National day of Prayer and Remembrance - no separation of Church and State?

[Monty]

Here’s something funny for you:

I’m not worried about the proclamation in question yet I completely agree that the so-called national motto on our money is a violation of the Constitution.

[MEBuckner]

Oh, yeah, “IGWT” is a much more egregious violation, if this is a violation at all. I’ll concede, the “Prayer and Remembrance” does make it more complicated for me. I really don’t like the annual “National Day of Prayer”, which has me suspicious of any “prayer” proclamation by any politician.

[David_B]

bagkitty said:

On the one hand, shouldn’t you be more concerned that the words “In God We Trust” appear on your money?

Several people have already responded, but I just wanted to point out that your statement implies a logical fallacy that I see fairly often around here (and in life in general). Just because we are talking, right now, about one thing doesn’t mean we aren’t also concerned about many other things. If you look back through threads here, you will find at least several that deal with “In God We Trust.” However, that isn’t the topic of discussion right now.

[wolfstu]

In fact you would be hard pressed as to exactly discern which denomination or faith predominated in the National Cathedral.

That’s true, but it was quite obvious that some faiths were never mentioned.

One whose faith was excluded from the ceremony could interpret this as a token attempt by the christian majority to look cosmopolitan by inviting the muslims and jews for once.

And, it must be pointed out that in this case, who was excluded is not a matter of fact, but one of perception; it’s how people interpret events that will establish their feelings about them.

[Monty]

I am compelled to point out that MeB’s link above is for a National Day of Prayer held in May. What’s at discussion (mostly) in this thread is the National Day of Prayer and Remembrance held this September.

Man, Buck; you usually do WAY better than that with your links. Heck, I even have a couple of them bookmarked.

[Irishman]

I didn’t start this thread because of the concerns others have voiced about how touchy everyone is right now. However, isn’t everyone making a big deal about how we have to get back to normal? And isn’t part of our normal lives to debate these issues? So in the spirit of getting back to normal, I’ll join in.

Otto said:

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 what action to take about it, and you are right that calling Bush to the mat right now will not help matters.

bibliophage said:

I don’t see how it estabishes any religion at all.

It establishes religiousness over unreligiousness. It singles out a group (Atheists and perhaps agnostics) for exclusion.

malkavia said:

Give them the respect of a Day of Honour and Rememberance.

Then why not call it “A Day of Honour and Remembrance”?

kunilou said:

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.

But it won’t carry the same official sanction. Me standing up on a street corner or sending out emails or even catching a CNN camera crew and making my declaration won’t have the same official sanction as the President making a declaration from the Oval Office.

wolfstu, I thought your post was well thought out and well expressed.

Monty said:

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.

Still sounds like the President telling me I should pray.

Duck Duck Goose said:

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 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 President would stop pushing his religious agenda. He makes a divisive comment, and the atheists are to blame? Thanks.

yosemitebabe said:

Well, I guess some of you can piss and moan about whatever you want. But personally, I’ve got better things to wring my hands over right now - like the thousands of grieving folks in NYC, and the concern over a possible war.

If you’re so busy, why are you bothering to read this thread? Was the title not enough to let you know what would be discussed?

Monty said:

Next: I read the notice and read it again and then one more time. Was it reading #4 for you that showed you the thing said, “YOU HEATHENS BETTER WORSHIP AND WORSHIP GOD TOO WHILE YOU’RE ABOUT IT” in great big bold letters?

Every time I hear “National Day of Prayer” that’s exactly how I hear it. “You heathens had better go out and pray to someone - God, goddess, your ancestors, a tree - something.” And I know it says “and Remembrance”. That doesn’t negate that it says “Prayer”.

grienspace said:

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.

Does the irony of that statement not jump out at you?

Monty said:

What you call a burden on our society, I call a wonderful diversity.

I don’t think grienspace meant that atheism was our burden, but rather the terrorist attack.

grienspace said:

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.

How about because I’m an American, too? How about because I’m as hurt by this tragedy as everyone else, and then my President tells me I’m less of an American because I don’t pray?

You know, many more people of all faiths took comfort in seeing Christian,Jew, and Muslim, standing side by side in prayer to God.

Given the presumed religious element to this attack and the repercussions of some ignorant folk spreading out to our country, I do find some comfort in displaying a united religious front. I’m curious, were there any Sik representatives at this religious service? I think they should have been included. Given that there are Sik Americans right now being singled out and receiving threats and violence simply because they wear turbans and look “vaguely Arabic”, I think it would be an important symbol to include them. Did anyone think of that? And how about Hindu? There are thousands of Indians in this country who are probably getting second looks from their neighbors and coworkers because they’re “foreigners”. That would be an inclusive step. And did anyone think to include Wiccans and Pagans in the ceremony? After all, they are Americans, too.

