Bush declared today a National day of Prayer and Remembrance. Remembrance sounds ok, but prayer? What about separation of Church and State? Seems like another attempt by Bush to ignore the basic laws and fundamentals of this country to push his own religious agenda.
There have been national tradegies in the past, pearl harbor, assinations, etc. Is this the first national day of prayer?
IANAL. Declaring, as Bush did, “by virtue of the authority vested in [him] by the Constitution and laws of the United States” may indeed constitute an unconstitutional establishment of religion. I don’t believe the Constitution empowers Bush to declare a national day of prayer. From a practical standpoint, the declaration is largely meaningless and from a legal standpoint, what possible remedy is there? A federal injunction against Bush to force him to retract the proclamation? An injunction against praying? Who in their right mind is going to pursue such a motion?
I don’t know whether other presidents have declared official days of prayer. The concept strikes me as unnecessary and divisive. Those who are going to pray will do so regardless of whether there’s a government sanctioned day for it, and those who aren’t going to pray will not suddenly be overcome with the urge because it’s been proclaimed.
Hell, I’m an atheist, and I don’t have a problem with it. Nobody is being forced to pray, nobody is being told whom they should pray to, nobody is being forced to go to a particular church, nobody is being forced to go to any church at all. I don’t see how it estabishes any religion at all.
Wow, I didn’t know there already was an NDP every May. I find this unconstitutional. I guess the catch is, nobody is required to pray, it’s just optional? Recommended?
Its like Mother’s Day…the cops don’t arrest you if Mom doesn’t get flowers.
I’m a pretty big SOCAS kind of person, but this seems appropriate. I just wish someone would have mentioned something other than God and the J-C-I traditions… Goddess, Gods, Temple, Coven, going to the bar and raising a glass in honor of the victims, anyting.
I’m not particularly religious but I find it sad that we’re nitpicking this declaration of a National Day of Prayer.
Send Good Thoughts… ya know? That’s what prayer really is. It’s keeping your thoughts with those who need them.
If nothing else, I would hope these tragedies have taught us a little about not squabbling over things of this nature.
I understand that everyone’s paranoid about the give them an inch theory, but thousands of people are still buried under the wreckage that used to be lowe Manhattan. Give them the respect of a Day of Honour and Rememberance.
As a spiritual pauper, I must say that I benefited personally from the day of prayer.
The Prez of the University decreed an hour for a gathering on the quad for prayer today, and it was over lunch time. Classes at that time were canceled, and employees were supposed to be released from work if they wanted.
While all the suckers were down praying for world peace or whatever, my depraved godless heathen friends and waltzed through the usually-crowded cafeteria and we served our limp steam-table food in a prompt and efficient manner, by areligious cafeteria workers, I guess. We returned our trays as the prayer vigil thingie let out, and as we left the cafeteria the queue was out the door.
You got yer God, but I got my macaroni and cheese. 
Thhhbbbbtt!
While I wouldn’t make a big issue out of this right now, in principle I would prefer that “National Days of Prayer” be proclaimed by the National Council of Churches, or an interfaith council of ministers and priests and rabbis and imams, or some other private group. The President would of course be as free as any other citizen to attend religious ceremonies on such a day, and no doubt the media would cover such attendance, as it covers anything else a president does, especially during a crisis like this one. That noted, while times of war and crisis are times when our liberties are likely to be in peril from within, and we ought therefore to be especially careful and vigilant at such times, I would also say that right now we have more important things to worry about.
Yeah, that’s some catch isn’t it?
Given that “[Congress] shall make no law. . .” and you know the rest, how exactly does a “proclamation” with no force of law, not even the force of an Executive or Administrative Order, not enforceable in any way, not violating the protections afforded by the 1st, 14th or any other Amendment, become, in your opinion, unconstitutional?
You may be offended by the Administration’s constant calling on God, but you have a constitutionally equal right to proclaim a National Day of Secular Discomfort About Recent Tragic Events – and it will carry just as much legal authority.
you know, I posted on this same subject in General questions, but since I posted in the wrong forum the thread was shut down.
I thought when you posted in the wrong forum the moderator moved it, then the discussion continued. 
Chris W
riserius: Under normal circumstances, you’re right, they probably would have just moved the thread, but it’s been a rough week. Best to just cut 'em some slack.
I noticed that as well.
In Canada, a “National Day of Mourning” was declared. A ceremony was held on Parliament Hill featuring the Prime Minister, Governor General, and American Ambassador. Clergy of a number of faiths were present, but none took an active part in the ceremony. The only ones who spoke were those mentioned above, and the master of ceremonies. Music was provided by the Canadian Forces and the honour guard was made up of police.
In contrast, were one to join the American ceremony at a certain time, one would be treated to the proclamations of one Billy Graham. The ceremony was held in a (the?) ‘national cathedral’.
It seemed to me in watching this, that the Canadians were unique in having realised that their society has more than a few non-christians in it. These, and perhaps some of the christians, might find it rude, or perhaps even offensive had the government stood behind a particular religion.
