USAToday: Judge Rules National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional

[Predicto]

Doesn't matter what they had in mind fact is they didn't specify any religion. And all religions pray (I know it was said ealier that not necessarily all do, but I can't think of one that doesn't :whoknows: )

Exactly what part of the constitution is this violating?

And apparently this frivolous lawsuit was allowed to move forward because FFRF was shown to be "injured" by this day of prayer.

You've have to got be ( )ing me

The law is not enforced or enforcable, nor is it forcing anyone to do anything. Pretty sure most American's don't even know when the day is. Outside of maybe a 30 second blurb on the news on the day, it has no news/media coverage at all. Are they seriously wasting court time and money claiming they're somehow affected by a national day of prayer?

Wow, what a bunch of p(female reporductive organ)s

I agree with you, but I guess the same question could be asked the other way.

If this proclamation isn't doing anything or having any effect, why are people fighting so hard to defend the day and feeling so put out by this lawsuit?

:whoknows:

[Larry]

Doesn't matter what they had in mind fact is they didn't specify any religion.

So your position is that when the government passes a law for the specific purpose of making the government advocate for a particular religion, then you think the Constitution should be OK with that, as long as they don't officially say which religion in writing?

Curious. Do you have the same belief (that it doesn't matter in any way what people had in mind when they wrote a law) with respect to other laws?

[Predicto]

I actually agree with this to an extent. The original intent (and the correct interpretation) of the separation of church and state was to ensure that there would not be a unifying national religion but to allow states to do this at their discretion.

As always, people who are sure that they understand "original intent" are treading on thin ice.

The reality is that the Constitution was a deliberately ambiguous document at the time it was written, the result of a ton of compromise by a lot of people with varying views and concerns, and a lot of the ideas in it were understood by different people to mean different things at the time.

Divining a perfect "original intent" is almost always an exercise in "finding some evidence to support the interpretation that I want the Constitution to have while and ignoring the rest."

[Jeeb]

Gawd forbid we have a secular government. There might be some rational dialog on social issues. I love this decision. It's obviously meaningless in this country. But, you have to love the sound of the collective Christian's panties bunching up.

No, I want limited government except for when it's for what I want. "conservatism" for the win.

[techboy]

And apparently this frivolous lawsuit was allowed to move forward because FFRF was shown to be "injured" by this day of prayer.

The very idea of a National Day of Prayer made Dan Barker's blood pressure sky rocket, and they showed the court a note from his doctor, kind of like in school.

[Larry]

Kind of OT, but I do have to admit that in these threads, I really have a problem with the assertion that having the government violate the Constitution isn't, in and of itself, "harm".

It's like "Well, yeah, it's a violation of the Constitution of the United States, but did it hurt anything important?"

[Skins24]

a bunch of you are saying what's the big deal, so the government encourages people to pray, what's the harm? well the founding fathers thought it was important enough to put some pretty strong language forbidding it, so i guess your beef is really with them.

Where?

What does this do that the constitution forbids?

Also, according to wiki

The Continental Congress issued a day of prayer in 1775 to designate "a time for prayer in forming a new nation." During the Quasi-War with France, President John Adams declared May 9, 1798 as "a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer," during which citizens of all faiths were asked to pray "that our country may be protected from all the dangers which threaten it".

Shame on our founding fathers.....

I agree with you, but I guess the same question could be asked the other way.

If this proclamation isn't doing anything or having any effect, why are people fighting so hard to defend the day and feeling so put out by this lawsuit?

:whoknows:

Who is?

The government is the one defending. And this is actually the first I'm hearing of this lawsuit. I haven't had the chance to gage how many people are feeling so put out by this. (seeing as this is the first I'm hearing it, I imagine the numbers probably aren't all that great)

So your position is that when the government passes a law for the specific purpose of making the government advocate for a particular religion, then you think the Constitution should be OK with that, as long as they don't officially say which religion in writing?

What in the world are you talking about?

They are not adovocating any particular religion....

hence why no religion is mentioned and when they have events on that day all religions are invited....

[Jumbo]

A "national day of prayer" is basically "off-target" as far as I'm concerned, as is having "In God We Trust" on money etc. I disagree that a secular focus isn't more of a "neutral" stance for government than any indication of support for any form of spiritual/religious belief system (which would include even basic acceptance/rejection of any omniscient creator/deity) or of any "non-belief system" (if you will).

"Neutral" is more "staying out of it entirely", IMV. I'd prefer no governmental endorsements (ceremonial or otherwise) of any such position of any kind on any such matters.

BUT...I don't consider any of this as any real problem or some damaging social situation or anytring to get riled up about.

I consider something like the NDoP benign and of good intentions. I don't see any important negatives.

It's not worthy of any extending argument to me personally. I an not worried about such things and don't expect them to change or think there's "something wrong" with people who support them.

I consider my thoughts in the first paragraph as part of my views on a more "ideal" type of situation and not a practical or pragmatic one--and not even constituting a scenario that would work well for us socially at this point in time.

I think any moves in a counter direction (like fighting to "overturn" a NDoP) right now would cause more strife and dissension and problems than it would move us forward in any important and useful manner. It's not really hurting anyone and is more likely actually putting some good out there.

[Oldskool]

As always, people who are sure that they understand "original intent" are treading on thin ice.

The reality is that the Constitution was a deliberately ambiguous document at the time it was written, the result of a ton of compromise by a lot of people with varying views and concerns, and a lot of the ideas in it were understood by different people to mean different things at the time.

Divining a perfect "original intent" is almost always an exercise in "finding some evidence to support the interpretation that I want the Constitution to have while and ignoring the rest."

The fact that all original 13 states had official state religions post signing of the Constitution points to it not being a no-no. True, it is ambiguous in it's wording but this is far from meaning that religion played no part and still plays no part in American life. It simply means there is no specific mandate of religion to be imposed on the public via the Federal Government.

[mjah]

If this proclamation isn't doing anything or having any effect, why are people fighting so hard to defend the day and feeling so put out by this lawsuit?

:whoknows:

Surely you don't want to frame it this way!

I don't have a particularly strong feeling for or against the basic idea of a NDoP, but I have read and heard a lot about it from both sides. For those who do have a problem with it, the answer to your question (if I may) seems simple:

Principle. It's not about the practical issues you raise at all. It's principle.

(Which is not to say you can't question that answer!)

[Spec138]

The fact that all original 13 states had official state religions post signing of the Constitution points to it not being a no-no. True, it is ambiguous in it's wording but this is far from meaning that religion played no part and still plays no part in American life. It simply means there is no specific mandate of religion to be imposed on the public via the Federal Government.

We had slaves back then too, ya know? So I guess that whole equality for everyone can be ignored too.

Just because a founding father (as mentioned further up in the thread) or some other entity further back in history was for something doesn't mean it's correct.

[greenspandan]

well, lately i've heard several conservatives -- both friends and pundits -- argue that there is, in fact, NO separation of church and state specified in the constitution. the fact that such a belief really is making the rounds in conservative circles does make me pretty twitchy on these issues. it seems like a rather radical interpretation of the first amendment to me, and i would certainly feel personally threatened if it were to gain traction. as a result, my government urging me to set aside a special day for prayer is an unsettling feeling.

[Mickalino]

as a result, my government urging me to set aside a special day for prayer is an unsettling feeling.

Really ? You feel "urged" ? How so ?

[tshile]

the country would be so much better if religion was completely removed from the government (schools included).

this is from a person who is religious btw.

[Predicto]

The fact that all original 13 states had official state religions post signing of the Constitution points to it not being a no-no.

Not really true. At the time of the signing, no one was really sure how the Constitution would be applied and enforced. Until John Marshall wrote Marbury v. Madison and more or less defined the powers of the courts to enforce the constitution and override state actions, everyone was sort of winging it with how powerful this "constitution" was going to be and how it was going to be applied.

