Sometimes I am just so embarrassed by my country. Do we really need the government telling people to appeal to an invisible magic man in the sky? Apparently, we do.
"I call upon the citizens of our nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I invite all people of faith to join me in asking for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection as we meet the challenges before us," Obama said in his official proclamation.
Get stuffed, you pandering, unprincipled hack.
Let's just hope that the appeal of the rejection of the NDOP goes our way…not that I have high hopes that this Supreme Court will help.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Today is actually the National Day of Prayer. Really. Let that sink in for a moment.
We have regional coordinating groups — Minnesota is having events at the Capitol today. Did you know that prayer is "America's strength and shield"? I didn't. Our governor has issued a proclamation asking citizens…
Lord love her, S.E. Cupp has posted the first chapter of her book Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity. That means I've now inflicted two chapters of the damnable thing on myself, and I feel no better for it. You'll recall that the first chapter I saw was her look at…
Hovind's followers, however, are still treading the long and candy-sprinkled road of self-delusion. I've been sent a letter pleading for help in his case — they want to take it to the Supreme Court. I will be very surprised if this gets anywhere.
Greetings from Adrienne Gilbert in Kentucky...
An…
But there is only room in it for Christians.
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders.... In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power…
I can hardly wait to see how all the people I work with will be approaching this today.
And by hardly wait, I mean dread.
Ugh, as if my birthday couldn't get worse. Oh well, happy National Day of Reason, everyone!
Be sure to ask people "How do you know that?" when they make outlandish claims.
NDOP fails the first element of the Lemon Test - a secular purpose. Unfortunately, our SCOTUS has much less respect for precedent than it used to.
Isn't NDP just another one of those cold war remnants to "Prove" the U.S. is better than those godless commies? Like adding "under god" to the pledge of allegiance.
I confused. They didn't tell me which specific God I should pray to. God is just too general. It is Yahweh? Or is it Allah? Is it Jesus or Jebus? Joe Pesci? I have to know. I don't want to start praying to the wrong god. I mean god has recently destroyed Memphis and Haiti. Whichever god[s] is/are real, all I know is that he/she/it/they is/are [an] asshole[s]. I don't want to be responsible for a wildfire in California, or a hurricane in the gulf, because I'll probably ask for forgiveness from the wrong god and make things worse.
God being a dick to Noah.
Weasel words. Am I supposed to give thanks for having religious crap crammed down my throat? Bleargh.
NDOP fails the first element of the Lemon Test - a secular purpose. Unfortunately, our SCOTUS has much less respect for precedent than it used to.
"... while those of you without faith can go fuck yourselves and continue to feel unrepresented..."
Of course no-one ever seems to realize that obvious implication.
I love my country enough to fucking hate it sometimes. This is one of those times.
I could care less if there was a National Day of Prayer, but the government SHOULD NOT endorse it, it's at a minimum very hypocritical; especially since I live in Montgomery Alabama where I will unfortunately have to deal with it in all of its southern ignorance (no offence to intelligent southerners be them religous or not, but you know the ones I'm talking about). Also on a side note, has anyone ever went to and posted on the evolution fairytale forums. They are a ridiculous lot, but they have encouraged me to create the technology to reach through a LCD monitor and slap someone; I'm not quite there yet though...
We need an atheist's prayer.
With the SCOTUS as currently constituted? No chance in hell...
Obama is issuing the written proclamation that the law requires him to issue.
He isn't making any speeches or holding any meetings with religious leaders today. He has abandoned all the ceremony of the Bush years, and he's stuck to the law.
Since 1776, the USA has done many wonderful things, and got many things right...
and, yeah, this ain't one of 'em.
Commiserations from Aus.
I repeat my enthusiastic endorsement of constant prayer for believers. Please spend all of your time in whatever kind of prayer you prefer: petitionary prayer (begging God for favors or toys), imprecatory prayer (begging God to smite people you don't like -- in His mercy, of course), or laudatory prayer (Oh, God, you are so big and powerful and please use me however you like).
It'll keep believers from getting underfoot as rational people go about their business.
The problem is the law is unconstitutional and has been declared as such. So Obama doesn't have to do anything, this is just political pandering.
Please, Americans, don't "give thanks" for your freedom. They were not granted to you by a deity. You fought for them. You got them through fighting, not through grovelling or praying. Forgetting this, or trying to make people forget it, is a very bad thing to do, in my opinion.
12: Obama is issuing the written proclamation that the law requires him to issue.
He isn't making any speeches or holding any meetings with religious leaders today. He has abandoned all the ceremony of the Bush years, and he's stuck to the law.
How dare he abide by the law he has a sworn duty to uphold. Upholding the law makes him a pandering, unprincipled hack who ought to get stuffed (lynched?).
Robocop, ignore the point that this law was declared unconstitutional and unenforceable in a court of law. Thus Obama is not upholding the law but going against it, in this case.
Killing the NDOP would light a fire under the fundies and motivate them to get out the vote in November. I can stomach this act of pandering on Obama's part if keeps one Republican from winning a congressional seat.
How absolutely tedious. When my brother had to go through life threatening surgery to remove a tumor from his head, I was very nervous but I did not feel the need to pray. When a relative died when he was barely an adult, I was very angry but I did not feel the need to pray. When I was told that I had a fatal illness (False positive), I was in shock but I did not feel the need to pray.
I do not need a proclamation to encourage me to do an action that I do not do. It is an insult to atheists like me. It is even an insult for those believers who do not need a proclamation to do what they have been taught to do. It is merely a sop for those people who think that public piety is a virtue.
It's already been declared unconstitutional. He is not required to follow it.
Yeah, thank gawd for the First Amendment.
Irony. It doesn't mean made of iron.
Man... people really don't get it. Some guy over there, talking about how atheists are the small minority trying to take away the rights of the majority... people seriously just don't get it. I weep for our world.
Robocop, those who were saying they just wanted the old Jim Crow laws enforced (like you and your day of prayer) were wrong. Because the laws were morally and constitutionally wrong. Same here. The law is wrong, a deliberate entanglement of church and state, and has been acknowledged as such by a circuit court.
Speaking of public piety; HEEEEERRRRREEEEE'S ROBOCOP!!!!
christophe-thill -
This is an excellent point that is too often overlooked.
We should "give thanks"... but to the people who gave their lives to provide it... not some psychotic, caparicious imaginary deity. I'm pretty sure there were christians in Britain... lots of them.
18: Robocop, ignore the point that this law was declared unconstitutional and unenforceable in a court of law. Thus Obama is not upholding the law but going against it, in this case.
21: It's already been declared unconstitutional. He is not required to follow it.
Don't be stupid. Judge Crabb stayed her own decision pending appeal.
24: Robocop, those who were saying they just wanted the old Jim Crow laws enforced (like you and your day of prayer) were wrong.
The answer to bad laws is to change them. Would you really wish for the Dubyas of the world (or, how 'bout your local cops?) to go about refusing to abide by or enforce the laws they don't like? Oh, and it's not my Day of Prayer. I think it's bad policy for a variety of reasons.
The law is wrong...and has been acknowledged as such by a circuit court.
United States District Court, actually.
I don’t see what all the fuss is. Personally, I think we should engage in prayer today. Quite loudly, as well.
Here’s my prayer:
Our Adversary, who art in Heaven,
Accursed by thy Name.
Thy kingdom burn.
Thy will be damned,
In Heaven and nowhere near Earth.
Give us this day not a bloody thing
For we will never forgive your trespasses,
As you do nothing but trespass against us.
We will never again follow your lead,
For your path leads always to evil.
For thine is the corruption,
and the putrescence,
and the shame,
forever nonexistent.
FOAD!
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
No, the answer is to ignore them until they are repealed. How many laws on the books are really ignored? This should be another one.
I don't think the day of prayer is a good thing, but if we're gonna have it, it makes me happy to know poor little angry atheists getting all fussy about it.
Now that's change we can believe in!
In the ruling, the judge stayed the decision pending appeals, which the Obama DOJ has already filed.
Whether Obama is 'pandering' or sincerely believes that it is a good thing is something only he knows for sure. The bottom line is that it is still the law, and one he is supporting.
You first.
No, she stayed enforcement of it pending appeal. It doesn't change the decision and Obama could have, if he chose to, abided by it.
Now Robocop has been (at least) thrice directed to the idea that the observance has been found unconstitutional (even if stayed). Well and good. He himself thinks its a bad law for a variety of reasons. Fine and jim dandy.
What chaps my hide is that he wants to change "get stuffed" to "get lynched" with ever-so-innocent punctuation deniability: parentheses and a question mark.
