Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…
The fact that the president wastes time and money harping on it is disrespectful to his constituents. Even the ones that believe in his brand of religion. His job is to govern; not lead the nation in prayer. It should be offensive to anyone who pays taxes.
It’s not the same thing at all. For starters, a drag wedding doesn’t cost the taxpayers anything. It doesn’t have authority over anything or hold a leadership role for anyone. Come up with a legitimate reason for the president to proclaim a day of prayer in a secular nation.
How does Bush asking people to pray for the Katrina victims cost the taxpayers anything?
And what “establishment of religion” means is an issue for the courts. This action (a) isn’t Congress; (b) isn’t an establishment; © isn’t law; and (d) is strikingly simialr to issues that have been reviewed by the courts and found permissible.
So… can we see, “Establishment of religion?” BZZZZT! Sorry, that’s one strike. Two more and it gives your opponents, the Not-Insane Family, a chance to steal.
But it isn’t. Many people who pay taxes are NOT offended. In fact, they like it.
So… too bad. You think it should be offensive, but to many, it isn’t. So he will keep doing it. As did the previous President. As will the next. And the next. And the next.
So, you know how when we have a thread about Jack Chick or Fred Phelps, there’s always at least one poster who points out that not all Christians are like that? I hope y’all remember the same goes for atheists.
Just because you take offense, Kalhoun and Diogenes, doesn’t mean anything illegal has been done, or that you’ve been substantially harmed in any meaningful way.
Once again, not all bad things are unconstitutional.
Eve has already called Madalyn Murray O’Hair the Jack Chick of atheism. That would make Kalhoun its Fred Phelps, I suppose.
Diogenes could easily be its Pat Robertson.
Singling out the "congress’ part is disingenuous and you know it. The Courts have ruled consistently that the Establishment Clause applies to the entire government and includes any official endorsement of any particular religious belief. The government is not allowed to make an official declaration about whether gods exist or don’t exist. As I said before, declaring a “Day of Prayer” is arguably an official endorsement of theism Somehow, I think if the President were to declare an official “Day of Animal Sacrifice” some of the people defending the DOP might have a different reaction.
Anyway, my objection is not so much that it’s illegal (I could continue to argue that but I would be pissing against the wind) but that it’s in bad taste, that it’s redundant and that it’s functionally useless in actually helping hurricane victims.
- I’m not an atheist, I’m an agnostic.
- In what way, shape or form have I ever tried to infringe or hamper anyone else’s right to free practice of religion?
I’ve said this a million times on this board, but I’ll say it again. I am married to a practicing Catholic. My children have both been baptized in the Church. I participated in their ceremonies. My oldest daughter goes to a Catholic school and my wife takes her to mass every sunday. I am not remotely anti-Christian. I just don’t want the government telling which religious beliefs are legitimate and which ones aren’t.
Which the government is not doing in this case, as a matter of law.
Therefore, you do seem to be overreacting and playing loose with the facts, a condition not unknown to a certain TV preacher from Virginia Beach.
An official declaration for a Day of Prayer is equal to an official declaration that there is anything to pray to.
Dunno: Madison seemed to be very clear on what that vague language meant. If you can’t trust one of the founders to understand what their own words mean, then I question the sincerity of those who claim original meaning is a good guide to anything. It’s just as plausible that the test really does mean what Madison thought, and that activists basically established a new precedent afterwards (which seems more in line with the historical progression anyway). Not that I’m really in favor of one form of interpretation or another, but I do find the idea that Madison’s own interpretation could rightly be described as some insane activist attempt to add things to the BoR that aren’t there.
If you’re relying on the courts for a determination of who the Clause applies to, doesn’t it make sense to rely on them for what conduct it applies to?
- Bad taste: to you. Not to many others.
- Redundant: Agreed.
- Functionally useless: Not sure I agree. I think prayer is effacacious. But I can’t prove it. In any event, it makes people feel better, so it has some salubrious effect.
I disagree with you and Diogenes on point 2, for the simple reason that solitary prayer and prayer in a group or gathering are different things, undertaken for different purposes.
Praying with others helps to forge a sense of community and a shared purpose within that community. That is, I believe, the driving force behind these proclamations.
Meanwhile excluding those who don’t believe in prayer from the community.
Not at all. I don’t cede my place in my community be choosing not to participate in all of its ceremonies and events.
Moreover, the events of this day aren’t exclusionary. Someone might choose to participate in ways that mark remembrance without prayer.
I don’t question the sincerity of originalists, but I do question their wisdom. As I said before, to understand original intent, one must understand what ALL the legislstors’ intent was, not just the writer. If the writer meant “x”, but the other folks voting thought “y”, that doesn’t mean the piece of legislation meant “x”. That’s the point I was trying to make.
Which particular originalists are you talking about, btw? None of the members of the SCOTUS are originalists, and I don’t know of any posters to this board who are either. I suspect you are confusing texutualists with originalists. It’s a common mistake-- one that I’ve been guilty of making on more than one occasion.
Heh, I was waiting for that one. I saw your clever set-up and saw that, sadly, no one had been baited into responding to the point. I was about to post about how clever you were and how it was too bad no one had picked up on it, but then I saw Diog’s last post and decided to wait and see where you went with it. Bravo!