I might add that I am not saying that your interpretation is definitively wrong wrong or that any other interpretation is definitively right.

I'm just saying that I have done a lot of constititional interpretation and analysis in my life, and I have come to learn that no one, anywhere, really knows the Founders' original intent on anything, because there were dozens of them and they all had their own subjective understandings about every word of the document.

They compromised like heck to try to produce something workable that they all could agree on despite their differences, and trust in the passage of time and the goodwill of people to resolve ambiguities as they arose. That is how you have James Madison and Alexander Hamilton both writing Federalist Papers defending the Constitution, despite harboring diametrically opposed views about the power of the federal government created by that document.

True, it is ambiguous in it's wording but this is far from meaning that religion played no part and still plays no part in American life.

I would never, ever claim that religion plays no part in American life. We are talking about government, not life.

It simply means there is no specific mandate of religion to be imposed on the public via the Federal Government.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. The Supreme Court has wavered, but mostly disagreed, with this interpretation for almost a century.

[Predicto]

A "national day of prayer" is basically "off-target" as far as I'm concerned, as is having "In God We Trust" on money etc. I disagree that a secular focus isn't more of a "neutral" stance for government than any indication of support for any form of spiritual/religious belief system (which would include even basic acceptance/rejection of any omniscient creator/deity) or of any "non-belief system" (if you will).

"Neutral" is more "staying out of it entirely", IMV. I'd prefer no governmental endorsements (ceremonial or otherwise) of any such position of any kind on any such matters.

BUT...I don't consider any of this as any real problem or some damaging social situation or anytring to get riled up about.

I consider something like the NDoP benign and of good intentions. I don't see any important negatives.

It's not worthy of any extending argument to me personally. I an not worried about such things and don't expect them to change or think there's "something wrong" with people who support them.

I consider my thoughts in the first paragraph as part of my views on a more "ideal" type of situation and not a practical or pragmatic one--and not even constituting a scenario that would work well for us socially at this point in time.

I think any moves in a counter direction (like fighting to "overturn" a NDoP) right now would cause more strife and dissension and problems than it would move us forward in any important and useful manner. It's not really hurting anyone and is more likely actually putting some good out there.

I said it better in less words. :pfft:

[Larry]

I said it better in less words. :pfft:

I always liked the way it was expressed by Neal Boortz, a conservative/libertarian talk radio host I used to listen to.

(He was talking about "under God" in the Pledge, but I assume that this thing is pretty similar.)

He said that there is no question whatsoever that those words were added to the Pledge for the specific purpose of having the government use it's power, to advocate Christianity to children who are compelled to be there. The people who wrote and passed the law, making the change, stood on the floors of Congress, on the record, and said so.

He said that, in the history of our nation, there has never been, nor will there ever be, a clearer violation of the First Amendment. That it is utterly impossible to argue that that law was even remotely Constitutional.

He also said, however, that anybody who actually goes into a courtroom and makes a court actually rule on this issue is a contender for the biggest a-hole in the Nation. That no one other than such a candidate would actually go to the trouble of literally making a Federal Case out of it.

[John Lydon]

Can someone explain how NDoP violates the constitution? It's not a law. It's the equivalent of a nod by the Government to all religions. (Before any starts in about NDoP being a Christian day, might I remind you that ALL religions have a God and ALL religions pray in one form or another.)

If NDoP is being challenged just because it endorses a subject some don't agree with, then I have a list of days that need to go as well.

1. Arbor Day - I hate trees

2. MLK day - I'm not black

3. Columbus Day and Thanksgiving - I'm of Native American decent

4. Easter - celebrates the resurrection of Jesus

5. Christmas - celebrates Jesus' birth

6. New Years - People who follow the Chinese calander may get offended

7. Presidents day - I'm anti establishment

I guess we can't have any holidays at all really.