No, you don't get to change an insult unlinked to direct physical harm to one with a broad, observable history of death-dealing to the "uppity Negro" when the mild imprecation is directed to our black POTUS.
Assholes who think they're being cute chocolate starfishies irritate the fuck out of me.
Apparently people without faith are invited to go quietly fuck themselves.
Yeah people really shouldn't be concerned with that pesky Constitution.
Jordan any chance you'll ever make an intelligent comment here?
I'm praying to God right now that he will. I sure hope He exists, but I guess little Jordan's future comments will confirm or deny that.
Let's have a National Day of No Prayer and see how pissy you get.
I don't think the day of prayer is a good thing, but if we're gonna have it, it makes me happy to know poor little angry atheists getting all fussy about it.
Alright, funny guy, I will try to give you a thought experiment so that you might understand. What if the proclamation encouraged you to pray in a way or to a deity in a way the goes against your religion. Would you be happy with it? Or would you get all fussy about it.
You have a fucking brain. Use it instead of making a knee jerk comment.
@Jordan:
Take that, turn it sideways, and cram it into your urethra.
"pandering, unprincipled hack"?
I realize you're a biologist, not a politician, but surely you can understand politicians have to say these sorts of things.
Imagine the outrage if Obama were to express what I suspect his real view of religion is.
The howling, especially from the right, would render him incapable of accomplishing anything and would assure his defeat in 2012.
You need to be little more realistic. This says far more about our citizenry than it does about our president.
And it makes me even happier to see cowardly accomodationist little shitstains take their precious time to come here and tell us how "fussy" we're getting.
Warms the heart, really.
Then perhaps politics needs to take a backseat to principles.
That's what pandering is.
He could have quietly let it die instead of filing an appeal to fight the decision, but that's not the path he chose.
No, if he actually holds views towards religion that differ from his official proclamations, that would make him a pandering, unprincipled hack. I don't share this assessment either, but that's precisely because I don't have any reason to believe Obama is not sincere about his faith. I don't like it, but he's not faking it.
Jordan:
Aren't you adorable. How would you like a National Face Mecca day? Perhaps a Zen Meditation day? How about a National Orthodox Jewish Prayer day? And on and on and on and on and on.
Not one damn thing is stopping you from praying your heart out every fucking day of your life. There's no reason for it to be national, involved with our government in any way or have it publicly broadcast. It's a blatant desire for attention for all those hypocrites who lead what they think are pious public lives and are such nasty, ugly people when they think no one is looking.
#2
that is an excellent point. it´s not his fault, his country is full of people, whose faith in their stupid believes is so weak, that they need public acknowledgement.
Well you know God works in mysterious ways... So, basically, don't hold your breath.
Wait a minute. How does randomly praying to lots of different gods about whatever you want DO anything? It's like pointlessness squared.
This is just one giant spiritual jerkoff in the faces of the non-religious... and the limping result should be pointed out and laughed at.
29: No, the answer is to ignore them until they are repealed.
That's all well and good when you happen to agree with the official ignoring the law. But somehow I suspect that you don't think it was such a good idea for George Wallace personnally to block the door to Foster Auditorium or for Orval Faubus to call out his state's National Guard to block entry to Little Rock High School.
I can understand the appeal of endorsing anarchy in response to a truly bad law. But I think the risks are much greater than the rewards.
34: No, you don't get to change an insult unlinked to direct physical harm to one with a broad, observable history of death-dealing to the "uppity Negro" when the mild imprecation is directed to our black POTUS.
You sound like a tea-partier, ever-so-quick to deny that his inflamatory rhetoric has any connection at all to violence and to the huge numbers of threats made to this president in comparison to past presidents.
33: It doesn't change the decision and Obama could have, if he chose to, abided by it.
Not and be consistent with his position in the litigation (I think the law is bad policy and should be repealed, but I think it's constitutional).
41: Imagine the outrage if Obama were to express what I suspect his real view of religion is.
So Obama isn't an pandering, unprincipled hack, he's a lying demagogue. I feel so much better now.
That's precisely the point. He's not endorsing the NDOP because he's forced to by law. He's choosing to.
Thankfully it's not up to you.
Non-binding resolutions are just a waste of time. Obama can suggest all he wants that we pray or he can suggest all he wants that we don't pray. There are no consequences as far as the government is concerned. The sense of congress is not any different. National Day of Prayer has no more legal significance than any of the other hundreds of days, weeks, and months that Congress has passed over the years.
If the NDoP actually required anyone to do anything it would be unconstitutional. But "laws" that are really nothing more than blank sheets of paper whose sole purpose is make certain people look good are constitutionally irrelevant IMHO.
Good satire would be a better remedy than any court battle. Leave the court battles for when they actual do require prayer, sermons, or religiously-inspired pseudoscience.
Many years ago some locality had a day to encourage people to read their Bible. An atheist group put in a statement supporting it with a statement that if more people read the Bible there would be more atheists. Maybe some can find a good snarky response to this silly day that politicians take seriously.
On this NDOP I bring you THOR!
http://cdn-www.mania.com/content_pics/000005/19/57/02e9eafde0b6ab8d_lar…
My god is cooler than your god.
I don't want to pray! Why are people assuming I'm religious? I'm not disagreeing with you because I believe in god, I'm disagreeing with you because it seems that a good majority of this blog's readers are whiny, faggy little morons.
Obama is a pandering, unprincipled hack because he wants to get reelected and he needs idiot voters to accomplish that.
I of course would have preferred that he acted like the atheist I think he is (OK, that's a wild guess and probably wishful thinking), but if he did ignore the praying idiots our next president would be another retarded George W. Bush or worse.
Where I live, FloriDUH, the praying is out of control. They are using city halls and public libraries for their show-off praying. I'm living in a theocracy and I don't much like it. Christians need to understand our wall of separation between church and state is in their best interest, but most of them are too stupid to understand this obvious truth.
Now here's a statement worthy of the people who brought us "Female Genital Cutting"...
You're absolutely right! Let's all lie to get ahead in life. Let's deny what we believe in. Let us strive for expediency. I'm relieved that politicians no longer ought to take principled stands for fear of upsetting their constituents.
Because you're a moron. They tend to go together.
The door's that way ------------------------->
Don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out.
Every day should be a National Day of Reason.
I also agree with #9. The government can endorse National Toadstool Day, Monkey Pox Awareness Day, Hitler's birthday, etc, but absolutely not a day of prayer. I don't care if Obama goes and prays, or even privately encourages others to do so, but he should not be using his office to endorse it.
Yet you have not once shown how?
And faggy?
So you're a bigot too on top of being a dumbass?
It passes the lemon test if we assume that the government plays Earthbound, at least. A national day dedicated to defeating the embodiment of evil?
Whoa!
Well I'm doing something about it.
If he's simply fulfilling his duty, couldn't he have fulfilled his duty by simply proclaiming, "This day has been proclaimed to be the National Day of Prayer. I encourage you to recognize it as you see fit."?
His speech was hardly a simple "fulfillment of duty". It was indeed pandering to the religious contingent of this country as far as I'm concerned.
Now, what I'm not in this case is surprised one bit. I've never held Obama up to the ridiculous high standard that some have. I've always known Obama was a politician... he's not about to commit political suicide by pissing off the religious voters in this country. No-one in his position would, frankly... not at this time.
Wow.
Robococp @49
Ignoring is not the same as actively promoting violence.
So you're wrong again.
50: Thankfully it's not up to you.
Rhetoric aside, it relates to an interesting and important question. In my view, those looking to drive religion from the public square (who have been remarkably successful) have gone too far in this respect. If we apply the same logic to free exercise cases as establishment cases, we're left with free exercise run amok. If a relatively innocuous proclamation of civil religion violates the 1st Amendment, then so does (for example) the military's forcing soldiers to defend the country on the Sabbath irrespective of what their religious scruples say about Sabbath rest. I don't think that's a good idea.
...I'm disagreeing with you because it seems that a good majority of this blog's readers are whiny, faggy little morons.
Looky here, the dumb fuck is also a homophobe. Some news for you, Jordan. Some of us here are very open about being queer; we have gays, lesbians, transsexuals, bisexuals, asexuals and other people who are carving out their own sexualities. And most of the so called straight people here are very supportive. Hell, I doubt that most of them are really that vanilla.
In other words, asshole, go fuck yourself.
I'm using the word faggy, not foggot.
I'll explain:
I am a faggot because I'm attracted to men.
You are faggy because you're whiny and arrogant.
