Some people call it “nonestablishment” and some people call it “separation of church and state”. No matter. The way I understand it is, the US gubmint will not establish a state religion or compel anyone to belong to any specific government sanctioned religion. We’re all allowed to worship, or not worship, as we choose. That doesn’t mean our leaders can never make any symbolic gestures (which is what this Day of Prayer and Remembrance is). Nobody is being told which god to pray to, or what church to pray in. There are no god squads out there making sure we all pray. All in all, it’s a pretty harmless gesture. Sure there is freedom of religion, and also freedom from religion. That is what the founders intended. Asking people to pray is not the same as compelling or forcing them to. This is a tempest in a teapot. If anyone wants to get offended or angry, pick on something more important.
That’s dodging the issue. The issue is not what he intended, but what he thought the language meant. Given that he was able to read the text that way, it becomes hard to sustain the view that it’s some crazy act of activism to read it that way. After all, one of its cheif authors didn’t think it was a crazy extension of the text. It’s not proof of anything, but it certainly puts the shoe on the other foot when it comes time to decide what the text means.
Of course, Bricker is probably right on this: in practice, the text NOW means whatever judges have established it means, for good or ill, wrong or right. It’s only a debate in the abstract of discussing the particular philosophies one might use to interpret.
I don’t know: most of even the very religious founders seemed to understand, far better than many people seem to today, that barring the government from religious practice is the same as reserving it strictly for civil society. Every single thing the government does in an official capacity is an authority taken from the people.
Hey, feel free to give someone the atheist version of this greeting.
Which, I presume, would be…? “Nobody loves you, Johnny. Have a good day!”
Out of curiosity… What if it had been just declared and named “A National Day of Remembrance”. No word ‘prayer’ in it – just remembrance.
Would you also consider that to be slacking on the job?
I ask, because the main complaint that set this whole thing off seems to be the name given to it. Just wondering if your objection is only because of the name, or do you find the whole concept of declaring a symbolic “National Day Of (anything)” to be a waste of time?
Nah, I just skip the bullshit and say, “Have a nice day”.
I guess the theist version would be, “Your imaginary friend loves you.”
Heh - I was going to congratulate you on a funny joke (of course Bush doesn’t need Satan - he’s got Rove ), but then I realized you’re probably serious. If that’s the case - you’re wrong. He specifically mentions God (The capital ‘G’ God, no less) in the proclamation.
So it’s quite apparent he’s not talking about Satan. In fact, God’s name is invoked 3 times.
And please people, I offered this exclusively as evidence against the Duke’s assertion, so don’t take it all out of context and start saying, “Waaaah! Stop whining! You’re worked up! Stop being worked up, you worked-up person you.” 
And if you did mean that only as a joke, please disregard. I love Bush jokes.
Yes, I do…but doing in in the name of gawd tends to put a spin of “ultimate importance” on it…like you’re actually doing something out of necessity. We need to get the situation under control and then figure out “who” we’re remembering. They haven’t even collected all the bodies yet! We are still in the throes of an emergency. His concentration should be on the task at hand. Anyone who prays has already been doing it for two weeks.
Sophistical. What could Bush usefully accomplish in the time it takes to declare a national day of prayer and remembrance? Precious little. It is elementary to assume that you know this perfectly well, and are therefore advancing it as grounds only because you have already decided that he shouldn’t say “prayer” on the taxpayer’s nickel.
I doubt he said it off the top of his head. They had a meeting to decide how to make the people feel a little better about the colossal screw-up that came down. I don’t believe him to be what most people would term a “good christian”. I believe that he and his guys thought about how to divert attention from the shitstorm that was brewing, and what better way than to invoke an imaginary being to make things better? Certainly takes the heat off the usual suspects, doesn’t it? He could have been working toward something directly related to the relief effort during that time.
Actually, your ability to ascribe cynical motives to Bush does not demonstrate that you have accurately described his reasons for calling for a NDOP&R.
And would you kindly drop this “imaginary being” crap? No-one’s forcing you to believe in God, Og, Vishnu or anybody else, but your transparent contempt for any religious faith whatever smacks of disrespect for a whole lotta people whom you have yet to show, on independent grounds, to be deluded, ignorant, or stupid.
I, personally, as a typical reserved Brit, think that American politicians harp on the Almighty a sight too much, but not necessarily more on this occasion than any other.
No, I agree…he *could * be acting totally out of character and doing something for reasons other than political.
I don’t have contempt for people who believe in whatever they believe in on their own time. Hey…it’s a free country. I do, however, feel contempt for those that toss their belief into the political arena, as if it somehow makes them more “American” than a non-believer or use god as a political tool.
Then a little less referring to “imaginary beings” would help demonstrate your tolerance.
:: shrug :: I’d probably be equally ticked-off if Tony Blair did the same over here. But that’s mostly because I think that Blair is an odious little creep, not because the PM (can’t call him the Head of State; he isn’t) shouldn’t call for prayer and remembrance.
For me, it’s both.
Ah, someone who gets what I was going after. Good example, by the way.
I’ll admit it, that would get under my skin. However, there are no laws forbidding his/her saying this, AFAIK. So, he gets to say it.
Huh? It’s a great example, but what was my example, chopped liver?
Well at least you finally admitted it. See, I don’t think that makes you a whiner, or an uptight asshole, or a pussy, or any of the other derogatory names that get heaped on non-religious people who object to the reverse situation. It just makes you a person expressing his opinion.
Yeah, but if I start complaining about how the principal is wasting my tax dollars in giving this little speech and complaining about how it’s a violation of church and state (which it’s not), then I become a whiner.
But if you complain that it’s inappropriate (which it IS) is it a legitimate gripe?
Whether or not it’s inappropriate is a subjective call.
I remember reading in the New Testement that Christians should always be praying;I do not remember if it was Paul or Jesus, so why should one day be different than another.
Monavis
True so far as it goes, but by that logic, we should all be loving our neighbour as ourselves 24/7, so charity appeals should be redundant, as we should already be giving to the poor to the best of our ability. Poor fallible human beings that we are, we need the odd heads-up.