Prayer has many uses outside of just asking God for stuff.
No, it’s the utter stupidity of the RR corner that think prayer has any effect on solving problems, whether they’re national or personal in nature. And it’s the inherently marginalizing effect that a call to prayer has on those who find it a silly waste of time. I don’t give a fuck whether you pray or not. But to make it sound like an “action item” on the list of shit that needs to be done is nothing short of insulting. Less time campaigning and more time doing your fucking job. Or is that too much to ask?
That’s right. You can add it to leftover chicken for a delicious casserole! It’s also good for quick clean-ups around the house!
Now you’re just being an asshole.
You have an interesting definition of the word separate. Perhaps we can debate how your definition would win out over how most people would use that term. But let’s apply your definition to the issue at hand: Would the president be allowed to issue a “Day of Prayer…” proclamation? No. And that’s the fallacy of the OP. We don’t have separation of church and state, and while the proclamation does violate that principle, it’s nor relavant from any legal or constitutional standpoint.
I come to this message board for many reasons, mostly to do with wasting time, but secondarily (okay, quarternarily, at best) to learn about American culture and customs.
Now I understand that when the President calls for a national day of prayer and remembrance, it means that everyone has to pray and remember. No shilly-shallying around doing either one or the other, or even none, as the case may be. No, it’s 100% compliance or nothing.
In the light of this I fully understand how this is a gross violation of the rights of those who believe in no Deity, or a non-traditional Deity, or who are undecided, or whose religious practices (the freedom of which is guaranteed by the Constitution) do not include prayer or anything like it.
I do not grok in fullness, but waiting is. My ignorance has been fought today, brightly and with beauty.
No, it isn’t about forcing anything, but instead about endorsing a genre of religion above another genre of religion and/or endorsing a religion at all.
No, it isn’t. :rolleyes:
Do tell.
Look, Scott, El Presidente could have said: “We call for a national day of prayer and remembrance. But if you don’t pray, for whatever reason, then please feel free not to pray. If you have some other similar religious practice then please feel free to engage in it instead, if you consider it applicable. If you think the whole exercise is a waste of time you could put to better use, well, good for you. And if you have short-term memory issues, then I shan’t address you at this time, because you won’t remember anyway”. But it wouldn’t go down in the book of Pithy And Effective Sayings. Nor would it convey anything that anyone who isn’t professionally sensitive and self-important couldn’t have figured out for theyself. Hence the :rolleyes:
I think you are reading a strawman, rather then what has actually been posted. What he has said was
That is not a person forcing others to pray, but a request. I am not disputing that. However, what he **is ** doing is say “Hey, you know what is nice? Prayer.” and that is what I have a problem with. Sure, it may not sound like such a big deal to you, but it is still endorsing prayer/religions invoving prayer, which is a big no-no.
Get it?
Except it’s not a big no-no, because most presidents, including presidents who actually worked on writing the Constitution, like Washington and Madison, issued proclamations of National Days of Prayer. If the first amendment really prohibited doing that, you’d expect them to know it.
No, they know it and ignore it, kinda like Chaplins in Congress, the words “Under God” being added in the 50s and so on.
Well who the fuck are we to take the word of Washington and Madison over Scott Plaid??
Scott WINS over Washington and Madison in devestating blow to what they thought they knew.
Endorsing prayer/religions involving prayer is not a big no-no. Making a law with respect to **an ** establishment of religion is a no-no, but that’s not what’s going on here.
You don’t want to pray? Great; don’t pray. Nobody’s forcing you to, and nobody will look down on you for not doing so. I’m a Christian, but I’m not going to stop everything and pray just because some halfwit politician suggested it might be a good idea; if praying is a good thing, then I’m probably already doing it. This is no more or less significant than National Pork Sausage day.
One of the roles the President is supposed to play is to “set the tone” for the country - he’s our National Nanny-in-Chief, Cheerleader, Mourner and Celebrator, along with all the heavy lifting he’s supposed to be doing. Whether he intends praying or not, he knows (or his handlers do) that the majority of his constituents find value in it and consider it a social good, so he’s going to take some time from filling sandbags at the levees to make the suggestion.
I see a contradiction here. Oh, and I am not even going to touch the “he’s going to take some time from filling sandbags at the levees to make the suggestion.” line.
Oh, yes they will. You might not, and I appreciate that. But there are quite a few believers (of any religion) who look down on those of us with an absence of religion.
Scott: You are aware that the SCOTUS has ruled that actions such as you describe do NOT violate the establishment clause, right? Since the SCOTUS has said it’s OK, how can presidents be said to “ignore it”? Are you saying that they should consult you rather than the SCOTUS as to what is and what is not permissable?
Well, duh. Him and wikipedia.
Yeah, I know you’re right. And I knew it even as I typed that post. But I keep hoping that, if I suggest it enough, some folks will listen.
I still maintain, even as a member of a mainstream denomination, that the only thing wrong with Religion is The Religious.