I'm not disagreeing with you because I believe in god, I'm disagreeing with you because it seems that a good majority of this blog's readers are whiny, faggy little morons.
Yes, how dare atheists complain about something that puts a majority on a pedestal and treats everyone else like second-class citizens!!!!
I suppose I must be whiny and 'faggy' too, since I'm Canadian and I still think this is a stupid fucking 'holiday'.
Would you kindly leave?
In 1992 I 'died' on the operating table during a medical procedure ie, my heart started to fibrillate and I had to be jump-started. To all intents and purposes I was (temporarily) dead and I have no wish to repeat the experience in a hurry - might not be so lucky next time ;o)
I have experienced the ultimate and THERE IS NOTHING THERE. Zilch, nix, nada, NOTHING THERE!!!
Mind you when I came to the nursing sister who was massaging anti-burn cream on my chest was the most beautiful woman I have ever seen.
I've known that too. But I still don't like it.
No politician would, anyway. Perhaps that's the problem....
62: Ignoring is not the same as actively promoting violence.
So you would have been fine with Pres. Eisenhower ignoring the Brown decision and not taking control of the National Guard to enforce it?
No, that's not how it works.
It's from a district court. It means only that the NDOP is unconstitutional in the Western District of Wisconsin. The ruling does not apply to the rest of the United States until it has been appealed higher, or until other district courts opt to adopt the precedent.
Obama is still bound by the law.
So faggot is not an insult but faggy, which is derived from faggot, is. You are quickly showing yourself to be a hate filled moron of the highest order.
Fuck you and everything you stand for.
I am a faggot because I'm attracted to men.
That's strange. You certainly don't look like a bundle of sticks.
Jordan, thank you for declaring and then confirming at #65 that you are explicitly anti-gay.
Then please feel free to fuck right off at any time. Really. Seriously. Like now.
Wrong. Government endorsing religion is an establishment clause issue. Government preventing soldiers from practicing their religion is a freedom of religion clause issue. Two different things.
No, that would not fulfill his legal duty. The law requires an exhortation to pray. Obama has done no more than that. And he gave no speech. Just like he gave no speech last year.
tsg -
Nope... me neither...
Without question...
Oooohhhhh! In #69, Robocop uses all of his cunning in order to compare Obama's support unconstitutional proclamation; if it were a law, it would curtail civil rights, to Eisenhower's defying a constitutional law that violated people's civil rights.
Also, I admire Robocop's ability to conflate. You, sir, are a formidable opponent.
75: Government endorsing religion is an establishment clause issue. Government preventing soldiers from practicing their religion is a freedom of religion clause issue. Two different things.
I already pointed out that one relates to establishment and one to free exercise. However, the same logic should apply to both since they are obviously connected by the text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Good for the goose; good for the gander. In my view, excessive vigilance with respect to establishment means excessive vigilance with respect to free exercise.
Being one of those doesn't mean he can't be the other (false dilemma). From what I can tell, he's both.
My prayer for the NDOP
"Oh invisible sky king,
That people tell exist but honestly, I think they are yanking my chain. Witness us gathered here preforming the correct ritual your magic book calls for. Ye, even though I am a rank unbeliever, a mocker of you, by your own silly rules you are obligated now to protect me and not send invisible bad men to harass me. Now we can go on and do something besides talking at the sky like mad men.
Amen"
Could we be visited by the shade of George Alan Rekers?
Hmmm... reading that link... it's a little tough to interpret. Does the law actually require him to encourage people to pray to God? So, in your interpretation, the statement I suggested: "This day has been proclaimed to be the National Day of Prayer. I encourage you to recognize it as you see fit." would not be adequate under the law?
If that is the case, I feel that it clearly fails the Lemon test.
Pedant. Fine. Fair enough. Replace "speech" with "proclamation".
There is no such thing as "civil religion" in the United States. The US officially, per the constitution, has no opinion on religion. There is nothing to "proclaim," and it is anything but "innocuous" for the president to do so.
As others have pointed out, Obama went far beyond "proclaiming" anything. He actively exhorted Americans to pray and thank god. Even someone afflicted with such a severe emotional bias in favor of religion, like you, Robocop, can see the difference.
@Jordan
Shut your fucking mouth.
@strange gods before me #76,
Is that really an obligation to call on people to pray? The way I read it, it would've been perfectly fine for Obama to say, "By the way, we're going to have the National Day of Prayer on May 6th. Knock yourselves out, godheads."
can't find this on the 36 U.S.C. § 119 ?
Sounds like a good day to listen to The Ocean - The Origin Of God as loudly as possible. Maybe stock the video up with thumb-ups too and bring some irony to YouTube on this day of prayer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5xo4dpyTvc
http://www.songlyrics.com/the-ocean-collective/the-origin-of-god-lyrics/
The same logic does apply to both: government is prohibited from doing either. You're assertion that preventing government from endorsing prayer will also require them to infringe on the freedom of religion of others is unfounded.
Moron?!?!? (/Daffy Duck)
79: In #69, Robocop uses all of his cunning in order to compare Obama's support unconstitutional proclamation; if it were a law, it would curtail civil rights, to Eisenhower's defying a constitutional law that violated people's civil rights.
The issue is what a government official should do when confronted with what s/he thinks is a bad law. I say follow it and try to change it. To those who said "ignore it," I posed the possibility of Eisenhower ignoring the Brown decision. Thankfully, he did not.
Somebody explain this to me. Why the fuck would a group with so many people who think the government can't do shit and private organizations/corporations/charities can do everything so efficiently...
Need the government to declare a begathon for sky daddy?
Where's that initiative and efficiency and entrepreneurial spirit they're always claiming they have and the rest of us commie liberal atheists don't because we're too busy sucking at the government teat?
Hypocritical slacker fuckwits.
Jordan:
I'm not at all surprised. You do realize you're busy being a whiny little bigot assclown, right? Don't let the door hit ya, we don't want assprints on the door.
Celtic Evolution, Roestigraben, negentropyeater,
What the law requires is more than noting that it's the National Day of Prayer. It requires making known that the National Day of Prayer is a day "on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals."
So, it would be adequate to unceremoniously issue a written proclamation that says "I hereby designate today to be a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals."
That's the absolute minimum. Whether that sounds to you like an exhortation to prayer may be a matter of debate. To me, it does sound like an exhortation, and I agree with C_E that this is what makes it a glaring violation of the Lemon test.
88: You're assertion that preventing government from endorsing prayer will also require them to infringe on the freedom of religion of others is unfounded.
So you think a soldier in a war zone should be permitted to rest on the Sabbath if his religious scruples demand it irrepective of his duty demands?
Frankly, Obama has never shown himself to be anything other than faithful, at least as much as most educated religionists are. So unprincipled may not be the right word there. Pandering, however, probably is the right word, because like all politicians he needs to appeal to the broadest group possible.
I choose to "pray" and give thanks by ignoring the whole fucking thing.
In fact, C_E, that was part of judge Crabb's ruling.
SGBM #96
Fair enough... I think we are pretty much in the same place on this...
Come now, PZ cut him a little slack. Remember, hope and change. Hope and change. ;-)
Robocop @ 17;
Lynched? That is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? At no point did PZ use or even obliquely reference such an inflamatory and offensive term, and no one I have ever spoken to has identified 'get stuffed' as analogous to 'hang 'em high'.
PZ is no fan of Obama, this is true. That is hardly the same as calling for the man's summary execution.
I think it is a freedom of religion issue, not an establishment clause issue, and preventing the government from endorsing religion doesn't affect it one way or the other. Whether it violates their freedom of religion is a different argument.
Not to worry, PZ... this Supreme Court and other courts have our interest and the Constitution at heart. After all, the cross is no longer a religious symbol, and "under god" is not a religious statement, it is a patriotic one.
So the law ( 36 U.S.C. § 119) requires that the POTUS issues a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.
Said proclamation was issued by Obama on April 30th 2010: full text here (note how it says much more things than simply designating May 6th as NDOP).
So, Obama is obliged to follow the law, but the law doesn't oblige him to come up with all this ridiculous religious pandering.
It's always the same, you give religions the tip of your finger, and they take your whole body.
Here we go:
Yog-Soggoth! Hast'r! Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
Hmmm... heard something weird coming from my swimming pool. Be right back.
I am an atheist, and I support the National Day of Prayer.
It doesn't affect me at all. Nobody's telling me I have to pray. I can ignore other people who pray.
Why do I support the National Day of Prayer? Because I also support gay marriage, and the same arguments apply. Gay marriage doesn't affect conservative Christians at all. Nobody's telling them they have to marry gays. They can ignore gay couples.
