How do those of the strict-SOCAS persuasion feel about Thanksgiving? (A government mandated day of …er…thanks giving). To whom do you give thanks? Or should you refuse to take the day off, on principle? 
Funny thing is, T’giving was one of the few holidays my nonreligious family celebrated. We all got together for a big dinner and socialized; religion never entered into it.
You give thanks to each other…for getting you through the horrendous winter, or in modern times, giving thanks to your family members or friends. Why must it be a diety receiving the thanks?
My family is agnostic, but we celebrated Christmas and Easter just as days to get stuff and be together. We kids weren’t baptized, we never attended church (except with my little Christian and Jewish pals when I was doing a sleepover or something).
—I want everyone who thinks of separation of church and state as either an actual line in our Constitution (unfortunately there seem to be many) or a missing and necessary link, to consider a few things:—
It’s not like the people that drafted the Constitution burned their notes and records of their discussion. We don’t have to hold interperative seances over what the First Amendment means to the degree we want to know what was being discussed, and what the compromises were. You can go look. Look at how those pushing for religious symbols, prayers, and so on were rebuffed, defeated, and fumed about it ever since (until they finally somehow convinced people that this was just an oversight on the part of the founders, not a determined decision against it)
The theoretical framework WAS sep of church and state: the idea that the civil government was composed of an authority explicitly derived from the people, and that, as per the reasoning of Locke and others, religious authority could not legitimately be transferred from a people to a governmental power. The founders also believed that government corrupts religion and vice versa: that separation would allow religion to flourish. And they were right.
Why not George Washington, first President?
You mean the one who rebuffed people who wanted to link government to religion by telling them that the plain path of piety was so plain that government encouragement was unecessary?
Or maybe, the relevant party, Madison, who was actually a member of the group that debated the First Amemdment? Madison who thought that chaplains were unconstitutional? Madison who didn’t even think that tax freedom for church lands was a good idea?
Jack:
—I’m not crazy about all this, but our government has, on the whole, been remarkably good about not cramming religion down our throats. And that’s something comparatively few governments around the world can say on a historical basis.—
This reasoning seems to be getting disturbingly more popular : we’ve been really good with international law, so that means a few freebies are okay. I’m gonna try that one if I ever get arrested for burglary someone “but I’ve been so good about not doing it before! Don’t I get one free burgle every so often!?”
I’m glad to hear that non-theists are enjoying the holidays. My feeble attempt at an analogy was lost, however: I don’t see a presidential proclamation of a NDP as any different from a presidential proclamation of a National Day of Thanks Giving–and we’ve long since lost the will to get our knickers twisted over Turkey Day.
I don’t want Heather crammed down my throat.
(On preview: With a little revision of the above sentence…maybe I wouldn’t mind it so much ;))
The quote of mine you cite was partly a response to the smug “Only in America” post. And partly my recognition that a national day of prayer (which I don’t view as terribly more significant than other days of recognition which politicians grant to various groups and causes) as well as Congressional chaplains and statements on currency are a) reflections of the role religion plays in many peoples’ lives, and b) something that has no practical coercive effect on me and others for whom organized religion has nothing to offer.
I cited a couple of examples of government drifting into support of religion which do disturb me and which I actively oppose.
“International Law” is an entirely different affair, and it’s one enormous leap if you’re trying to take my statement and graft it on to a wholly different subject. I suggest you make whatever case you want to make in an appropriate thread, and leave me the hell out of your exposition.
You don’t? Giving thanks does not necessitate the involvement of a deity. Prayer does.
Pash
I’m surprised this thread has made this to page 3 without anyone pointing this out. By publicly proclaiming a day of prayer and fasting, our Congress critters are directly violating instructions given by Christ. To wit, Matthew 6:5-6:
This is about 2 verses before He gives us the Lord’s Prayer.
I must say, I’m not terribly surprised by Congress. As for me, when and how I pray is between me and God, and politicians will kindly keep their collective noses out of it!
CJ
Does this mean I have to give up my Freedom Toast for one day?
The only poster we have to fear asked, “Does this mean I have to give up my Freedom Toast for one day?”
