Skogcat! 
I almost simulposted you!
The title of this thread is deliberately ironic, right?
I’d be interested to see the effect on the economy if everyone took up this suggestion. Imagine every restaurant, grocery store, and Quicky-Mart in the country doing no food-related business. Gosh – there’d be a group of people mighty happy with our legislators.
Fasting is an interesting concept anyways. I assume it’s supposed to concentrate oneself on the purely spiritual while mortifying the flesh. But my guess is that most people would spend the last few hours of this spiritual odyssey thinking primarily “Gosh, I’m hungry and I have a headache.” It’d make more sense to confine oneself to rice cakes and water. It’s not exactly indulging in pleasures of the flesh.
As for spending a day praying (or let’s be charitable and assume that some of us are allowed to just contemplate). All I can think of is the old joke that ends “Because you’re all the time nudging me!”. It’s not like everyone in the country isn’t focused on our country’s multiple problems right now, and those who are inclined to do so are already generating prayers at maximum speed.
But you know, what I would support is a national day of respect for the fallen, both ours and theirs, once this situation has resolved itself, if only to demonstrate that we take no real satisfaction in bloodletting, however necessary it may or may not be.
Finagle, don’t be silly…you wouldn’t want to include EVERYONE in an expression of support! IT WOULDN’T BE AMERICAN!
True. But the proposed resolution doesn’t have the force of law. There are no penalities for violation of it. It doesn’t compel any action.
For this reason, your cite of Lemon is inapposite.
- Rick
The fact that it doesn’t compel any action doesn’t excuse our lawmakers from the fact that they’ve created a hostile atmosphere.
Whether it has legal weight or not, it’s still inappropriate for the government to use the legislative process as a means either to solicit prayer or to offer a tacit endorsement of theism.
Whoa now. Take it easy. We’re all grownups here. No one is intimidating anyone to do anything here. Its more of an official political statement than a law. If it goes past what it is now, it can be taken up with the supreme court for review. As it stands its harmless political grandstanding. Like I said, politicians do it all the time. They are alloted a certain amount of time and space to say anything they want for the record.
Maybe it’s harmless to you, but it is picking away at EVERYONE’s religious freedom…little by little…and it is harmful to me. I don’t like the connotation of “less than American” that accompanies it.
The “hostile atmosphere” language is familiar - when analyzing sexual harrassment cases. I’m unaware of any legal basis for its use in SOCAS cases. What constitutes a “hostile atmosphere,” anyway? Suppose I say that no, it doesn’t create a hostile atmosphere. How shall we prove our respective positions?
You say it’s inappropriate. But the House and Senate both employ chaplains, and prayers are offered each day to begin their sessions. So using that accepted practice as an analogy, it would seem completely appropriate.
- Rick
I don’t like the use of chaplins either. Precedent and tradition do not equate to legality. We used to teach the Bible in public schools, that didn’t make it right.
What Diogenes said. And as far as a hostile atmosphere, it doesn’t have to be related to sexual harrassment. Sexual harrassers don’t consider their actions to be hostile, either. So what? Hate crime committers don’t consider their actions to be shameful, but so what?
It’s hostile in that it is deliberately exclusive of those who don’t worship a diety (particularly christianity). It removes us from active participation with our government. And it has no business being in government. Y’all have your Sunday clubhouses if you want to conjur up some spirits.
Last week I heard a preacher on TV say that if your not for the war on Iraq you’re a bad Christian and American. If they unfortunately pass this day and an Athiest like me doesn’t pray they won’t force me to pray but they will call me a bad American. Also next time you write Athiest have a little respect and use a capital A. I just find it disrespectful if you capitalize Christian, Muslim and Jewish and then write Athiest with lowercase letters.
Deliberately exclusive??? If your an atheist, why would you want to join in on prayer. Heck, I’m catholic, I dont want to join in on that. How is this deliberatley excluding you?
If they asked for a swim fest day, is that deliberatly excluding non-swimmers and aquaphobics? So we should just let the kids saty at home and vegitate.
If they asked for a BBQ to feed the homeless, would that deliberately excluding the vegetarians? so lets not feed the homeless.
If we asked for a parade to honor the veterans, would that be deliberately excluding all the peace-at-all-cost activists and anarchist? Lets have none of that then.
