Thanksgiving Proclamations: Prayers and Fasting

Myths About the Separation of Church and State

• Church / State Separation • Church / State Myths • Ten Commandments • Sabbath Laws • Jehovah's Witnesses • Separation of Church & State

• Site Resources • Main Site Index • What is Atheism? • Religion & Theism • Skepticism & Logic • Arguments for / against Gods • Evolution vs. Creationism • Religious Timelines • Hate Mail • Glossary • Book Reviews

• Chat Room Join others in the Agnosticism/Atheism chat!

• Discussion Forum Do you have an opinion about this page? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!

Myth:
Presidents have given proclamations calling on days of thanksgiving, fasting and prayer.

Response:
It is true that presidents have, at various times, called upon the nation to observe days of thanksgiving, fasting and/or prayer. Is this an indication that these men did not believe in the separation of church and state and that the principle of separation is invalid? Or is it, rather, an indication that imperfect humans have thus far failed to completely implement such separation?

Opponents to church/state separation, when they point out the existence of such proclamations, imply that the former interpretation is necessarily true. They are so convinced of it, in fact, that they don't even really argue for the relationship - instead, they cite the fact of such proclomations and move right to their desired conclusion! Little or not time is spent with exploring the possibility of the latter.

First, we should consider the reasons why such procolomations are a bad idea, and how they are an example of why the separation of church and state is so vital. I'm afraid that I can't do better than James Madison, who offered the following critiques of the practice in his "Detached Memoranda":

Although recommendations only, [proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts] imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

The objections to them are

1. that Governments ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Government is a contradiction in terms.

2. The members of a Government as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate.

3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious [sic.] idea of a national religion. ...The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea. But reason and the principles of the Christian religion require that all the individuals composing a nation even of the same precise creed and wished to unite in a universal act of religion at the same time, the union ought to be effected through the intervention of their religious not of their political representatives. In a nation composed of various sects, some alienated widely from others, and where no agreement could take place through the former, the interposition of the latter is doubly wrong.

4. The tendency of the practice, to narrow the recommendation to the standard of the predominant sect. ...The practice if not strictly guarded naturally terminates in a conformity to the creed of the majority and a single sect, if amounting to a majority.

5. The last and not the least objection is the liability of the practice to a subserviency to political views; to the scandal of religion, as well as the increase of party animosities.

Madison's first objection is of a very general sort: governments should not "recommend" things to people, but should instead limit themselves to engaging in matters which they are empowered to actively enforce. This is an idea which would apply to a broad range of topics, not simply religious matters. In his second objection, however, he argues that even if governments could "recommend" things to citizens, it could not do so in religious matters because the government has no authority in religious matters.

This is a very important point, because whenever people complain that the government does not do enough in some area, they are necessarily implying that the government has responsibility and authority in that area. Thus, the claim that the government does not do enough to police a neighborhood implies, correctly, that the government has the responsibility and authority to police a neighborhood.

Similarly, any complaint that the government does not do enough to promote or encourage religious belief implies, incorrectly, that the government has the responsibility and authority to promote or encourage religious belief. A similar implication is made when a government official actually does promote or encourage religious belief.

Thomas Jefferson never issued religious proclamations, and this is the reason why. No politician has any religious authority whatsoever over other citizens. Because of that, she has 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 of his purview, just as it is beyond the office of every other politician.

The third objection is very similar to the "excessive entanglement" test used in deciding whether or not certain government actions violate the principle of separation. Madison is arguing that proclamations necessarily give the appearance of creating a national religious stance. The government is an awesome power, and as such, it should not step into areas where it has neither authority nor sanction.

Similar sentiments were expressed by David K. O'Rourke, a Roman Catholic priest asked to comment on the advisability of a town council issuing religious proclamations:

If this proclamation is inconsequential - another National Asparagus Week or Year of the Grandfather - none of us, I suspect, is going to care one way or the other. If it is intended as a serious action, and I gather it is, then I don't think that is the sort of thing that the council should be involved in. It is neither a good idea, nor a constitutional practice, for the government to tell people how to pray, the form of prayer to use, who to pray to, when to pray or even that they should pray. Our parishoners may call us to task on any of these areas, but for constitutional reasons the city council should not.

Madison's last two objections are familiar arguments regarding church/state separation. On the one hand, any government support of particular religious ideas has a tendency to move towards support of particular religious sects, to the exclusion and detriment of other religious groups. On the other hand, political involvement in religion tends to make religion subservient to political goals, to the detriment of genuine and honest religious devotion.

Thomas Jefferson made very much the same points when he wrote a letter to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808, explaining why he never issued such 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.

Have such proclamations had any practical problems, or is the above all just theory? In point of fact, problems began with the very first proclamation from George Washington. 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.

Unfortunately, Madison himself was not exempt from the temptation to use religious beliefs for political purposes, as he issued a number of such proclamations during his own presidency. At the time, he saw nothing wrong with it; but in his later years, he eventually came to regret his actions and inveighed heavily against future presidents from doing the same.

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 is, 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 is 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 is not a situation where religious beliefs are infiltrating political decisions (the usual case when anti-separation activists are happy). Instead, it is one where religion is being prostituted for political gain - and that is usually what happens when politicians try to mix religion and politics.

This is why proclamations of prayer, fasting and thanksgiving are wrong. First, politicians' political authority does not extent to spiritual matters, which means they do not have the right to call upon people to engage in religious observances. Second, politicians will invariably misuse such religious messages for their own partisan, political ends. The former is an abuse of government, and the latter is an abuse of religion.

On a final note, it is worth pointing out this: if the president or any other politician should be 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 will object to both.