# National Day of PRAYER and Rememberance **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 8, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683 "2005-09-08T18:31:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/181 "2005-09-09T20:10:36Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > If the First Amendment said “Congress shall make no law violating the separation of church and state” instead of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, we would undoubtedly be having the exactly the same debates about presidential proclamations for national days of prayer and remembrance and so on. However, to say “we don’t have separation of church and state” is fatuous. Church and state are not “set or kept apart; disunited” in the sense that a library has a “separate” section for reference books? They do not “exist as independent entities”? They are not “dissimilar” and “distinct” from each other? I’d love to argue the larger question in another thread dedicated to that purpose, but not here. But there is no reasonable definition of “seperate” that would allow the Prez to invoke prayer. If we keep the reference books in a separate room, that means they don’t end up in the other room. Additionally, your construct of the “seperation clause” isn’t the way it would end up if it meant what poeple often think it means. It would be worder more like: “no arm of the government may comingle in any official way with a church, or any religious organization”. ---
**Author:** ![Cemetery\_Savior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@Cemetery\_Savior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cemetery_Savior)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/182 "2005-09-09T20:12:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So the religious 85% of us can pray, and the idiot atheists can remember that they don’t have to pray if they don’t want to. We’re up to 15%? I think we’re winning. And I think every Atheist out there can see the irony in a self-avowed religious type calling _us_ idiots. Moron. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/183 "2005-09-09T20:13:02Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > How so? I said that it endorses religions that involve prayer over those that don’t. Not an “establishment of religion”, but a endorsement. That rests on the fact I have shown there is a religion that does not include prayer. Where does the Constitution forbid “endorsement”? ---
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/184 "2005-09-09T20:13:17Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Oh, and if you disagree that endorsement of prayer isn’t a violation, why not give a reason, rather then an appeal to authority? Appeal to authority? Citing the precedents of the Supreme Court? They ARE the authority. You are the one who has set yourself up as an authority on the matter, trumping every argument ever made on the subject. Why don’t you trot out a list of your credentials to convince me you know more about separation of church and State than the SCOTUS? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/185 "2005-09-09T20:18:30Z")
> [@Duke of Rat](#): > > Why don’t you trot out a list of your credentials to convince me you know more about separation of church and State than the SCOTUS? Credentials, nothing. It is based on the fact that the law is a constantly evolving thing, and that a private citizen can point to a ruling and say: “This is not right.” However, that doesn’t mean you have to listen to me, save for the fact that you will hear my arguments when the laws get struck down. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/186 "2005-09-09T20:20:36Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Credentials, nothing. It is based on the fact that the law is a constantly evolving thing, and that a private citizen can point to a ruling and say: “This is not right.” > > However, that doesn’t mean you have to listen to me, save for the fact that you will hear my arguments when the laws get struck down. As my high school debate teacher was fond of reminding us constantly, a gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied. So: “Yes, this IS right.” ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/187 "2005-09-09T20:20:54Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > And as I have said, every single Supreme court ruling that violates the first amendment, violates the first amendment. Period. Care to show how they don’t? Warning: This could get ugly. Every apple that is red, is red. Every person with blond hair, has blond hair. Every elephant is, by definition, an elephant. Every X that is A, is A. Well, duh! ---
**Author:** ![Genghis\_Bob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/45deac/32.png) [@Genghis\_Bob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Genghis_Bob)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/188 "2005-09-09T20:22:23Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Credentials, nothing. It is based on the fact that the law is a constantly evolving thing, and that a private citizen can point to a ruling and say: “This is not right.” > > However, that doesn’t mean you have to listen to me, save for the fact that you will hear my arguments when the laws get struck down. We really need a smilie for jaw-dropping astonishment at another poster’s stupidity. I suppose :smack: will have to do. But if we did have such a smilie, we could call it a “Scotty” ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/189 "2005-09-09T20:32:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Where does the Constitution forbid “endorsement”? Endorsing a religion is too close to a state establishing a religon for comfort. “A fence around the torah” to use the anti-loophole phrase of my childhood. ---
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/190 "2005-09-09T20:33:24Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Credentials, nothing. It is based on the fact that the law is a constantly evolving thing, and that a private citizen can point to a ruling and say: “This is not right.” > > However, that doesn’t mean you have to listen to me, save for the fact that you will hear my arguments when the laws get struck down. There may well be a time when the SCOTUS decides that the President may not utter the words “God” or “prayer” (and I’m not religious, it doesn’t make me a hoot one way or another) while in office, or outlaws National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. If and when that day comes, I’ll consider it to be so. But you saying it is so today, just by talking out your ass, ain’t convincing me. And I’m still waiting on your answer to this, given your position on judicial activism. > [@Shodan](#): > > Put it this way - would you agree that the Supreme Court making things up that are not in the Constitution - like “National Days of Prayer and Remembrance is OK” - is an example of judicial activism, and ought to be condemned? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/191 "2005-09-09T20:40:47Z")
