.
But the exact same thing is true when a request for prayer is made. Consistent people must object to both.
George Washington's Religious Proclamations
According to James Madison, Washington issued his first proclamation at time when the nation was heavily divided on a number of contentious issues and that as a result, people interpreted that proclamation as a political act. This interpretation was predicted by Washington's own cabinet. On the original draft of the document, Secretary of State E. Randolph had written "In short this proclamation ought to savour as much as possible of religion, and not too much of having a political object," obviously concerned that a religious statement might be seen as a political ploy.
The Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, realized that there was no way to avoid the possibility of people seeing it that way and responded with the statement, "A proclamation of a Government which is a national act, naturally embraces objects which are political." Thus, whenever religious duties are assumed by political leaders, there is simply no way around giving the impression that religious acts have a political dimension.
Thomas Jefferson's Objections to Proclamations of Thanksgiving, Prayer, Fasting
Thomas Jefferson never issued any religious proclamations for prayer, thanksgiving, or fasting. Jefferson believed that no politician has any religious authority whatsoever over other citizens, which means they have no right to order, ask, or even recommend that people engage in any particular or general acts of religious worship, expression or observance. This is simply outside the president's purview, just as it is beyond the office of every other politician.
In a letter to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808, Thomas Jefferson made arguments against the legitimacy and constitutionality of religious proclamations that were very similar to those made by James Madison. In his letter to Miller, Jefferson was trying to explain why he had never issued religious proclamations:
Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. ...But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from....
I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline.
Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it. I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted.... Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.
Religious Proclamations Today
Neither presidents nor any other politicians seem to have heeded his words. On February 17, 2002, Dennis Kucinich, United States Congressman from Cleveland, Ohio, gave a speech expressing opposition to some of the actions taken by the Bush administration both at home and abroad in dealing with international terrorism. The speech, interestingly enough, is framed as a prayer: throughout the text he repeates the liturgical formula "Let us pray..."
This was, without question, a political speech - there are constant references to specific government policies, programs, actions, and even amounts of money spent on military defense. Yet it is also deliberately framed in obvious religious terms, thus the Congressman was using religious language and religious expression in an effort to rally political support for political goals.
There is very little which would be a more inappropriate mixing of religion and politics, and this is a case where even devout religious believers should agree. This was not a situation where religious beliefs are infiltrating political decisions (the usual case when anti-separation activists are happy). Instead, it was one where religion was being prostituted for political gain — and that is usually what happens when politicians try to mix religion and politics.
If the president or any other politician were able to ask people to pray, that means the same politician can also ask or recommend people not to pray. Imagine the cries of rage, however, if someone actually did that! People would complain that this person has no right to recommend that religious people not pray and that it is, in fact, a sign of prejudice that such a request would be made.
But the exact same thing is true when a request for prayer is made. Consistent people must object to both.
Source...