Then we’re in perfect agreement on this.
You know, Monty, I wish I could shake it off. I said as much in my last paragraph. Rationally, I agree with you completely. But my stomach still ties itself up whenever I think about it, and I still wish people were more aware of their implicit assumptions. And saying that nobody is forcing me to participate is, frankly, irrelevant. I never claimed anyone was, just that everyone assumed everyone would. I’m sick of these assumptions, literally.
Scylla said:
I’m getting out my calendar now to mark down this date!
But, it’s your “stomach’s” assumption that it’s irrelevant and that everyone’s assuming everyone else would worship. I think I’ve proved that assumption to be invalid (as most assumptions are).
And as soon as we can all get back to the normal give and take (thrash the opposition) of the SDMB, I really would love for a one-on-one debate with DB concerning the supposed constitutional violation.
But that’s just me.
This all would be a lot less bothersome to me if the former POTUS, father of the present POTUS, had not declared that atheists were not Americans, and if the present POTUS did not believe that Jews were going to Hell (his good buddy Billy did tell him that it’s maybe presumptuous to speak for God {although Billy did tend to agree with Junior}).
This is to say, of course, that any religious proclamation by such a POTUS takes on a far greater weight than a similar proclamation by a president who is not so exclusionary.
Tonight was the first concert of the St. Petersburg Philharmonic season, and coincidentally the program was the Verdi Requiem, which was performed with a power that I found overwhelming. I sat in the hall and wept openly. Even though I have no religion, this piece performed by these Russian forces moved me deeply. This is a city where many people still remember the horrors of the siege in WW2, and the sympathy and concern of all the people that I deal with has touched me deeply. It’s more than I would expect from this place not far from my old hometown: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/15/national/15INDI.html- though the article does say that their attitudes are changing, which is more than I can say for the POTUS, who referred to New York City as “your part of the world:” http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/bush.terrorism/
Thanks, George. JDM
Oh, so we should go by what we believe about people instead of people’s actions? Got it. Thanks. How enlightened.
JDM: Feel free to respond in the Pit, if you like.
It seems strange to me when I try to reconcile the American character that I see on CNN with some of the comments and concerns expressed here.
As a Canadian, I was thrilled to see 100,000 people come out in support of of our neighbours in their time of sorrow and need. Surely it is the American burden to sacrifice their lives in support of a free and democratic world like no other nation is capable of doing. During my lifetime I have observed an endless criticism from throughout the world and within America of the policies of its government and the institutions of its society.Many changes in American life have occurred during this time , mostly positive and beneficial to all peoples. In light of this history it is good to hear the outpouring of friendship and support that America is getting.
I am stirred by the feelings of Americans as expressed on TV. I am watching many Americans who have never given any thought to prayer, invoking the name of the Lord in entreaty and thanksgiving. America does turn to God when in crisis like no other nation except perhaps Britain. It was no surprise that the memorial services of both nations centred on God.
No one can dismiss the role that Christianity has played in the recent history of man through Britain and then America. At the height of British empire, the seeds of the elimination of slavery were sewn. Several decades later the torch was passed to Americans and major blood was spilt in ridding a country of this scourge from a country who benefitted most from this practice. This was followed by women’s suffrage. These two events alone were a major departure from historical civilized practice. Then the war against fascism in the forties, and by the 50’s and 60’s of the twentieth century we see civil rights championed by the clergy. Everything, good and bad that America is today has its roots in the Christian tradition.
So now the leadership of America must unite the country for a long prolonged battle against terrorism. Certainly the flag and its display is the visual symbol of unity that the country needs at this time to comfort those who might otherwise feel alone and those who wish to reach out and share, but doesn’t really help to sort out the feelings and take us from denial, through bereavement and finally on to sacrificial action of most likely prolonged duration.
I was really touched by the display of unity, the one nation under God feeling, encompassing all religions and atheism which was clearly evident by those who did not pray or did not sing. Yet everyone stood together to support a president looking for moral guidance and a way to rally a nation.
You Americans are so blessed but so awesomely burdened. The rest of the world looks to you as a people to take up the challenge and rid the world of this scourge. May God bless America.
PS I utterly renounce the divisive statements of Falwell and Robertson. Religious fanaticism and intolerance of all stripes is a cancer on humanity.
grienspace:
Did you miss the bit above where not everyone in America beleives in a god?
What you call a burden on our society, I call a wonderful diversity.
