USAToday: Judge Rules National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional

[Mooka]

Or could we hope that the justice system, along with Congress could find more bigger fish to fry?

Like:

Illegal immigration

Medicare/Medicaid fraud

Debate the constitutionality of ObamaCare

deficit reduction

JOBS

etc?

Instead of this lame ass dog and pony show going on right now?

That's not how the justice system works.

We are the one's that brought this lawsuit against the federal government. (as in we the people)

Nope. The exact opposite. The government has no authority to encourage or establish a religion (n.)

It says nothing about religious activities.

That makes no sense.

You could actually read the article and the judges decision. Christiainity wasn't even brought in the lawsuit.

Prayer is a religious activity. The Federal Government cannot encourage it. They look the other way sometimes for things like Christmas because its also a large secular holiday or In God We Trust on the money for whatever reason.

I have asked you several times now to provide any proof of this. I'm still waiting.

Proclamation 7403 - National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving, 2001 Now, Therefore, I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 21, 2001, a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving and call upon the citizens of our Nation to gather together in homes and places of worship to pray alone and together and offer thanksgiving to God for all the blessings of this great and good land.

Not sure what it looked like when Obama signed it.

[Larry]

Actually, been doing some research, here, on this law.

For one thing, I found the link to the judge's actual decision. (Wow, and only 9 pages into the thread. )

I've only read a few pages (of 66), but I've found some things.

For example, under "undisputed facts":

B. The 1952 Statute

In 1952, evangelist Billy Graham led a six week religious campaign in Washington, D.C., holding events in the National Guard Armory and on the Capitol steps. The campaign culminated in a speech in which Graham called for a national day of prayer:

Ladies and gentlemen, our Nation was founded upon God, religion and the church . . . .

. . .

What a thrilling, glorious thing it would be to see the leaders of our country today kneeling before Almighty God in prayer. What a thrill would sweep this country. What renewed hope and courage would grip the Americans at this hour of peril.

. . .

We have dropped our pilot, the Lord Jesus Christ, and are sailing blindly on without divine chart or compass, hoping somehow to find our desired haven. We have certain leaders who are rank materialists; they do not recognize God nor care for Him; they spend their time in one round of parties after another.

The Capital City of our Nation can have a great spiritual awakening, thousands coming to Jesus Christ, but certain leaders have not lifted an eyebrow, nor raised a finger, nor showed the slightest bit of concern. Ladies and gentlemen, I warn you, if this state of affairs continues, the end of the course is national shipwreck and ruin.

After Graham’s speech, Representative Percy Priest introduced a bill to establish a National Day of Prayer. In addressing the House of Representatives, he noted that the country had been “challenged yesterday by the suggestion made on the east steps of the Capitol by Billy Graham that the Congress call on the President for the proclamation of a day of prayer.”

In support of the bill, Representative Brooks stated that “the national interest would be much better served if we turn aside for a full day of prayer for spiritual help and guidance from the Almighty during these troublous times. I hope that all denominations, Catholics, Jewish and Protestants, will join us in this day of prayer.”

Representative Peter W. Rodino, Jr., stated that “it is fitting and timely that the people of America, in approaching the Easter season, as God-fearing men and women, devote themselves to a day of prayer in the interest of peace.”

So, there's some portions to be quoted both for the assertion that the holiday was intended to promote Christianity, and that it was intended to be all inclusive. (Or at least, everybody who's part of a religion.)

(And I didn't realize Billy Graham was that old.)

Now, the judge's ruling doesn't seem to care if one particular religion is intended or not. It rules (at least, the parts I've read) that merely encouraging (or, I assume discouraging) religious activity is a violation:

Plaintiffs’ challenge to § 119 arises at the intersection of two different lines of Supreme Court jurisprudence. On one hand, the Court has held on many occasions that the government violates the establishment clause when it engages in conduct that a reasonable observer would view as an endorsement of a particular religious belief or practice, including

prayer. On the other hand, the Court has held that some forms of “ceremonial deism,” such as legislative prayer, do not violate the establishment clause. In Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 683 (2005) (a case challenging the placement of a Ten Commandments monument on public property), a plurality of the Court stated that its establishment clause

cases were “Januslike, point[ing] in two directions.”

