August 19, 2017

Humanists Respond to National Day of Prayer Case Setback

slideObama

(April 15, 2011, Washington, DC) Leadership at the American Humanist Association expressed  anger today over the decision by a federal appeals court to overturn last year’s ruling which declared the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. 7th Court of Appeals Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook overturned the ruling, saying that the plaintiff, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, lacked standing to bring the suit. “This ruling threatens the foundation of church and state separation which this country thrives on,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “A government institution, let alone the President of the United States, has no business…

Read More

National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional

news

Washington, DC, April 16, 2010 The American Humanist Association praised yesterday’s ruling by a federal judge that the National Day of Prayer is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state. U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb wrote of the 1952 statute creating the National Day of Prayer that its “sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function.” “This ruling is a victory for religious freedom and separation of church and state in this country,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association….

Read More

Humanists Decry Dismissal of Inaugural Prayer Case

news

(Washington, DC, May 7, 2010) The American Humanist Association expressed disappointment today that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed dismissal of a case challenging the infusion of religion into presidential inaugural ceremonies. A three-judge panel of the court unanimously held that the challenge to the 2009 presidential inaugural was moot because Newdow and the other plaintiffs did not appeal the District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and that the court did not have the power to redress the claims for future inaugural ceremonies because it did not know who the defendants would be….

Read More