No. It’s for the individual to decide what to do at a time of fasting, which need not be, though it traditionally is, giving up something one likes. Many people tie the act of self-denial to a charitable one, by calculating how much the thing they’re giving up for the day, for Lent, etc., would have cost and donating that amount to the charity of their choice, over and above their normal gift if any.
W/R/T SOCAS and the “wall of separation,” I think Na Sultainne has a point, though I’m not in strict agreement. There is no constitutional prohibition against government support of a given activity by a religious group (although I have serious qualms about the wisdom of much of the G.W. Bush Administration “faith based initiatives” program, for reasons it would be a hijack to get into). Such support, though, would be to a program in which legitimate governmental objectives and legitimate religious-group objectives overlap, as for example an interchurch mission’s GED tutoring program (an example in which I was directly involved, and which was largely supported, with no ACLU protests or anything of the sort, by government grants during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations).
What is barred is defined quite clearly in the First Amendment, and extended by the Fourteenth to cover the states: Congress (and by extension other arms of the government which depend on it for funding and legislative authorization to act) may not interfere with the free exercise of religion, and Congress may not perform an act that constitutes “an establishment of religion.” As construed by SCOTUS, that means any act that mandates or coerces anyone to perform a particular religious practice.
It’s my moral duty as a Christian and as an American citizen to carry out the directives of my government, save when I believe them to be violative of Constitutionally guaranteed rights and am prepared to suffer the consequences if I cannot get a court to agree with me that they are. I feel a strong sense of propriety in doing what my government recommends as the appropriate thing to do, subject again to the same caveat. But while I cannot speak for a loyal atheist or agnostic, I feel that it’s likely he will feel the same sort of moral duty and propriety – and that the government, in its official capacity, should be solicitous of his stance on religion and not place a recommendation that would be offensive to him. If President Bush, 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, and the entire Cabinet wish to jointly sign a recommendation that the country join in a national day of observance as defined in the OP – heck, if they want to cast it in Christian terms, excluding the Jews among them from being requested to sign – there would be nothing wrong with them doing so. But when they act in their official capacities, they are then functioning as a government bound by the Constitution, and should not be making recommendations about whether and how and for what we pray.
—“International Law” is an entirely different affair, and it’s one enormous leap if you’re trying to take my statement and graft it on to a wholly different subject.—
I’m not, and I suspect you know it. I even used an alternative example from a wholly different realm. The point is that just because we can pat someone on the back for being a good boy in general doesn’t mean that we should overlook a few freebies. I don’t think a national day of prayer is particularly harmful either: but it is, as Polycarp notes, kind of rude. That in itself deserves comment and opposition whether its constitutional or not. And it certainly violates the spirit of the idea that people don’t NEED the government to order them around to pray: even as a group. We never ceded that power: so why is Congress acting like they have more religious authority than cashier at the Quik-e-Mart?
You’re certainly entitled to celebrate Thanksgiving any way you choose, but there’s definitely a deity involved in the definition of what is celebrated on the 4th Thursday in November. Check out last year’s presidential proclamation in which God is mentioned twice, and the president encourages Americans to pray.
I’m not saying this is good, bad, right or wrong–just that a NDP isn’t different from Thanksgiving every year.
First, thanks, Polycarp for thinking of me. You’re falling victim to my nefarious plot; to remind people that talking about religion does not mean automatically talking about Christianity. 
I agree with this totally! 'Twere it up to me, I’d rewrite the Act so it read more along the lines of asking employers to allow time off for people to engage in whatever acts of prayer and fasting they would like for those so inclined to take such actions.
Your suspicions are unfounded.**
I indicated my opposition, also that a NDP and similar low-level manifestations of government recognition of religion had been around for many years - not something great, but also not the stuff of which to do a Chicken Little dance over.
Opponents need to think about priorities and picking their battles wisely.
Battles? Who’s battling? I’m just rolling my eyes and thinking, “I wish those lunatics would keep their religious manias to them-bloody-selves.”
O.K., here’s my official smiley-take on the entire situation. 
+ :rolleyes: = 
—Opponents need to think about priorities and picking their battles wisely.—
Geez, you’re right: the SDMB is almost out of disk space! We need to conserve it from really important GD threads like “wow, get a load of that military lady’s crazy outfit!”