I don't mind looking the other way while conservative Christians have their day of prayer, as long as they look the other way while gay couples have their marriage ceremonies.
SGBM #93,
Yep. So why can't he stick with that minimum, what the law requires him to do?
Because the rest is all this ridiculous pandering any POTUS seems to be required to perpetuate to keep the religiots from saying he is not fulfilling his "patriotic duties".
Brian, #103 -
I don't believe you've thought this through, because you're making false equivalences. Respecting the civil rights of gay people to marry is not equivalent to violating the 1st Amendment by having the president declare a national day of prayer, and call on citizens to pray to a deity.
Do you understand how this active exhortation to engage in religion is a direct violation of the constitution? Do you understand that it's fundamentally different from simply allowing individual citizens to proclaim or participate in any day they want?
Re: Robocop
And this after...
The inflammatory rhetoric here seems as real and substantial as the ephemeral god-concepts to which we have been exhorted to pray.
You seem interested in the practical implications of our rights, Robocop, but you shot your credibility clean off putting foul words in people's mouths. For my part, I voted for Obama, probably will again, and I reserve the right to tell him to get stuffed when he's full of it.
One of the perks of skepticism: no heroes. Being able to acknowledge the failings of human beings you may at times support.
This logic is so flawed I don't even know where to start.
The issue is the government encouraging prayer. It's a statement by the President that essentially says to be a good American, you should be religious.
It's about equality, both for gays and for the non-religious. How you got to gay marriage from the NDOP is beyond me.
But they don't. And Christians can still have their day of prayer all they want without the government endorsing it.
We ought to have a Natioanl Pretend to Talk to Invisible, Undetectable Sky Fairies Day.
It would at least be accurate.
This court case is the best thing that ever happened to the national day of prayer.
I'd never even heard of it before. It was as obscure and memorial as national dog sledding day or national kumquat day. If the christofascist cultists had any brains whatsoever (they don't), they would be giving the federal judge huge bunches of flowers, teddy bears, and what not.
The No Religions and Freedom for Religions groups could organize a counter day. Maybe National Pretend to Talk to Nonexistent Fairies Day or Feed the Brownies day, where everyone lives milk and cookies out for the Brownies.
Robocop @ 49;
So PZ should pull his punches in case some random maniac decides to threaten President Obama? I assume that you are not suggesting that any and all criticism of the President amounts to 'inflamatory rhetoric'? Here was I thinking that free criticism of political figures was part of that whole First Amendment thing that the Americans are so (justifiably) proud of...
Jordan @ 30;
Surely, the American Constitution's injuction against any law regarding the establishment of religion makes a national day of prayer problematic? Would you maintain your position if the national day of prayer was Islamic or Hindu in nature? If not, then why not? I should point out that I am not a US citizen, so I have no cause to get 'fussy' beyond the fact that I am seeing a supposedly secular state force-feeding prayer to its citizenry, and I find this disturbing.
Also, @ 65;
Your distinction is somewhat tenuous. The Pharyngulite horde tend to frown on language that is bigoted and intolerant, and while you may argue that 'faggy' is not equivilent in offesiveness to 'fa**ot' (which, as I have noted before, refers to a bundle of firewood in the UK, but I do not employ the term even in that context since it would be highly offensive to any American Pharyngulites present), you are most likely pursuing a lost cause. The term gave offence, even if that was not your intent, and your best course of action now is to issue a retraction and apologise. If you do not, you risk being labelled a homophobe even if you do not have a bigoted bone in your body.
You seem to have got yourself confused.
Marriage is act that is sanctioned by the state. It has to be, since it brings with it certain rights and responsibilities that are enforceable in law. This applies whether the marriage is between people of different sexes, or the same sex.
Now tell me, how does a person require the state's sanction to pray? What legal infrastructure does a government need to have in place to support prayer ? Only if the same argument apply to a National Day of Prayer as they do to same sex marriage then you are arguing that there does need to be such legal infrastructure. And that is plain silly.
Gregory, it matters not that you hope Jordan is not bigoted.
What matters is that the actual behavior here was anti-gay. Jordan may indeed have laudable intentions, but then there's all the more imperative to bring actions into congruence with those intentions.
Intentions may be important to you, but they're not the whole of the issue, and "even if you do not have a bigoted bone in your body" is irrelevant to the effects of actions.
99: I think it is a freedom of religion issue, not an establishment clause issue, and preventing the government from endorsing religion doesn't affect it one way or the other.
Not if the same logic applies to both clauses. If the establishment clause makes no allowances for relatively inconsequencial breaches of 1st Amendment purity, the free exercise clause shouldn't either. I would allow both some leeway.
106: One of the perks of skepticism: no heroes. Being able to acknowledge the failings of human beings you may at times support.
I guess I'm a pearl-clutcher because I don't think holding to no heroes means holding to no respect shown. We live in a horribly violent society and, as much as I wouldn't foreclose one's right to say (almost) anything, we're naive if we think inflamatory words have no connection to acts of violence.
109: I assume that you are not suggesting that any and all criticism of the President amounts to 'inflamatory rhetoric'?
I am not. Robust criticism is as vital to free societies as it is in science. I encourage it and would not prevent it (even PZ's inflamatory ejaculations).
Indeed. So since you were the one who started with the violent rhetoric about lynching, maybe you could shut up now please.
You don't get to hand-wave it away as "relatively inconsequential" just by saying it is. The NDOP has no secular purpose. That makes it a violation of the establishment clause. Your freedom of religion issue has other circumstances which must be evaluated, but nothing requires the government to pander to religious practice if there are valid secular reasons for not doing so. Would you suggest that prohibiting the NDOP also means the government must allow ritual sacrifice?
It's probably occurred to everyone else already, but how declaring about a National Day of No Prayer?
"I call upon the citizens of our nation not to pray, nor otherwise give thanks or waste time and energy, in accordance with their own reason and consciences, and to appreciate our many hard-won freedoms and gifts from our predecessors and fellow citizens, and I invite all people of reason to join me in asking working for reasonable solutions to meet the challenges before us."
The president added, "Let us pray in one hand, and shit into the other, and let's see which hand gets full faster. I'm just saying."
Anyone who thinks the Supreme Court will uphold Judge Crabb's ruling is ignoring simple facts. The numbers are clear - the four rightwingers are a foregone conclusion, and the so-called swing vote, Kennedy, is already on the record, with his County of Allegheny dissent (1989), which expressly pointed to the National Day of Prayer as something that should be upheld.
Also, all this talk of the Lemon test ignores the fact that a significant number of justices have no use for it. They are also ready to jettison the Endorsement test, and if the Prayer Day case reaches them it may provide the vehicle to do it.
The religion lobby should be pushing every church/state issue they can find to this court. With Kennedy on board it is open season there, with no end in sight.
@Jordan #30: Thanks for admitting that you believe your abstract personal grudges should take precedence over the government actually following the law. You must love the "war on terror".
Some clarification to my earlier comment:
I listen to conservative Christian radio stations on my way home from work, partially because all of the radio stations here in Orlando suck, and partially because I want to know what people with whom I disagree are saying. I want to know the rationalisms they use.
And the arguments I hear from conservative Christians are very nearly the exact opposite of the arguments I hear from people like y'all. "The NDOP is simply an acknowledgment and affirmation of our historical Christian heritage, whereas allowing gay marriage would mean the government is encouraging wrong behavior," etc. etc.
Each side believes that one of these is obviously right and the other is obviously wrong. The common thread I hear on both sides is "if you don't like [the NDOP / gays marrying], then just ignore it."
So, my point is: why don't we use that as a point of compromise, for now? I can ignore the NDOP if they can ignore gay marriage. I believe that, inevitably, the NDOP will someday be prohibited, before or after the day that everyone stops caring about it. But meanwhile it's not an egregious violation of civil rights as some other agendas the Religious Right is pushing. If by letting up on the NDOP there are other gains that can be made, and if in so doing the Religious Right won't feel that their entire worldview is under attack all at once, isn't that a net gain?
Robocop, you still haven't proved a deity exists or that it answers prayers. Until you can do that, the NDOP is both inane and an unconstitutional exercise to placate those who must shove religion down everyones throats. But then, this simple distinction seems lost on godbots with their presuppositions and delusions...
Err, maybe because the Christian right will not compromise. In fact they have not compromised, as you know. How long has the National Day of Prayer been going ? And how much have the Christian Right slackened in their opposition to same sex marriage.
What you want is not called comprise, but surrender.
