USAToday: Judge Rules National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional

[John Lydon]

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

All religions do have a god. You name a religion and I will give you its god. Pardon me for captilizing God. Years of habit are hard to set aside.

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

My point was that they could be viewed as offensive just as easily as the NDoP. Also Arbor Day is about trees and some religions worship trees and Nature, so it could easily fall into the same group.

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

I did not know that. Thanks for the link.

[Teller]

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!

"Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I fail to see how an NDoP even REMOTELY approaches that.

[Predicto]

How does saying a pledge of allegiance violate free speech ?

The "under God" part of the pledge was added in the 1950s with the open intention of promotiong Christianity in our schools.

The argument is that this violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The argument is legally correct, but it is not a battle worth fighting. I once knew Mike Newdow (the guy who keeps suing about this) and he does not know how to pick his battles.

[Predicto]

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

Why doesn't anyone care about this?

Because (as your link already explained), those people on the wall of the Supreme Court are there because they are historic lawgivers from various cultures, from Hammurabi to Moses to Charlemagne to Blackstone to John Marshall to Napoleon.

The First Amendment does not forbid any mention or depiction of historic figures just because they were religious. It forbids endorsement of religion.

I suspect you already understood this.

[Mooka]

All religions do have a god. You name a religion and I will give you its god. Pardon me for captilizing God. Years of habit are hard to set aside.

That's a very Judeo-Christian view of religion. You even did it again, "a god" as in one. Kind of ironic considering the discussion.

You can loosely say every religion has some deity in some form, but you would never hear a Bhuddist tell you that Bhudda is a god.

My point was that they could be viewed as offensive just as easily as the NDoP. Also Arbor Day is about trees and some religions worship trees and Nature, so it could easily fall into the same group.

Well you could always sue the government about Abor Day and see what happens.

These people, the freedom from religion people, claim the National Day of Prayer violates the establishment clause of the first amendment. Its a specific complaint.

[Predicto]

"Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I fail to see how an NDoP even REMOTELY approaches that.

As always, you also have to consider the 200 years of caselaw that refines the meaning of those words.

[Predicto]

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

Evidence be damned.

So persecuted. So horribly persecuted.

[mjah]

How does saying a pledge of allegiance violate free speech ?

Whooooosh.

[Larry]

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.

My point being:

Funny, when the subject is health care, then the position of many of our posters is "the words 'health care' don't appear in the Constitution, therefore the federal government cannot regulate it in any way."

But when the topic is the federal government actively promoting Christianity, and the Constitution's prohibition of this activity, suddenly we get things like:

Well, that only applies to Congress.

And if there's no criminal penalties, then it isn't really a law.

And it only prohibits

establishment

of a religion. Christianity already exists.

And well, it doesn't say the government can't

encourage

a religion.

And, it doesn't say we can't have an official, government written,

prayer

.

And, well, Christianity isn't a religion, it's a group of religion. The First only says the government can't promote a specific

branch

of Christianity.

Or, well, when the government passes a law, and states that the purpose of the law is to promote Christianity, that doesn't really matter, as long as the law, itself, is a bit vague about what it does.

This seems to happen in other areas, too. It's amazing the lengths I've seen people go through, to try to shrink the Bill of Rights into complete irrelevancy.

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?

For the same reason that no one on ES is up in arms about "under God" or this day of prayer? The fact that this is something which, while clearly unconstitutional, very few people find it important enough to complain about?

(Or maybe it's because people on ES are smart enough to know that if they tried to claim that this painting/whatever was part of some government plan to impose Judaism and Islam, simultaneously, on the people of the US, they'd get laughed at.)

[Larry]

My point was that they could be viewed as offensive just as easily as the NDoP. Also Arbor Day is about trees and some religions worship trees and Nature, so it could easily fall into the same group.

But the Constitution does not prohibit the government from doing anything that any one objects to.

It prohibits the government from promoting or discouraging a religion.

(And lots of other things that we aren't discussing, here.)

[John Lydon]

That's a very Judeo-Christian view of religion. You even did it again, "a god" as in one. Kind of ironic considering the discussion.

I'm not making any efforts to hide the fact that I am a Christian or my motives behind viewing this case as I do. I do believe their is only one God and so I type it as such. I don't get your hang up on that.

You can loosely say every religion has some deity in some form, but you would never hear a Bhuddist tell you that Bhudda is a god.

These people, the freedom from religion people, claim the National Day of Prayer violates the establishment clause of the first amendment. Its a specific complaint.

My original question many posts ago posed the question "why is the NDoP unconstitutional." I fully understand why the FFR people are doing what they're doing, I just wanted to know if they had a leg to stand on. My examples of holidays, such as Arbor Day, were to point out that because something is deemed offensive should not matter.

If NDoP violates the constitution then by all means, do away with it. If it does specifically violate it however, what grounds does this judge have for her ruling? That's what I want to know.