Although there is tension among these cases, I do not believe they are irreconcilable; they simply show that context is important when applying the establishment clause. In my view of the case law, government involvement in prayer may be consistent with the establishment clause when the government’s conduct serves a significant secular purpose and is not a “call for religious action on the part of citizens.” McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844, 877 (2005).

Unfortunately, § 119 cannot meet that test. 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. In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience. “When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual's decision about whether and how to worship.” McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 883 (O’Connor, J., concurring).

Accordingly, I conclude that § 119 violates the establishment clause.

[Skins24]

You mean, other than your previous and continued attempts to claim that the fact that this law doesn't establish Christianity is somehow significant?

That would be significant!

You still haven't shown that it does though....

Not one person in this thread (nor even the loons in the courtroom) have tried to claim that this law establishes Christianity.

So, the reason why you keep trying to point out that it doesn't (establish Christianity) is . . . ?

Maybe has to do with something called the Constitution. This law was ruled unconstitutional. In order to prove that, you would have to establish that this law favors one religion over another or establishes a religion.

What this law does do is promote Christianity. It was passed for that purpose, it is implemented in that manner, and it is being defended because people want the government to promote Christianity.

Whenever there were activities for this day, all religions participated. How is this establishing that this is promoting Christianity?

And if you seriously want to claim that the people who passed this law didn't do so with the full expectation that the prayers would be Christian, that the President would be a member of the majority religion, and that the people who are rushing to defend this law aren't defending Christianity, then you're a liar.

You can talk all you want, but until you prove this your words mean absolutely nothing.

Also, even if they did expect the prayers to be Christian, it's all about what the law says, not what they're thinking.

That makes no sense.

You could actually read the article and the judges decision. Christiainity wasn't even brought in the lawsuit.

I'm not the one who brought up Christianity. Larry did. He's stating this law establishes Christianity.

Prayer is a religious activity. The Federal Government cannot encourage it. They look the other way sometimes for things like Christmas because its also a large secular holiday or In God We Trust on the money for whatever reason.

Separation of church and state is a widely accepted very much encouraged concept, but not necessarily a law. So when you have stuff like this that's not forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to, it's able to stand for a long time as it's not as clear cut as other stuff.

[Larry]

Larry did. He's stating this law establishes Christianity.

Nope.

Only one trying to claim that the fact this law doesn't establish Christianity somehow makes it OK, is you. All I've done is point out that the fact that Christianity exists is irrelevant.

[Seabee1973]

Why are you being such a prick?

And the length of time that something has been established doesn't affect whether or not it's right.

Might want to talk to your black friends about slavery if you disagree, because there's about 400 or so years that they might want to discuss with you.

Why does every argument have to go back to slavery?

[Larry]

Why does every argument have to go back to slavery?

It doesn't.

Only comes up whenever somebody tries to claim that "well, it's happened before (three times in 150 years), therefore a federal law mandating is is Constitutional and desirable".

[Predicto]

Why does every argument have to go back to slavery?

Because it kind of undermines the idea that every single value or attitude the Founding Fathers had was perfect and is the only valid model for modern behavior? :whoknows:

The Founders created a great, world-changing Constitution. They deserve the utmost in credit for that. But many or even most of them also believed a lot of things that we have outgrown as a society. Such as approval of human slavery, or belief in the inequality of women, or creationism rather than the science of evolution, or mercantile economics, or whatever.

It is the Document that the Founders created that deserves the reverence. The fact that an individual Founder also wanted a national day of prayer is basically irrelevant, in the same way that the same founder owned slaves and beat his wife is irrelevant.