Anyway, I’m worn out on all of this. I’ve let a lot of things slide (on the boards and elsewhere) because it wasn’t worth the trouble with everyone so stressed, and we should all be coming together. It would be nice if the religious would give us atheists some consideration, too.

[yosemite]

If you’re so busy, why are you bothering to read this thread? Was the title not enough to let you know what would be discussed?

:rolleyes:

I never said I was too busy. Most of this week has been a waiting game anyway. I said I was not wringing my hands in distress over this issue. I’m not. I’m also not wringing my hands over football being cancelled. That doesn’t mean I won’t read threads on the SDMB about these things, and respond to them. You have a problem with that?

[MEBuckner]

*Originally posted by Monty *
I am compelled to point out that MeB’s link above is for a National Day of Prayer held in May. What’s at discussion (mostly) in this thread is the National Day of Prayer and Remembrance held this September.

Man, Buck; you usually do WAY better than that with your links. Heck, I even have a couple of them bookmarked.

Right, Monty, that’s what I was saying:

*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
Oh, yeah, “IGWT” is a much more egregious violation, if this is a violation at all. I’ll concede, the “Prayer and Remembrance” does make it more complicated for me. I really don’t like the annual “National Day of Prayer”, which has me suspicious of any “prayer” proclamation by any politician.

In other words, the annual NDP held in May seems to me to be a pretty obvious assault on the principle of non-establishment. I am therefore pre-disposed to be suspicious of this “National Day of Prayer and Remembrance”. However, I was actually saying you may have a point about the “…and Remembrance” part; the “regular” NDP doesn’t say any such thing.

[DSYoungEsq]

Two observations:

1. Despite requesting a reference to support the assertion that the “proclamation” violated the First Amendment, I see no one has bothered to even attempt such an argument.

2. The misleading phrase about “separation between church and state”, while quoted often, even in Supreme Court cases, is a meaningless piece of babble, used to justify, in Reynolds v. U. S. the prosecution of a polygamist despite his religious convictions, as an example of this supposed “wall”. Despite frequent quotation, the phrase doesn’t act as a measure of whether or not an act by a state or the federal government is constitutional. As one text on the subject puts it, “a metaphor may obscure as well as illuminate,…” and by the mid-1800’s, the Court had long abandoned any pretence that there was a “wall” that forbade governmental influence in religious matters (see First Amendment Law, p. 972, an instructive review of the Amendment sponsored by the United States Senate). Or, as the authors of my old Con Law text put it, “Since assessing history to determine the exact meaning of the religious freedom that was to be guaranteed by the first amendment will not produce clear answers to current issues, we must plunge ahead and study the development of the separate doctrines in the case law.” (Constitutional Law, 2d ed., Nowak, Rotunda & Young, pg. 1030)

[LifeOnWry]

“Since assessing history to determine the exact meaning of the religious freedom that was to be guaranteed by the first amendment will not produce clear answers to current issues, we must plunge ahead and study the development of the separate doctrines in the case law.”

(emphasis mine)Hey, thanks! Ths is just exactly the sort of quote I need for my next anti-gun argument. Seriously, thank you.

[Irishman]

yosemitebabe originally said:

Well, I guess some of you can piss and moan about whatever you want. But personally, I’ve got better things to wring my hands over right now - like the thousands of grieving folks in NYC, and the concern over a possible war.

I replied:

If you’re so busy, why are you bothering to read this thread? Was the title not enough to let you know what would be discussed?

yosemitebabe responded:

I never said I was too busy. Most of this week has been a waiting game anyway. I said I was not wringing my hands in distress over this issue. I’m not. I’m also not wringing my hands over football being cancelled. That doesn’t mean I won’t read threads on the SDMB about these things, and respond to them. You have a problem with that?

My response was poorly worded and did not really convey what I meant. Here is my complaint in a more general nutshell (that in itself should probably be a pit thread by now). I keep seeing people bringing up issues or making complaints about things that bother them, and somebody inevitably responds to the effect of “there are more important things to worry about right now”. Usually this is posted in a thread that has a big subject heading that explicitly states the complaint in question. I have to wonder why people purposely open threads that they can read the topic is going to be not worth worrying over and then read through the thread so they can post “I don’t feel this is worth worrying over right now.” Obviously the person who posted felt it was worth worrying over. Heck, maybe by worrying over something trivial they can take their mind off something devestating. So I guess I’m just tired of seeing this repeatedly played out. If the topic is not something you think is worth worrying over right now, why are you reading the thread? Sure, you have the right to point out how trivial you feel the topic is, but others do feel it worthy of discussion. Maybe it’s just me.