Gay rights parades excludes straights and celebacy advocates.
Black Pride day excludes all other colors.
Heck, the way we tell the year is exclusive to the christian beleief of Christ. Anno Domini. The Year of our Lord. Even if you convolute that to be the Common era, why is it common in all religions to mark the life of christ even if you dont mention him?
The fact is, ANY action that the goverment does excludes someone. There is no law, no statement, no ruling no official act that does not exclude one party, group, affiliation, belief or culture. You cant please everyone all the time at the same time.
Really? I don’t feel that way at all. It’s not a religion, nor is it even a belief system. It simply means someone who lacks theism. Why should it be capitalized?
Oh, we’re talking right and wrong now?
Sorry - I could have sworn you were asserting this was unconstitutional. My mistake.
I express no opinion on the rightness or wrongness of the resolution.
But it’s clearly constitutional.
I also express no opinion on it being hostile, but for the purposes of this discussion only, I’ll concede it’s hostile.
But it’s perfectly constitutional.
The constitution does not forbid all things wrong nor permit all things right. It doesn’t guarantee that you’re not offended, marginalized, or subjected to hostility.
- Rick
Believe me, if I wanted to pray, I’d be at my church prayin’ my brains out. Certainly not on the senate floor! Like I said before, “It removes us from active participation with our government.” It is blatant intimidation! The U.S. government should not be sanctioning religious activities. It inherently creates an “us vs. them” situation, which shouldn’t exist in this country.
None of the examples you posted above are religious activities. We’re talking about the separation of church and state…not swimmers and state. We’re not talking about pleasing all of the people all of the time. I’m sure you know that.
By the way, why do you feel the need to pray in government when you already have churches and your home and practically anywhere else to do it?
You feel that the U.S. Supreme Court has misinterpreted Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, wherein he said that the Establishment and Free-Exercise clauses of the First Amendment “created a wall of separation between church and state”?
Don’t tell me you’re one of those Christian-nation wackos that seriously believes Jefferson intended for the wall of separation to be a “one-way wall”!
Skogcat, I appreciate the humor in your “Sunday” remark – but I’m afraid that the idea of using the Christian holy day would not sit well with Orthodox Jews and Moslems; I wouldn’t even venture to guess what Neopagans, Hindus, and Sikhs (all of whom have congregations near here and with whom I’ve joined in interfaith services) would have to say about it. I made an explicit point of suggesting something not delimited to Christians in the comment about “there ought to be one, but there’s nobody with the role of declaring it” that occasioned your remark.
[hijack, following up on earlier comments]
Eve (and a few others with similar points of view), what is your take on people getting together to pray, as opposed to government requirement or encouragement to do so? My impression was that most atheists held the same POV as gobear – “you believers are welcome to do your thing; just don’t try to get me to join you,” or something quite similar. But I’ve noticed some negativity from some folks on the subject, and I’d like to know more about people’s views on it.[/hijack]
As for me, GWB, Ashcroft and the rest of the Cabinet, and the members of the Congress are quite welcome to pray, to encourage others to pray, and to write liturgies if it floats their boat. What they are not empowered to do is to officially use their jobs to promote our religion. I think there’s a very clear line to be drawn there. I may spend my own money as I please; I am not free to do likewise with money in a fund of which I am trustee. I think Mr. Bush, specifically distancing himself from the “bully pulpit” and stating that he speaks as an American who has been chosen as a national leader, calling for all believing Americans and all American places of worship to join in a common prayer along the lines in the OP, would be quite appropriate. For him to issue a Presidential Declaration of a Day of Prayer would not – for exactly the same reasons. Like all other Americans, he possesses the rights to freedom of religion and of speech; like all other Americans, separately or together, he is not free to decree what others are expected to say or to believe.
Active participation in an event that offers no tangible reward, has no binding action, is not enforceable, probably temporary and is neither widely accepted or well known?
If things like this intimidate you, then I suggest you dont look too deeply as to how they are going to “pork up” the emergency spending bill meant to finance the war.
but let me freak you aout a bit 
think about this: The president “estimates” that the war is going to cost about 75 Billion dollars. Congress, in its infinite wisdom said, “the tax cut thing is foolish with this much expenditure…we’ll cut it in half”
What Bush asked = 75 Billion
What Congress took = 350 Billion
must be this new math I hear so much about…