[Larry]

"Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I fail to see how an NDoP even REMOTELY approaches that.

Because you want the government to promote your religion. And therefore, you chose to adopt the approach of "it's allowed unless it's absolutely, specifically, prohibited, in language that I can't find a way around."

I, on the other hand, chose to interpret the Constitution's prohibitions on government powers broadly. That's because I think that freedom is important.

Same question I asked earlier: The portion of the Constitution that grants the government the power to encourage citizens to pray is . . . ?

----------

I'll also observe that your response to my post completely avoided responding to it. There is no "attack on religion", and never has been. There are a very tiny group of people who object to the government promoting religion.

These people are jerks. However, they are also right.

And constantly whining that "these people are attacking me" is not discussing reality. "These people want the government to stop promoting my religion" is reality.

[John Lydon]

Because (as your link already explained), those people on the wall of the Supreme Court are there because they are historic lawgivers from various cultures, from Hammurabi to Moses to Charlemagne to Blackstone to John Marshall to Napoleon.

The First Amendment does not forbid any mention or depiction of historic figures just because they were religious. It forbids endorsement of religion.

I suspect you already understood this.

I understand the part about lawmakers. However Mohammed is clearly holding the Koran in his hands. How would people feel about a carving of Jesus holding a bible in the Supreme Court?

As far as going along with the idea that it doesn't violate the first amendment because its a historical figure, I call bull ****. Jesus is a historical figure, put a statue of him up and tell me the **** wouldn't hit the fan.

[Mickalino]

How would people feel about a carving of Jesus holding a bible in the Supreme Court ?

I would feel that it's historically inaccurate, because the Bible did not exist when Jesus was here on earth

[John Lydon]

I would feel that it's historically inaccurate, because the Bible did not exist when Jesus was here on earth

Fine then. He's holding the Old Testament.

[Predicto]

I understand the part about lawmakers. However Mohammed is clearly holding the Koran in his hands. How would people feel about a carving of Jesus holding a bible in the Supreme Court?

As far as going along with the idea that it doesn't violate the first amendment because its a historical figure, I call bull ****. Jesus is a historical figure, put a statue of him up and tell me the **** wouldn't hit the fan.

Moses is holding the Ten Commandments on that wall. He was a lawgiver. Christians may have heard of those laws.

The Koran is in large part a book of laws, which is why Muhammed is there.

Jesus is not on that wall because he is generally understood by Christians to to be the Son of God and a teacher, not a lawgiver. He did not write a book of laws. The New Testament is the account of his life, death and resurrection, written by others. The reasons he was omitted are pretty obvious.

None of those guys are on that wall because the US Government is endorsing them. We do not have a cult of Hamurabi worship in the US.

Pick a different example to call bull**** about.

[Larry]

Fine then. He's holding the Old Testament.

see: Moses.

[techboy]

Same question I asked earlier: The portion of the Constitution that grants the government the power to encourage citizens to pray is . . . ?

General welfare clause.

[Burgold]

General welfare clause.

I would have said the tax codes. I know I frequently feel the urge to pray when working on my taxes.

[Larry]

General welfare clause.

I figured, eventually, somebody would recognize a straight line.

Although given our current Supreme Court, I could see them deciding that since Pat Robertson makes money from his TV network, therefore Christianity is Interstate Commerce.

[techboy]

I would have said the tax codes. I know I frequently feel the urge to pray when working on my taxes.

The general welfare clause many like to point to is, in fact, found in Article 1, Section 8, which covers taxing and spending.

[Larry]

I would have said the tax codes. I know I frequently feel the urge to pray when working on my taxes.

Gee, they usually make me think of the Second Amendment.

[Mooka]

I don't get your hang up on that.

"All religions do have a god. You name a religion and I will give you its god."

Your speaking for other religions here. And your tone kind of implies either every religion has a god or you don't see the difference between what others worship and gods.

The reason I brought up Bhuddism, even though there are some form of gods in Bhuddism as it comes from a religion of many gods, is that telling a Bhuddist they have a god with a Christian tone is basically ignoring their entire belief structure. One could go further and say your statement is offensive. Their answer to you about if they have "a God" probably wouldn't sound so great to your religion either.

The irony, is that's a very Judeo-Christian centric way of thinking on religion in general, in a thread about whether the National Day of Prayer violates the establishment clause.

If NDoP violates the constitution then by all means, do away with it. If it does specifically violate it however, what grounds does this judge have for her ruling? That's what I want to know.

She gave her grounds.

[techboy]

I figured, eventually, somebody would recognize a straight line.

Although given our current Supreme Court, I could see them deciding that since Pat Robertson makes money from his TV network, therefore Christianity is Interstate Commerce.

Either justification is just as solid as much of what underlies many of our laws today. Maybe in this case somebody dropped the 0, and thought they were still ignoring the 10th.

[Predicto]

General welfare clause.

Commerce clause you fool.

The answer is always the Commerce clause. :laugh: