KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1543 CHAMPA ST. y SUITE 400 y THE ODD FELLOWS HALL y DENVER, CO 80202
303.571.1000 y FAX: 303.571.1001 y www.KLN-law.com
Darold W. Killmer
David A. Lane*†
Mari Newman*
Sara J. Rich
Qusair Mohamedbhai‡
Siddartha Rathoud
Lisa R. Sahli
February 2, 2011
Editorial Board
Colorado Springs Gazette

Re: Air Force Academy Prayer Luncheon

The Editor is indeed correct in citing Christine O’Donnell’s view that the words “separation of
church and state” appear nowhere in the First Amendment. Similarly, the words “privacy,”
“abortion,” and “handgun” never make an appearance either, however all are deemed by the
Supreme Court to be of Constitutional magnitude.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government may not, within the
bounds of the First Amendment, take a position regarding the propriety of one particular brand
of religion over another, or of religion over non-religion. See McCreary County v. American
Civil Liberties Union, a 2005 decision. “When the government associates one set of religious
beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the
individual’s decision about whether and how to worship.” The Court has also said that.
“Government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion” in a case known
as Grumet. The Supreme Court has further held that the “government may not promote or
affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization, may not discriminate among persons
on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices, may not delegate a governmental power to a
religious institution, and may not involve itself too deeply in such an institution’s
affairs.”(Epperson v. Arkansas). Lastly the Court has held that “Government in our democracy,
state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may
not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or
promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite.
The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and
between religion and nonreligion.”

When the command structure at the Air Force Academy sponsors, promotes, endorses and
organizes a religious event such as a prayer luncheon, the government has crossed the line
separating church from state. That is precisely what has occurred in this case. As such, it
matters not whether the keynote speaker is a Christian, Jew, Muslim or Buddhist. Our
government is not in the religion business unlike the governments of such countries as Saudi
Arabia, Iran and most other middle-eastern nations. Whether the luncheon is voluntary or not
*Also admitted to practice in California
†Also admitted to practice in New York
‡Also admitted to practice in Wyoming
Page (2)

and whether the event promotes many religions or simply one is irrelevant to the constitution.
History has repeatedly shown that religion can only flourish when freed from governmental
management and sponsorship. That applies to the Air Force Academy.

Sincerely,

David A. Lane