I suggest we call it what it is. National Day of Mental Wanking....
Poll to be smashed:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004321-503544.html
Currently 10% against the national day of prayer. A pity.
Because compromise isn't the best answer when one side is being unreasonable[1], and sometimes half-measures are worse than no measures. Discrimination against gays and non-Christians are both wrong. I see no reason to compromise.
[1] If Johnny wants the last cupcake entirely to himself, and Joey wants to split it in half, should we give 3/4ths to Johnny and 1/4th to Joey and call it fair?
Strange Gods Before Me @ 111;
You are right. Intent is ultimately not significant. I was just trying to give Jordan an 'out' in case he/she did not recognise the harmful nature of their langauge, or actually somehow thought the term was not bigotted. That is why I encouraged a retraction and apology. I hold out little hope that any such aknowledgement of fault is forthcoming.
If my post gave offence, I apologise.
@Brian:
Stop it. Stop the false equivalence. There is no compromise on fundamental constitutional issues. None. Simply because contemporary America "believes" the constitution allows all sorts of government religious endorsements does not make that true.
You don't "compromise" on core constitutional issues in order to persuade others to graciously grant gay people civil rights.
You're not helping, and you're actively hurting. Please, please re-think this.
*giggle* Someone had to say it.
I only consider one of those descriptors to be true of me, you bramble-mouthed, foolish, kack-headed goblin.
113: So since you were the one who started with the violent rhetoric about lynching....
As noted by the link up-thread, "get stuffed" is a very slightly more polite version of "get fucked." I realize that "fuck" has become a commonly used word and, largely as a consequence, is much less offensive today than it once was. But I grew up in a time when "get fucked" had very violent connotations (in my experience then, it always resulted in a violent confrontation) and still think of it in that way (and react accordingly).
114: The NDOP has no secular purpose.
Even if we assume that Lemon is still good law, cases routinely find a secular purpose supporting civil religion. Since this case will likely remain at the Court of Appeals level for a good while, the SCOTUS won't see for a pretty long time and we can't know how the Court will be constituted at that time. But I suspect that the current Court would readily find a secular purpose.
Would you suggest that prohibiting the NDOP also means the government must allow ritual sacrifice?
If both clauses are applied consistently, yes (and I think that would be a mistake).
Stop with this inane comparison. It's been pointed out to you why comparing this to gay marriage fails on many levels, so why do you insist on making this argument?
There's a reason the First Amendment exists. Read my comment #8 again. Simply telling people to ignore the government actively endorsing religion is opening the door to religion imposing itself on government more and more.
Things like the NDOP make me, a godless, voting citizen, feel imposed upon, excluded and unrepresented... the very thing the First Amendment exists to prevent.
You ignore it all you want. The rest of us will continue to rightfully call the government out for violating the constitution.
114: Would you suggest that prohibiting the NDOP also means the government must allow ritual sacrifice?
Consistent application would also require that religiously motivated genital mutilation also be allowed (another mistake).
Gregory, I see your point. I think the distinction of behavior and intention itself works as a great out. We learn and mimic other humans' behaviors, without always considering why those behaviors and not others. It doesn't always have to mean that the actor intends to condone -- for instance -- anti-gay activity. Actions speak louder than words, but sometimes they may be yelling "I haven't thought this through."
And if they do I will still disagree with it. But that doesn't change anything about the argument.
Then you would be wrong.
Wrong again.
Well, Obama is a Constitutional Law scholar so he knows best! Always look at what they boast about campaign time - it will foreshadow the way they'll screw you when in power. Remember, W was an MBA.
Stop it with this, Robocop... you're fucking reaching for justification instead of just apologizing for introducing a totally unnecessary element into the conversation. No rational person is going to conflate "get stuffed" with "get lynched" unless they are trying to skew the conversation racially. AKA an asshole.
131: Then you would be wrong.
I guess that settles things, then.
To summarize (and I hope conclude) -- I'm no 1st Amendment purist. Despite its unequivocal language, I would prevent some speech (publishing war plans, for example), allow some religious establishments (such as pronouncements of a civil religion sort -- like the NDOP), and disallow some religious exercise (like genital mutilation). That said, I think the NDOP is bad policy and should be repealed.
Robocop sez:
No.
The US Army is an all-volunteer body.
If someone does not feel, due to religious restrictions, that they can fulfill their duty as a soldier, they should not volunteer to do so.
If they volunteer to do so, they must abide by the policy they agree to upon volunteering.
Got the difference?
Nations -- not that I'm endorsing this -- have a legal monopoly on the use of force. This is an important part of how nations define themselves.
The Constitution says congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, but the power to outlaw (and commit) murder is automatically assumed by all nations regardless of any document.
Laws against voluntary ritual suicide might violate it. The prohibitions on suicide seem to come from religious activism.
As I said, freedom of religion does not require the government to pander to, or make special dispensations for, religion when there are valid secular reasons for not doing so. Protecting the rights of others is one of those secular reasons ie. not allowing ritual sacrifice or genital mutilation. Prohibiting the government from endorsing religion does not change that and, in fact, falls under the same secular reasoning: protecting the rights of others.
How conveniently idiosyncratic for you... yes, and while we're at it, let's re-write all the amendments ambiguously so we can interpret them loosely depending on what we personally like and don't like.
Or, ya know, we can keep them the way they, are, continue to act as though it's a good thing to unambiguously declare establishment of religion in government a bad thing, period.
Brian Kendig wrote:
If by letting up on the NDOP there are other gains that can be made, and if in so doing the Religious Right won't feel that their entire worldview is under attack all at once, isn't that a net gain?
If such a thing were possible, in the real world, I, for one would gladly make a few compromises to achieve gay marriage and a few other basic rights. But that's fantasyland. As has been pointed out, the right wing has never compromised on anything, let alone anything of this magnitude. Any compromise ever made, and there have been plenty, has only encouraged them to seek ever-expanding dominion. They have no wish for compromise or peace, only domination.
Screw the NDOP. Today is my birthday and the fundies are posting these stupid billboards all around town that say "dont forget the NDOP "
re 139:
Celtic, I think you misunderstand Robocop's point. Everything he said "he" would do is what the government already does. The problem is that Robo does not understand those exceptions to the 1st amendment are due to other restrictions or powers granted to the government. Publishing national security secrets is not a "freedom of speech" guarantee, nor is allowing any behavior just for "religious freedom" (like harming others). Robocop would like to argue that the entire constitution is the 1st amendment and so any exceptions to it are simply arbitrary and capricious.
[1] If Johnny wants the last cupcake entirely to himself, and Joey wants to split it in half, should we give 3/4ths to Johnny and 1/4th to Joey and call it fair?
Neither. I eat the cupcake entirely!
There are a lot of things that should be available under FOIA but are not. Claims of national security are grossly abused. Not that this contradicts anything you said.
No... I get all that... I'm saying that in cases like the NDOP, there is no need of a flexible interpretation of the First Amendment... it's language is unambiguous as it pertains to the NDOP, as far as I am concerned (and the Judge in this case), and insisting there be flexibility is effectively neutering it in deference to the religious establishment and I think that's a dangerous thing to allow.
138: As I said, freedom of religion does not require the government to pander to, or make special dispensations for, religion when there are valid secular reasons for not doing so.
So, when the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," it really means it, but when it says that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof," it doesn't. I'd prefer just a bit more consistency than that.
139: How conveniently idiosyncratic for you... yes, and while we're at it, let's re-write all the amendments ambiguously so we can interpret them loosely depending on what we personally like and don't like.
Each of the kinds of examples I posited already exists in current law -- it is illegal to publish war plans; it is legal to stamp "In God We Trust" on coins; and it is illegal to engage in a variety of ritual sacrifices. It's sweetly ironic, however, that you oppose judicial activism so strongly.
Or, ya know, we can keep them the way they, are, continue to act as though it's a good thing to unambiguously declare establishment of religion in government a bad thing, period.
Why do you think it would be a good idea for the 1st Amendment to be kept "pure"? Do you think it's a good thing for someone to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre without recourse? Or does your touching plea for jurisprudencial purity only apply to the Establishment Clause?
142: The problem is that Robo does not understand those exceptions to the 1st amendment are due to other restrictions or powers granted to the government.
What "other...powers" allow "In God We Trust" to be stamped on coins?
Try reading what I wrote before telling me what I mean. There is no good reason for the NDOP, and plenty of good reasons to prevent some religious practices. Oversimplifying it to the point of absurdity is not going to help your case. It's, at best, disingenuous and bordering on deliberately dishonest.