What’s also wonderful in that diversity is that we can continue to discuss “the big questions” while we’re going about something else.
Of course not. Did you miss the bit I expressed about those who did not pray or sing, yet were included? As several atheists have already expressed, I fail to see anything here for an atheist to feel slighted about. Even in Christianity itself, there is much in the ceremony in Washington that could be questioned, if one were to put a fine point on every statement and aspect of the ceremony. It is a time to seek out what binds us, not what separates us.
I’m afraid you’ve completely missed my point. There is great strength in diversity. The burden I refer to is being both a target as well as the instrument by which the world can get rid of this scourge.
DavidB will perhaps forgive me if I once again raise to those who argue that the proclamation violated the First Amendment the question as to how, under the law of the Constitution as it exists, not as one might wish it to be, such a proclamation is unconstitutional. Feel free to make direct reference to pertinent Supreme Court cases in your answers.
After doing so, you will hopefully, once and for ever, learn to stop using that dreadfully misleading, and totally inapplicable phrase, “Separation of Church and State.”
grienspace wrote:
Really? That’s funny, I don’t remember the New Testament talking about Representative Democracy or Bicameral Legislatures.
Well the New Testament doesn’t refer to civil rights, the rule of law in government, or personal liberties. These ideas evolved in the modern world in Christian societies. Before I get jumped on, I recognize that many of the founding fathers weren’t Christian in a believing sense, but certainly derived a moral and political view from the prevailing culture of the period, which most certainly espoused Christianity. But your point is worth noting.
Precisely.
Most illuminating. My compliments to Northern Piper.
Yes, and what religion is it, exactly, that they are traditionally religious about?
I will return to the main topic:
A government cannot truly represent a people of varied characteristics if it’s official policy favours certain characteristics over others, or even appears to do so.
Could’ve sworn the New Testament had some comment about “rendering to Caeser.”
Well I conclude that there is no policy that truly represents all people, but I would suggest that in this particular case you won’t find much objection amongst those of differing faiths. In fact you would be hard pressed as to exactly discern which denomination or faith predominated in the National Cathedral. Certainly some atheists have objected, but considering their disdain for religion anyway, I wonder why it is of any concern to them. You know, many more people of all faiths took comfort in seeing Christian,Jew, and Muslim, standing side by side in prayer to God. This can only be good. And I’m quite certain that any atheists in attendance experienced no discomfort whatsoever.
I’m confining my remarks to this particular occasion. Public school prayer etc. where there is a definite element of coercion real or perceived would be objectionable for the reason you noted.
So I guess we should say separation between church and state, huh?
I’m not sure what I would say that would be Pit-worthy- I was only saying that it is a bit more ominous when “Texas Jesus Day” GWB declares an official religious observance, given his and his dad’s past satatements and actions, and those of the Religious Right who support GWB. I would be less bothered if it were, for instance, Jimmy Carter who did so.
I do have a question for those who remind us all that the proclamation included the words “and Remembrance:” If W. declared today a “Day of Prayer and Recovery,” and tomorrow a “Day of Prayer and Justice,” and so on- maybe in a few months a “Day of Prayer and Trout Fishing,” or next fall a “Day of Prayer and Leaf Raking,” would the other activity in each of those proclamations excuse the pattern created by all the days of prayer? JDM
A few thoughts are rattling around my head, might as well let them spill out.
On the one hand, shouldn’t you be more concerned that the words “In God We Trust” appear on your money?
On another hand, isn’t this the sort of constitutional navel gazing that I have torn my hair out over in the past? Do you realize how weird it looks to non-Americans when you go on and on like a bunch of rabbinical scholars over the minutae of your constitution? (Or is it actually a divine revelation, I have never been quite able to figure that out.)
On yet another hand, as a militant atheist, yeah, it gets my back up.
On the final hand, did it provide some comfort for the relatives of those killed?
[ul]
[li]It’s probably safe to say that anyone who has concerns about prayer proclamations isn’t too happy about “In God We Trust” on the money either.[/li]
[li]I suppose a lot of things Americans do look weird to outsiders. Isn’t that true of any nation? The British House of Lords or the whole Quebec thing probably look strange to a lot of Americans.[/li]
[li]What are you, a Motie? ;)[/li]
[li]Undoubtedly it does make many people feel better. But would it make them feel any less better if days of prayer were proclaimed by the nation’s clergy instead of by its elected officials?[/li][/ul]