> [@Duke of Rat](#): > > And I’m still waiting on your answer to this, given your position on judicial activism. Keep your pants on. Typing takes time. I suppose one could call it a case of judicial activism, though I would more lean towards calling it by the very ackward phrase of “Damn Christians Presidents want everyone to worship their god-ism”. 🙂 However, my position is not that there is no such thing but that 99% percent of the time it is being used to put down things that are most definitely NOT judicial activism. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/192 "2005-09-09T20:41:45Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Endorsing a religion is too close to a state establishing a religon for comfort. “A fence around the torah” to use the anti-loophole phrase of my childhood. But wait. Who decides if the “fence around the Torah” is better than just using the words? Who decides how tall and dense that fence is? The Supreme Court? Well, they have… and their decision doesn’t agree with yours. And in any event, the Constitution forbids CONGRESS from these actions. I guess you’re for extending the fence to include the President? All these decisions… made by who? You? Or the Supreme Court? See, Scott… you’re stuck. There is rationale for some of what you’re saying in Supreme Court caselaw. But since you’ve rejected that as a source of authority… you’re stuck with nothing but the raw words of text, and they don’t support you either. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/193 "2005-09-09T20:45:25Z")
Say what? I have said that all recent cases that disagagree with me do so because they conflict with the first ammendment/earlier drafts/intent/the writtings of the guy who wrote the whole thing and the fact that the signer KNEW ful well what he wrote. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t say they were correct on other issues. I don’t have to throw aout the baby with the bathwater. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/194 "2005-09-09T20:54:45Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Say what? I have said that all recent cases that disagagree with me do so because they conflict with the first ammendment/earlier drafts/intent/the writtings of the guy who wrote the whole thing and the fact that the signer KNEW ful well what he wrote. > > However, that doesn’t mean I can’t say they were correct on other issues. I don’t have to throw aout the baby with the bathwater. That approach leaves you as the only authoritive source on the meaning of the Constitution: when you agree with the Supremes, they’re right; when you don’t, they’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/195 "2005-09-09T20:57:03Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Say what? I have said that all recent cases that disagagree with me do so because they conflict with the first ammendment/earlier drafts/intent/the writtings of the guy who wrote the whole thing and the fact that the signer KNEW ful well what he wrote. Oh - which guy are you talking about, by the way? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/196 "2005-09-09T20:58:58Z")
More like “When [The Supremes](http://www.history-of-rock.com/supremes.htm) restrict a women’s right to choose, allow for a public show of Christianity, or do something else nasty, they are wrong, due to the fact that the ideals of freedom are integrated into the foundation of the country.” True, a tortured reading of the legal process can lead to restricting freedoms, but the foundation does not support that fact. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/197 "2005-09-09T21:03:16Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > More like “When [The Supremes](http://www.history-of-rock.com/supremes.htm) restrict a women’s right to choose, allow for a public show of Christianity, or do something else nasty, they are wrong, due to the fact that the ideals of freedom are integrated into the foundation of the country.” True, a tortured reading of the legal process can lead to restricting freedoms, but the foundation does not support that fact. Is your belief in your rightness falsifiable? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/198 "2005-09-09T21:06:07Z")
What makes you ask that? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/199 "2005-09-09T21:17:56Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > I don’t get this particular semantic quibble (which I’ve seen many times before). So, the language of the First Amendment doesn’t say “separation of church and state”, it says “establishment of religion”. So what? If anything, “no establishment of religion” seems _more_ restrictive of government involvement in religious matters than “separation of church and state”. After all, _no_ one, not even the Christian Reconstructionists, wants to simply merge the church and the state into a single institution. No one is advocating that the Baptism and Christening Division of the National Sacraments Administration of the U.S. Department of Religious Affairs be in charge of sprinkling babies or dunking teenagers (as the case may be). I can easily imagine a case where church and state are “separate” institutions, with parallel civil and ecclesiastical governments, perhaps even multiple denominations, but Christianity is nonetheless “established” as the official religion of the government. In fact, this is exactly what the hard-core true blue theocratic fringe in this country professes to want–church and state institutionally “separate” (though cooperating), with an “establishment” of Christianity and “Biblical law”, including state prosecution of religious crimes. Hell, even the Holy Inquisition practiced “separation of church and state” to that extent–after the Church found you guilty of heresy, they didn’t execute you, because executing people is a power which belongs to the state–so they handed you over to the civil authorities and _they_ executed you. > > If the First Amendment read “Congress shall make no law violating the separation of church and state”, I think you’d have the Religious Right fulminating about how “sure it says ‘separation of church and state’, but there’s nothing in the Constitution against an _establishment of religion_”, and Barry Lynn would be the head of Americans United for Religious Disestablishment, and the actual substance of the debate over the proper relationship of government and religion wouldn’t be a whit different. Now, I see there are a few screed I have not answered, but I need to actually get some work done, so I will come back later. For now, however, I feel the need to post this so that people can not just start out in this thread without having seen this. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683/200 "2005-09-09T21:21:26Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Is your belief in your rightness falsifiable? > > What makes you ask that? Bwa-hah-hah-ha…ha…ah _hic_ - gasp\* Bwa-hah-hah-ha… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-day-of-prayer-and-rememberance/320683.md?page=11)