[Mickalino]

(He was talking about "under God" in the Pledge, but I assume that this thing is pretty similar.)

He said that there is no question whatsoever that those words were added to the Pledge for the specific purpose of having the government use it's power, to advocate Christianity to children who are compelled to be there. The people who wrote and passed the law, making the change, stood on the floors of Congress, on the record, and said so.

He said that, in the history of our nation, there has never been, nor will there ever be, a clearer violation of the First Amendment.

How does saying a pledge of allegiance violate free speech ?

[Larry]

Can someone explain how NDoP violates the constitution?

Can you point out the part of the Constitution that grants the government the power to advocate religious matters to the citizens?

[Teller]

There is no assault on religion in this country. It is a FOX News fabrication. Repeat, NO assault on religion. Fabrication.

Evidence be damned.

[Larry]

There is no assault on religion in this country. It is a FOX News fabrication. Repeat, NO assault on religion. Fabrication.

Evidence be damned.

There is, however, an assault on reality.

For example, examine the above post.

The topic of this post is a case, yet again, of one particular religion attempting to use it's majority status to get the US Government to promote their religion, in clear violation of the US Constitution.

They've been caught. For the umpteenth time.

Solution? Redefine reality, and claim that they're being persecuted. Those evil, nasty people are attempting to force me to stop using the government to promote my religion! Save me!

[John Lydon]

Can you point out the part of the Constitution that grants the government the power to advocate religious matters to the citizens?

Can you point out the part of the Constitution that okays Presidential Signing Statements? They're an everyday part of Politics yet there is nothing about them in the constitution.

My point being, just because it's not in there doesn't mean the Government can't do it.

Also, slightly off topic, while researching to try and find a witty comeback to Larry's post I found out that there is a thing called the frieze in the supreme court that depicts Moses and Mohammed. Why is no one up in arms about this?

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a8.html

There is a frieze in the Supreme Court building that depicts Moses and Mohammed, but not Jesus. The frieze, which is a sculpture installed in a wall, were sculpted by Adolph Weinman in 1932. Weinman sculpted 18 people through history who have had an impact on our concept of law, as well as allegorical figures depicting some great legal concepts. This information was collated from the Supreme Court web site.

Edit: Mohammed is also holding the Koran in the sculpture. I'm trying to find a picture to post.

[Mooka]

Can someone explain how NDoP violates the constitution? It's not a law. It's the equivalent of a nod by the Government to all religions. (Before any starts in about NDoP being a Christian day, might I remind you that ALL religions have a God and ALL religions pray in one form or another.)

All religions do not have a God. You even capitalized God.

The judge explained her ruling:

"In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual's decision whether and when to pray," Crabb wrote.

...

Crabb wrote that her ruling was not a judgment on the value of prayer. She noted government involvement in prayer may be constitutional if the conduct serves a "significant secular purpose" and doesn't amount to a call for religious action. But the National Day of Prayer crosses that line, she wrote.

"It goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," she wrote. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience."

If NDoP is being challenged just because it endorses a subject some don't agree with, then I have a list of days that need to go as well.

1. Arbor Day - I hate trees

2. MLK day - I'm not black

3. Columbus Day and Thanksgiving - I'm of Native American decent

4. Easter - celebrates the resurrection of Jesus

5. Christmas - celebrates Jesus' birth

6. New Years - People who follow the Chinese calander may get offended

7. Presidents day - I'm anti establishment

I guess we can't have any holidays at all really.

1,2,3,6, and 7 are not religious in nature.

People have sued about Christmas: Ganulin v. United States (1999)

"Courts have repeatedly recognized that the Christmas holiday has become largely secularized. ...By giving federal employees a paid vacation day on Christmas, the government is doing no more than recognizing the cultural significance of the holiday. "

[John Lydon]

Found the image of Mohammed that is sculpted in our Supreme Court

Why doesn't anyone care about this?