Jordan;
I'm not one of those politically correct queers.
I'm perfectly ok with you using the term "faggy".
As long as I can apply "douchey" to you.
I'm a HoMOSEXUAL because I'm attracted to men.
You're a douche bag because...well...you're a douche bag.
Happy bronze age superstition day!
KJ
You should know there is a movement to stop this, too, for the same reasons.
Re #121: The CBS poll is is currently running 73% to 27% in FAVOR of the National Day of Prayer! Stomp this thing!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004321-503544.html
I pray every day to C’thulhu so that when he returns he’ll devour me last.
Robocop wrote:
it is legal to stamp "In God We Trust" on coins
Of course it's legal, so what? Every judge in the country knows that it, along with "under God" in the Pledge, and the NDOP contravene the First Amendment. Justifications are invented, like "ceremonial Deism," to allow these things, in order to pander to the big majority of religious people in this country. The general feeling in the judiciary is, "it's no big deal, so it's OK."
"May America be devoured first as all other nations descend into madness when the Great Old Ones awaken." That was my prayer, although it was addressed "To whom it may concern."
This is just the Xmas wars all over again. A bunch of hubbub by self-righteous Christians over nothing.
All this talk about Obama obeying the law, how about we take a look at the law:
That's all it says. So, by law (and until the legal wrangling over the latest ruling makes its way through the legal system to hopefully be upheld), the President must issue a statement. It doesn't dictate what the statement should contain. All the President need say to meet the letter of the law is, "I declare today the National Day of Prayer." Of course, that would be squadering a perfectly good opportunity to pander to the masses.
That was not one of the exaples I was referring to. And I do not think it is a power granted to the government.
"Lord, save me from the people who believe in you.
They know not what they do, and yet what is worse is that even if they did, they probably wouldn't care as long as it happened to someone unlike them."
Seriously, though:
I don't think that's a very good argument. Just because a national day of prayer doesn't mandate specific prayers (yet) doesn't eliminate its premise that prayer is actually a meaningful act and the implication that praying implies praying to someone or something. That's nothing but an endorsement of religion, and considering the actualities of religion in the United States' history, primarily Christian religion at the expense of everyone else.
Christians have always had the right to pray every day. In comparison, gay marriage is about eliminating obstacles to rights that ought to be universal regardless of sexual orientation.
We do have an Atheist's Creed.
damn... link fail...
We do have an Atheist's Creed.
What delighted me about the proclamation was the inclusive language.
Mr. Obama has asked me to express gratitude for my liberty and my good fortune, but only in a manner consistent with my beliefs. Also---but only if I believe in God---he has asked me to ask God to do the state some favors.
In short, he transformed a national day of prayer into a national day of gratitude. Sow's ear, meet silk purse.
This is the same man on the record as saying, "I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality," and "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers."
It's not perfect. But it's delightful.
These prayers might do (I like #5 the best)
147: There is no good reason for the NDOP...."
Congress and the President disagree. I also suspect that the majority of federal courts would too, if they were presented with the question.
...and plenty of good reasons to prevent some religious practices.
To overcome a constitutional protection, those "good reasons" need to be constitutional in nature so the various protections and prohibitions can be balanced. What Constitutional reasons would you deem sufficient to support undermining free exercise and why aren't those reasons sufficient to undermine establishment?
Oversimplifying it to the point of absurdity is not going to help your case. It's, at best, disingenuous and bordering on deliberately dishonest.
It isn't oversimplifying or remotely dishonest to point out that you think the 1st Amendment's "no law" applies to establishments without exception but that the very same "no law" is riddled with exceptions when applied to free exercise.
152: Of course it's legal, so what? Every judge in the country knows that it, along with "under God" in the Pledge, and the NDOP contravene the First Amendment. Justifications are invented, like "ceremonial Deism," to allow these things, in order to pander to the big majority of religious people in this country. The general feeling in the judiciary is, "it's no big deal, so it's OK."
You might consider the possibility that the "no big deal" exception isn't based upon pandering but actually makes good jurisprudencial sense. Taking away the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is simply no big deal -- despite the undermining of free speech -- in contrast to the potential for damage if allowed.
156: And I do not think it is a power granted to the government.
You might want to notify the SCOTUS -- it has stated otherwise.
That doesn't make them right. It's also not their decision.
The only one we've heard from says there isn't.
I've given you one already in both cases: protecting the rights of others. That you deliberately ignore it doesn't change it.
It's entirely dishonest because I never said that. I've said, repeatedly, that secular purposes can be valid exceptions, and that the NDOP doesn't meet them. That you choose to ignore it doesn't change that.
You know, he was actually off to a pretty good start, considering he came out vocally against ending the practice. For a moment I thought Obama was actually going to make this a kind of neutral, nondenominational prayersy/thanksy thing a little like Thanksgiving. And that might have been ok.
But then he had to go on to ask his people to pray to his God. I wonder if American Hindus feel as disenfranchised by this sort of thing as we do.
I'm not sure I'd call him a hack, PZ, but I think your response was appropriate: on this one, Mr. President, kindly get stuffed. The Founding Fathers (the big names, anyway) would have been ashamed of this practice. Or possibly alarmed, which should teach us the same lesson.
Robocop wrote:
Taking away the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is simply no big deal -- despite the undermining of free speech -- in contrast to the potential for damage if allowed.
Why do you compare yelling fire in a theater to mandating a national prayer day? They are not remotely comparable. Just what potential for damage would you expect if there were no prayer day?
Don't we already have a (nonsecular) Thanksgiving Day? Why the special nod to the religious?
Robocop seems to think that since we've always done something, we should continue to do it no matter what. Totally bogus argument. All customs need to be reexamined periodically (in fact, it is required in my industry). The reason for the implementation of the custom needs to be examined, and the reasons for continuing, along with the reasons for ceasing the custom. This custom of the National Day of Mental Wanking needs to cease due to an unconstitutional entanglement of religion and government. There is no cogent reason for it, as anybody can pray privately (as Jebus commands Matt. 6.6) when they can. There is no need for an official day.
What part of "I don't think ..." leads you to believe that it was anything other than my own opinion?
That was never a right to begin with. Like saying "Taking away your right to armed robbery is an undermining of the 2nd amendment."
Don't we already have a (nonsecular) Thanksgiving Day? Why the special nod to the religious?
I thought it was secular, even though most people observe by thanking their god.
The only nonsecular national holiday is Christmas which has been declared to also be secular.
This I actually agree with. We do Christmas, we just don't sing happy birthday to Jesus. We kept the parts we liked and chucked the oogie-boogie bullshit in spite of the christofacists and their incessant need to tell everyone else how they should be celebrating it. Like PZ said last December: there is no war on Christmas. It's over. They lost.
nonsensemachine wrote:
Don't we already have a (nonsecular) Thanksgiving Day? Why the special nod to the religious?
Thanksgiving is one of the big historical justifications for Prayer Day, since, going back to Washington they were tied together as a "national day of celebration and prayer." Washington, Adams, Madison, Lincoln and many others issued these proclamations. Fraklin D. Roosevelt went so far in his Thanksgiving proclamation to "suggest a nationwide reading of the Holy Scriptures during the period from Thanksgiving Day to Christmas" so that "we may bear more earnest witness to our gratitude to Almighty God."
Although, as #167 points out, it's ridiculous to continue these practices just because they happened in the past, they carry great weight with some justices, especially Justice Kennedy, who has quoted many of them in his church/state opinions.
HaHa
Tonight is the Art Car Ball here in Houston where everybody dresses like whores and demons and we shoot hell sized fireballs from monstrous dragon machines, while getting righteously fucked up like a mini Burning Man only more humid. There might be some praying involved only it won't be to any of the familiar gods
Here's the show we did on the legality of the nat'l day of prayer last week, REPOST:
http://acksisofevil.org/audio/inner269.mp3
it's pretty good, I didn't know about the Barbary Pirates treaty.
Ben Goren @ 128
awesome
Celtic @ 158
Actually the dead atheist creed link that went to nowhere was pretty funny.
The separation of church and state is a logical fallacy that is why the amendment reads establishment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Every single person's political stance is going to be affected by their religious belief or lack thereof. A call to prayer does not equate to an establishment of religion. It doesn't force anybody to pray or indicate who or what to pray to. I believe the recent ruling actually states as much.
That said even as a self-identified person of faith, I could care less if a call to prayer was issued or not. I don't need POTUS to ask me to pray, I was going to anyways. But then unlike other conservative Christians, I take seriously the theology of the Two Kingdoms and don't hold the mistaken belief that the U.S. is a Christian Nation.
