When did Bush do that? Even if he did, his actions override his words.
I do remember Clinton referring to “our atheist friends” (your memory isn’t very recent . . .).
A (wo)man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. -Paul Simon
The National Day of Prayer has been around since 1775. Lincoln declared them (he also asked people to fast). Truman declared them. Clinton declared them.
Congress passed a law in 1952 that the President MUST pick a National Day of Prayer. So if you have a beef with the National Day of Prayer, write your Congressmen. Because your President is merely following the law.
Deliver us from evil. Deliver us from dogma and intrusive government. Deliver me a pizza with anchovies and sausage.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Dr_Paprika, with coding but no text added by quoter *
[list=1][li]Deliver us from evil. [] Deliver us from dogma and intrusive government. [*]Deliver me a pizza with anchovies and sausage. **[/li][/QUOTE]
- We’re working on it.
- Ditto
- Here you go.
Suprised you didn’t get an answer yet.
Right here: “An American President serves people of every faith, and serves some of no faith at all.” –Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast, 2/01/2001
Additionally:
Incidentally, I wonder if you and some of the other vitriol-laden “keep your love(faith) in the closet where it belongs” types have the same problem with the annual National Prayer Breakfast.
This country has always had a majority of its citizens being people of some sort of faith. I do not understand the anger directed at a declaration resulting from that majority asking its government to declare a day for them to unite in supplicant congress with their Divinity.
It does mean that the SC has had 50+ years to decide if it violates the establishment clause. And why isn’t it right? Just because you disagree with it?
I assume it will occur sometime after the majority of Americans are atheists, and their representatives are a majority in Washington. You wouldn’t want it any other way, right?
Finally,
Rather than hijack this thread, Eve or anyone else, please provide a link to a thread citing specific examples of this. Furhtermore, seing the indignant complaints here that seem to suggest that a state-recognized day of prayer disenfranchises people of no belief, I’d certainly appreciate a coherent explanation of why.
PS: After previewing, I found this year’s Day of Prayer Proclamation, wherin the President cites the Congressional law “call[ing] on our citizens to reaffirm the role of prayer in our society and to honor the religious diversity our freedom permits”. (Public Law 100-307, for those too lazy to read the link)
For the OP & others unaware of it, here’s The History of the National Day of Prayer.
Tygr, for MANY years, the supreme court thought slavery was OK. Well, it wasn’t then and it isn’t now. Just because they have their own agenda and haven’t declared it unconstitutional doesn’t mean it isn’t. At one time they thought abortion should be illegal, too. They had nearly 200 years to ponder that one before they got it right. What’s your point?
Because the government is not supposed to have such power in the first place. No one needs it to tell them when and how, and, with whom they should pray. It should be a matter for civil society to voluntarily organize days of prayer, and people to decide for themselves on what days they will unite in supplicant congress, not any government decree.
But for some reason, religious people are eager to cede their authority over to the government: it’s just not good enough unless daddy state approves. Suckers.
I wouldn’t want it EITHER way. Not the state’s domain.
Oddly enough, I don’t have a problem with a National Day of Prayer. I like prayer. I like moments of silence. I like communing with the One That Is All.
I can’t stand any one religion taking it up, though, and saying “This is ours! This is our day! Yooooou can’t pray today, because this is a day for US!”
Prayer doesn’t mean Christianity. At least, not to me. It means a moment to reflect on the ineffable, the mysteries of life, the beauty of existence.
I’m in a nice mood now. 
No, they thought slavery was constitutional and legal, and it was. And to make it unconstitutional, Congress had to pass an amendment.
Likewise, the national day of prayer is constitutional. To make it unconstitutional, Congress has to pass an amendment
Actually, there has been an amendment passed making it unconstitutional.
It’s the First one.
Too bad our lovely government has so little respect for the law.
Except that the courts have never ruled that a national day of prayer violates the first amendment. You may be of the opinion that it does, or that it should, but the courts haven’t said that.
If you’re of the opinion that the National Day of Prayer did violate your first amendment rights, you can bring suit against the Congress and the President. Maybe you’ll be able to get the law overturned as unconstitutional.
Tygr, were those quotes from Bush supposed to make me feel better? I’m even more pissed-off at his pompous self-righteousness about religion now!
There really isn’t anything requiring court rulings in the simple statement: “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
It’s not complicated. No law means just that.