Since it would be both very difficult and quite time-consuming to cater to all faiths, the decision is made to cater to none. All faiths were invited, many were represented by their spiritual leaders (The canadian PM even addressed this point in his speech). None took a role that could have resulted in their being viewed as the ‘faith of choice’ for official affairs.
A nation calling itself democratic must belong to it’s citizens. Thus, if a nation belongs to citizens of more than one faith, it must not be in the role of it’s government to choose among those faiths. All must be treated on equal ground, that the citizens may feel and be equal.
Further, a nation which belongs to considerate or thoughtful people would be concerned for it’s visitors. The faiths of a nation’s guests must be respected, and if those guests are to feel at home, then their faiths must be accorded egality with that or those of the nation they visit.
To accomodate all this, while being sure no error or omission is made, is a monumental task. Great battalions of clergy would be needed at every official event. In some cases, a faith might be in such minority among the citizens of the nation that no clergy are available. This prevents the task at hand from being completed at all.
The above is not necessary if a state is not concerned with democracy, freedom of faith, or care of it’s visitors. This is not to imply incorrectness; it is the way of many states to be xenophobic, dictatorial, or unaccomodating. Many states in fact actively declare this as their position. Some go so far as to prohibit all but a single faith, or to make visiting a difficult prospect.
The problem that spawns the slogan of ‘separation of church and state’ is only of concern to states that claim to be open, free, and belonging to their citizens. The logical answer for such states is to leave spiritual matters to the spiritual leaders, and to let matters of a public nature be void of partisan spiritual overtones. Without question, these public ceremonies may be taken in a spiritual context by the individual, but never should the presumption be made that all present hold a given faith.
The United States, which claims to be a free, democratic, and undiscriminating society (and they may well be, that is a question for another time) fails to display such an attitude when it brings faith into it’s official business.
Americans have been asked in the past by their leaders to pray for one cause or another; for the victims of a particular disaster, for the soldiers of a particular war. The American government risks offending, or worse, excluding large numbers of it’s citizens. A government which does either of these, most especially the latter, should in a democratic society, expect to soon be deposed (by peaceful and lawful democratic means, of course) by it’s people. Two groups could be expected to respond: those who felt excluded, and those who realized that their own faith was being branded as ‘special’ or ‘official’ and that their neighbors were being actively forgotten.
The leader of so cosmopolitan a nation as are both the United States and Canada cannot, as in ancient times, portend to be the nation’s representative of God. It would prove either to be an exclusive or highly confusing statement. Since the leader is not God’s emissary, they are not in a position to do God’s work. Let the public religioucism be left to the priest and rabbis of the world. It is for this reason that, for example, eastern orthodox christians living in the U.S. have a separate President and Patriarch.
The modern leader must leave matters of faith alone, or enforce uniform faith on his people. A government which does neither of these has lost it’s logic.
I was not thrilled with Bush’s statements and proclamations either, but I fully expected them. Actually, I expected more. In a case like this, it’s unlikely anybody will complain.
Indeed, Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass (who defiles the memory of Mike Royko by using his old space in the paper) made a big deal of this in his column today. I was so angry that I could spit – on him. He was basically using the tragedy to degrade people who support SOCAS. I was, frankly, disgusted.
Curious:
You see, the whole idea, IMHO, behind calling it “prayer and remembrance” is so that you can participate without violating the Constitution. You see, prayer is one thing and remembrance is another. I’m quite sure even atheists remember their dearly departed. Doesn’t mean they’re praying about them.
Just going by memory here (I only did a perfunctory web search 'cause I’m kind of tired at the moment), but the way I understand it is the Washington National Cathedral isn’t the nation’s cathedral per se, but rather the national cathedral church of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. Not a governmental institution.
The National Cathedral is just a name. It’s no different than going to the First National Bank or something like that.
The Shrine of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception in D.C. on the grounds of Catholic U is referred to as the “Our National Shrine” (at least it was when I visited there).
That doesn’t mean it has any government sanction.
David B wrote:
Why, David, didn’t you know? The terrorist attacks happened because God was punishing America. It says so right here in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=87237
I sure wish that maybe just once, like on this particular occasion, when maybe there are more important things on America’s plate to worry about, the atheists could quit getting their panties in a bunch about “separation of church and state”.
I mean, really people…
[sub]it’s the thin end of the wedge, the thin end of the wedge[/sub]
:rolleyes:
Yes, DDG, I did say we have more important things to worry about right now. On the other hand, you have read what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have been spewing lately, right? And why the quotation marks around separation of church and state? Yes, even in times of war, some of us are still concerned about the “Bill of Rights” and the “Constitution”.
Yes, but the reason it’s probably in quotes is that the phrase doesn’t officially exist. Look it up, it’s nowhere to be found in either ** “Bill of Rights” and the “Constitution”. ** 
Chris W.