*looks at #128*...
*notices it's his post, not Ben Goren's*...
*scratches head*
*scratches ass*
*moves on*...
;^)
re 176:
I think he meant Ben Goren @28 not 128
#175
From Crabb's ruling: "The same law that prohibits the gov't from declaring a national day of prayer also prohibits it from declaring a national day of blasphemy."
You should read more Jefferson and Madison and get your information directly from the people who put this together, they are quite clear about their intentions, and wrote about seperation of church and state prolifically.
163: It's also not their decision.
Congress passed the law; the Executive enforces it.
The only one we've heard from says there isn't.
Actually, Justice Kennedy (as I recall) has had something to say too.
I've given you one already in both cases: protecting the rights of others.
What individual rights are protected in the animal sacrifice cases?
[S]ecular purposes can be valid exceptions, and that the NDOP doesn't meet them.
If Christmas celebrations can have a secular purpose, so can the NDOP. Or do you want to outlaw the Christmas holiday?
165: Why do you compare yelling fire in a theater to mandating a national prayer day?
Both provide exceptions to seemingly unambiguous 1st Amendment language.
167: Robocop seems to think that since we've always done something, we should continue to do it no matter what.
Well, except for my having said that I think it's a bad law and bad policy.
168: That was never a right to begin with.
Unless "no law" means what it says.
Robocop, only the secular parts of Christmas are allowed, not the religious parts. No to baby Jesus, yes to Santy Claws!
You need to read more Jefferson:
--
That's like saying every single person's political stance is going to be affected by their opinion on circus clowns or lack thereof.
It's an endorsement of prayer by Congress and the President of the US and fails at least two of the three prongs of the Lemon Test historically used to determine whether a government's action violates the establishment clause, your interpretation notwithstanding.
Simply not forcing people to pray doesn't make it constitutional.
You should read Obama's proclamation, because it mentions capital-G God several times.
And yet, still found it unconstitutional.
Which means, at best, it's unnecessary. So why have it?
Someone not only doesn't know his constitutional history but doesn't know what a logical fallacy is.
and Madison
Both provide exceptions to seemingly unambiguous 1st Amendment language.
I think you're equivocating here. The issue with shouting "fire" is really about what, exactly, is "speech" in the sense of what it is the framers intended the Constitution to protect.
Judging against an act of public endangerment achieved with a verbal sound is not a judgment against "speech" in the constitutional sense, which obviously denotes the content of what is said, not just any sound made with the vocal apparatus. Harassing speech and terroristic threats are not protected by the First Amendment, either. Linguists' and philosophers' discussions of "speech acts" may be germane here.
I don't see an analogy whereby prayer is not religious in the sense in which the Constitution used "religion."
It does not need to in order to violate the First Amendment.
All it needs to do is simply indicate that the government is endorsing religion at a government level, thereby excluding the irreligious.
This is what makes the NDOP unconstitutional.
As tsg pointed out, the NDOP clearly fails two prongs of the Lemon test... this is really the only point that matters.
And the Judicial determines whether or not it's constitutional.
Last I looked, there were nine Supreme Court Justices. But I have no illusions how this will go: the SCOTUS will overturn it on appeal because we are increasingly a nation that pays lip service to freedom of religion without understanding it at all. And that doesn't make it not wrong.
And what could possibly make you believe that example was meant to be all encompassing? You're not even trying to appear reasonable anymore.
But does it? Name one.
Stop. Just stop.
Robocop wrote:
165: Why do you compare yelling fire in a theater to mandating a national prayer day?
Both provide exceptions to seemingly unambiguous 1st Amendment language.
Even to you it must be obvious that there is a logical reason to penalize people who yell fire in a theater, while there is no logical reason to mandate a day of prayer. To compare the two is just silly.
Are you a moron?
The law was declared unconstitutional already. He is therefore NOT required by law to do anything.
Sounds like Robocop whenever the facts don't back his inane beliefs. Must invent something silly and irrelevant to cover the fact he has nothing cogent to say.
Since PZ's Atheist Creed has been mentioned, it may be appropriate to note that said Creed has been made into a poster.
Celtic_Evolution wrote:
All it needs to do is simply indicate that the government is endorsing religion at a government level, thereby excluding the irreligious.
To illustrate the state of the current Supreme Court, here is what the esteemed Justice Scalia said about that seemingly obvious proposition. (McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky, 2005)
"it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists." (Emphasis mine.) In other words, sure this action excludes the irreligious, but so what? Historically, that's what we do, here in America.
Celtic @ 184
It's even worse than that. Even the godSuckers are for the establishment claws not favoring one religion over others, yet a NDOP does just that by advocating for theistic religions over non-theistic religions, Buddhism being the largest, and various forms of Chinese supernaturalism which includes a large segment of the population if you throw in non-believers.
Rutee @ 187
http://acksisofevil.org/audio/inner268.mp3
oh shit I think I posted the wrong link earlier,
sorry
oops blockquote fail at 187
If only he had stopped there.
SteveM said: "If only he had stopped there."
No, I don't think that would be good enough. Calling upon the people to pray is unacceptable, and no, "qualifying" it with another phrase doesn't ameliorate the harm.
I think that, if anything, we should be encouraging Christians to pray even more than they do already; in fact, I think we need to do our darndest to get them to pray at every opportunity.
During election time, for example, they should be encourage to pray for the person they want elected rather than vote. Ditto on things like Prop 8 and school boards trying to get creationism taught in science classes.
Really, they're showing a lack of faith in their god if they actually vote themselves. After all, if god wants it to happen, he'll make it happen - right?
Every year I write to Jesus asking him to bring me a pony for the National Day of Prayer but he never does. I guess I must be doing something wrong.
No, that doesn't fly.
There are thousands of laws, and the head of the executive branch has to make fundamental choices about where to apply scarce resources to ensure that the laws are executed, as we especially learned at our cost during the Bush administration.
Obama didn't have to make a proclamation. He chose to allocate time to make such a proclamation. You could argue that the rights of some people, such as atheists, were infringed by a president affirming that the right thing for US citizens to do is to pray.
If he hadn't made such a proclamation, nobody would have died, nobody would have lost a fundamental right, no water would have been polluted, no ...
Obama chose in this case to pander to religious people and institutions. It doesn't matter why he chose to do it. Maybe he believes in it. Maybe he's just a politician pandering to voters. But it was a choice he made about where to put his priorities.
tsg
“You need to read more Jefferson:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
Actually, I have read Jefferson. Jefferson's opinion is not constitutional law and is only of interest for the purpose of understanding his opinion, not in what is actually written. There were other factors going into the formation of the Bill of Rights outside of Jefferson. Effectively the 1st amendment only prevents the establishment of a state church it does not prevent the influence of religious beliefs or public officials from publicly stating their beliefs. Believe it or not churches also had a hand in this provision because they had witnessed the first hand the problems of state churches of note are the histories of Connecticut and Rhode Island, they originally had state churches. Mostly, these churches wanted to be left alone, wanted to prohibit the legal enforcement a single set of confessions and/or practices.
“That's like saying every single person's political stance is going to be affected by their opinion on circus clowns or lack thereof.”
LOL, you may find it ridiculous but it doesn't make it any less true.
“It's an endorsement of prayer by Congress and the President of the US and fails at least two of the three prongs of the Lemon Test historically used to determine whether a government's action violates the establishment clause, your interpretation notwithstanding.”
(1)it has no secular purpose – this is arguable, I would argue that it does serve a secular purpose as prayers for wisdom, guidance and peace do serve a secular purpose.
(2)its primary effect advances or inhibits religion; or – its primary effect does not advance or inhibit religion, it states that people may go and pray. For it to advance religion it would have to say “must”, “may” is to open to interpretation as to whether or not it constitutes a mandate as such it can neither hinder nor advance religion. In other words, “may” allows people to not engage in activity that goes against their beliefs.
(3)it fosters an excessive entanglement with religion – this may be the strongest argument against. However, as it does not specify a religious deity, it maintains a distance from religious establishment. While yes the law does state God, in our religious climate the word God itself is open to interpretation. If it was worded in such a fashion to say Allah, Chtulhu, Jesus, or FSM then it would be highly entangled with religion. However, it doesn't.
Which means, at best, it's unnecessary. So why have it?
You're right, I am just saying that the actual law is not unconstitutional.
#199, texag98:
You need to learn how to use:
Nobody has the patience to read through your undifferentiated wall 'o text. Stop using quotation marks - they're not enough.
re 195:
I disagree. Asking people to do A or B is not a demand to do A.