And Congress can’t pass laws, “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion as well. Isn’t that nice? There can be a big ecumenical National Day of Prayer, organized by our various religions, with no government endorsement or prohibition.
Why on Earth would I want to bring suit against Congress and the President? I really have no desire to have myself and my family villified by the predictable yahoos upset because I “besmirched God’s Country.”
I’d love to see our government do the right thing and not pass any laws pro or anti religion, like the First Amendment says. The National Day of Prayer is clearly pro religion and therefore violates the First Amendment.
You know, there are actual violations of the establishment clause of the First Amendment that go on every day. Serious ones that affect people’s lives, from the proposed faith-based initiatives, to the appalling lack of government oversight of religious youth rehibilitation camps, to prisons that give inmates who participate in religious conversion/rehibilitation programs special treatment, to the harassment of wiccans and neopagans in schools and military bases.
With all this stuff going on that affects actual people, it’s stupid to waste your time protesting shit like the national day of prayer and the pledge. The majority of the population likes these things, don’t want to see them changed, and you just look like some whiney spoilsport who hates God and religion. And if you do get them changed, nobody’s life improves. Nobody’s ever been denied social services because “In God We Trust” is on the money, or been fired because there’s a National Day of Prayer.
Face it, in this country, if you’re not Christian, you’re shit. You’re a second class citizen. You’re going to be looked down upon, laughed at, and distrusted, and all the First Amendments in the world aren’t going to change that. And so stuff like In God We Trust on the money and national days of prayer aren’t going to get changed, because the majority of the population doesn’t care if they violate the first amendment or make atheists uncomfortable.
Well, Captain, you and I agree (apparently) that non-Christians are marginalized in this country by those religious folk who see nothing wrong with it. After all, Christians are the majority, right? And (oh, you gotta love that canard) this nation was founded on “Christian principles,” right?
I have no illusion that strict observance by our government of First Amendment principles would end the pervasive religious bigotry in this country, but it sure would be nice if our government respected those principles rather than tacitly ignoring them with faith based initiatives: “In God We Trust,” “One nation, under God,” National Day of Prayer, etc. By passing into law these seemingly “harmless” things, they violate one of the basic founding principles of this nation, and encourage others to think it is irrelevant.YMMV
I certainly oppose government sponsorship of such things, but Eve, honey, do you know any other tricks? Your weird beef against prayer in general is quite legendary by now.
Do you even read anything but religious posts, Lib? Two of the “examples” you quoted are about hair dye and Stranahan, and in the past week alone I have posted about, let’s see, Suzy Parker, the Production Code, snails, weight gain, death by peanut butter, graveyard tours, The Three Stooges . . . It looks like you’re the one with tunnel vision, not me, toots.
Oh, and many of my posts on religion have been humorous, though that was obviously lost on you.
Tygr said, "No, they thought slavery was constitutional and legal, and it was. And to make it unconstitutional, Congress had to pass an amendment.
Likewise, the national day of prayer is constitutional. To make it unconstitutional, Congress has to pass an amendment"
No, Tygr. It’s not constitutional. Read the constitution. Anyone who interprets national prayer as constitutional has a personal agenda.
And I never mentioned the constitution in my statement about slavery. I said it wasn’t OK. Even if they thought it was legal.
Capt. Amazing, the fact that the religious zealots in this nation chip away at the little things should make you wonder when they’re going to take a bigger chunk. Marginalization and harrassment are legitimized by the “little”, “unimportant” things like “In God We Trust” and “Under God”.
And Lib, there are two pages of posts indicating that people are very interested in discussing Eve’s topic. The fact that you’re not interested doesn’t lessen the importance of the discussion. If you don’t want to partake, no one’s forcing you.
On the constitutionality issue: I think the Supreme Court places the question of the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer in the unmentioned “fuck it” bucket, which bucket also contains such things as “In God we Trust” on dollar bills and the fact that Congress has a chaplain say a prayer to open each session.
All of these things probably can’t stand up to a rigorous application of the Establishment Clause, but in SCOTUS’s opinion they’re just not important enough to raise a big fuss about. I (an atheist and a lawyer) tend to agree; as long as SCOTUS keeps striking down prayer in schools a la Lee v. Weisman and Santa Fe v. Dole, I’m willing to let a few little meaningless government nods to religion not upset me too much.