And I understand (and agree with) the point about the government should not be advocating prayer at all, but at least if he had stopped at just the "pray or otherwise give thanks" it would have at least been inclusive of all faiths and non-faiths. It was the "ask God..." part that excludes other faiths and atheists.
I'm totally late to this, but two thoughts:
I actually affirmatively want politicians to be selectively accomodating. I want people who can provide the right sort of official bullshit and then get about the business of getting useful stuff done. Obama may not do everything I want him to, but he is a long sight better than the alternative, and given the stupidity of the electorate, I really don't want to give them reality-based arguments for why he's [insert teabagger rhetoric here]. I can't do the consensus-building, accomodationist thing, that's why I'm not a politician. I did try the consensus stuff for a long time, but finally concluded that (a) I'm not that great at it, (b) it makes me crazy angry to hear the bullshit arguments that come back at me during the consensus-building conversations, and (c) I can change more people's minds by simply being who I am and avoiding the crazy angry feelings. I admit that this is argument is on a very slippery slope, and I think there are many many many times that even politicians should refuse to accomodate stupidity. To my mind, this doesn't cross that line.
Second, Obama's statement is actually pretty accomodating of atheists, certainly more than most religion-speak coming from politicians. He asks people "to pray or otherwise give thanks in accordance with their own faiths and consciences." The asking-God-for-stuff is an "invitation" rather than a "call," which strikes me as way less commanding, and in any event, is directed only at "people of faith." I think some speechwriter spent a whole lot of time coming up with language that could be that inclusive of non-theists, which frankly is a whole lot better than a lot of the officially Christian language coming out of the White House for the last eight years.
So in accordance with Obama's call, I spent the day thinking about the development of complexity in the material world and being grateful that I am alive to see the blue sky and to learn stuff about the natural world. All without thanking or even thinking of any magical spirit. (Well, I did think of how irritating it was that I couldn't read Pharyngula and compose responses because I was running kid errands and stuck in traffic jams. Does that count as thinking of magical spirits?)
Perhaps we could have a dual-front approach with in-your-face lawsuits and obnoxious and highly verbal atheists talking in explicitly non-theistic language about how grateful they are for various natural phenomena. And then suing the fools who want to keep said atheists out of official public NDOP events.
OK, I'm ready to get slammed as a tone-troll [braces self for explosion]. But I am trying to recover...
Blaugggghtttt. Bold fail. Massive apologies. Now back to hiding from the potential explosion.
Then you need to spend more time trying to understand why he wrote what he did.
It was his, and others', opinion about what was written and why. And if you have even a cursory familiarity with the SCOTUS, you'll know they sometimes spend a good deal of time trying to understand why the framers wrote what they did. Even if they don't necessarily agree with them, they find it important to understand it. You might consider it.
Yes, it does. See Lemon v Kurtzman.
Hence the "freedom of exercize thereof" part.
It's true because it's a tautology. True is not the same as meaningful.
Evidence?
It encourages people to go and pray.
This is demonstrably wrong.
As has been pointed out previously, it need not be a mandate to run foul of the establishment clause. This is established fact and you'd do well to read up on it.
It doesn't have to. This is also established fact.
Oh, bullshit. Do you remember when Michael Newdow challenged the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Do you remember what the Senate's response was? A near unanimous (Jesse Helms abstained -- somehow I doubt he would have been the lone dissenter) and emphatic re-codification of the Pledge of Allegiance as written. A pointless act of political chest beating that did nothing but send the message that "God" is not a meaningless term open to interpretation. If it were, "God" on our currency, in our Pledge, in our National Motto wouldn't raise such ire whenever someone suggests removing it. Go sell that horseshit somewhere else, because I ain't buying it.
As opposed to just the Christian god, got it.
Luckily it isn't up to you, because your knowledge of the First Amendment is limited at best.
Well, eight US atheists walked into a bar...on National Pray Day, and most deliberately and with great conviction, most pointedly did not pray.
Instead, the Baltimore Pharyngula Fans group, drank, told stories, often with tremendous snark, and did quite a bit of blaspheming.
I think we did you proud, PZ.
Now for some fun and self-serving reinterpretation of the first amendment.
This part deals with an establishment of religion. Prayer is an establishment of religion. So is God, with a capital G. So is the Vatican. No law can show respect to these things, but notice that laws are not prohibited from being disrespectful.
Exercise takes time, and time is money, so no exercise can ever be free. That second clause effectively says nothing: laws can't prohibit something that doesn't exist.
In conclusion, laws can't respect religions and religious practices are not protected.
*pouts about no Charleston Pharyngula group
Bastion Of Sass, that just might be the best way to deal with the National Day Of Prayer. Good job.
Understanding Jefferson's and Madison's opinions is all well and good, and SCOTUS being thorough in considering decisions is also good, but that doesn't make Jefferson's letter to a Baptist church binding constitutional law.
Lemon v Kurtzman does not prevent people (private citizen or elected official) from voting according to their religious beliefs with the exception that said belief could lead to the establishment of a state church. It does give a litmus test of sorts to prevent the slippery slope that would lead to state sponsored churches.
While I can not offer anything more than anecdotal evidence for the effectiveness of prayer, I will ask how do wisdom, guidance, and peace not serve a secular purpose?
Then demonstrate it.
How does the option to do something or not advance or hinder anything? You can do it or not. How does an event that you are free to mute or even not watch hinder your expression of non-faith? If as Lemon v Kurtzman has pointed out a law that has a demonstrated history of not leading to the establishment of a religion is not in violation of the 1st Amendment (see comments on tax exemption) why does that not apply here? Or is this going to end up as a case of how long does a law need to be a law before it falls under that exemption?
All you prove is that people have a knee jerk reaction to removing something they like. I am not saying the word god is not devoid of meaning. People are going to have strong reactions to the word, but their reasons are going to differ. You do not prove that God has a specific meaning. In our current theological environment one cannot assume what a person means by God. It needs to be specified before it can truly be claimed to advance one religion over another.
Umm, actually I included the Christian God in that above statement.
SCOTUS decisions are heavily based on the writings of the Framers.
Wrong.
So, none then.
They do. Saying you get them from prayer does not. It's the exact opposite.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you Constitutional Law 101. If you are interested, there is plenty of information available on the web. But I don't believe for one second that you are, because if you were you wouldn't have made such a rookie mistake as to think that there is no separation of church and state simply because those words don't appear in the Constitution.
As for the rest of your argument, "god" is religion. It's pretty much the definition. No amount of weaseling is going to change that.
I'd like to form one for Adelaide, since we've got two OMs living here - but I'm becoming increasing anti-social and meatspace phobic, and John Morales's comments suggest that he's so shy and reclusive that he makes me look like Paris Hilton...
You keep saying that, but to me you're just normal...:-)
:D
*shakes fist at Melbourne Pharyngula slackers*
@tsg #22:
The establishment clause is something of an iron chariot, isn't it?
@tsg
How sad. You make all these claims yet are singularly incapable of actually mounting a defense. But then in believing one's belief is not going to affect their political decisions gives ample evidence you don't even understand basic psychology, so I guess I shouldn't expect you to be able to do more than through out basic talking points.
The word "god" does indeed have religious connotations but on its own does not define a religion. It therefore advances none nor does it hinder none as each can impose its own definition of god. Anybody who has a basic understanding of the various theological positions can see that.
I haven't read the other comments to see if this thought was already covered, but here goes anyway..
I truly believe that Obama is a "reason based" guy at heart,but one who knows that he must cater to the faith based majority.
Including "or otherwise give thanks" is like an encoded message to the faithless minority, I feel.
Those 4 words totally negate the "prayer" imperative that the name, Day of Prayer suggests.
As an unpraying, but often "thankful" atheist,I feel acknowledged by those words and sympathize with his predicament.
Yet you failed to even address his point. Mainly that you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.
He presented an argument and you ignored it.
Good job.
texag98wrote:
The word "god" does indeed have religious connotations but on its own does not define a religion. It therefore advances none nor does it hinder none as each can impose its own definition of god.
The word god has no nonreligious connotations, so on its own it certainly advances religion in general. As such it excludes the nonreligious. Various abstruse theological interpretations of the word are beside the point. But perhaps you agree with Scalia that the Constitution allows for the disregard of the nonreligious.
texag98 sez:
And, assuming that we define a church as a group of people called to pray together (a fairly reasonable definition, I think), how does the head of the government calling for people to pray together - based on a law calling for people to pray together - not make a state-sponsored church?