[Seabee1973]

Because it kind of undermines the idea that every single value or attitude the Founding Fathers had was perfect and is the only valid model for modern behavior? :whoknows:

The Founders created a great, world-changing Constitution. They deserve the utmost in credit for that. But many or even most of them also believed a lot of things that we have outgrown as a society. Such as approval of human slavery, or belief in the inequality of women, or creationism rather than the science of evolution, or mercantile economics, or whatever.

It is the Document that the Founders created that deserves the reverence. The fact that an individual Founder also wanted a national day of prayer is basically irrelevant, in the same way that the same founder owned slaves and beat his wife is irrelevant.

A lot of them didnt approve of those things. They had lots of quotes on being anti slavery

[Predicto]

A lot of them didnt approve of those things. They had lots of quotes on being anti slavery

Yes, some of them. But a lot of them didn't disapprove of slavery at all. And a lot of them owned slaves, including the big names Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and so forth.

The point is, you can't look to what one Founding Father said or even did as proof of what the Constitution means or how to interpret it. Every Founding Father was different, every one was flawed, each had his own values and his own understandings, and some of those 18th century values that they held were horrible to our modern day minds.

All we have left is the Great Document itself, and two hundred twenty years of interpreting and applying it as best we can. Worshiping the Founding Fathers or aping the views or opinions of a one of them is a waste of time.

[Seabee1973]

Yes, some of them. But a lot of them didn't disapprove of slavery at all. And a lot of them owned slaves, including the big names Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and so forth.

The point is, you can't look to what one Founding Father said or even did as proof of what the Constitution means or how to interpret it. Every Founding Father was different, every one was flawed, each had his own values and his own understandings, and some of those 18th century values that they held were horrible to our modern day minds.

All we have left is the Great Document itself, and two hundred twenty years of interpreting and applying it as best we can. Worshiping the Founding Fathers or aping the views or opinions of a one of them is a waste of time.

They basically all hated slavery even the ones that owned them hated slavery why they kept them i have no idea,

[Predicto]

They basically all hated slavery even the ones that owned them hated slavery why they kept them i have no idea,

That is romanticizing history, and is completely inaccurate.

They were great men for their time, but they were also 18th Century men, and they did not all hate slavery or think of blacks as equal or anything of the sort.

For some reason, there is a growing cult of people pseudo-worshiping the Founding Fathers as though they were demigods on earth with few flaws and we can answer all of our modern day questions merely by finding something some founding father said about the subject.

I don't know where this trend comes from or why it is happening, but it is really grossly inaccurate as a matter of history and useless as a matter of constitutional interpretation.

Respect their accomplishment, but don't worship a false past.

[Skins24]

Nope.

Only one trying to claim that the fact this law doesn't establish Christianity somehow makes it OK, is you. All I've done is point out that the fact that Christianity exists is irrelevant.

1) I never said this was OK

2) You ARE the one who brought up Christianity. This goes back to when you brought up that 95% of those who passed this were Christians with Christianity in mind.

3) The Constitution says the Government cannot establish any religion. In order to for this to be wrong and unconstitutional you would have to establish that this law either establishes a religion or promotes one over the other.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't that why you think these jerks are right in bringing this lawsuit? You think that because congress passed this with Christianity in mind this is establishing or promoting Christianity and hence unconstitutional?

[Predicto]

1) I never said this was OK

2) You ARE the one who brought up Christianity. This goes back to when you brought up that 95% of those who passed this were Christians with Christianity in mind.

3) The Constitution says the Government cannot establish any religion. In order to for this to be wrong and unconstitutional you would have to establish that this law either establishes a religion or promotes one over the other.

That is what some people want the Establishment clause to mean. I think they are incorrect.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't that why you think these jerks are right in bringing this lawsuit? You think that because congress passed this with Christianity in mind this is establishing or promoting Christianity and hence unconstitutional?

It is establishing and promoting religion in general, and is hence unconstititional.

In my opinion, the people who brought this lawsuit shouldn't have bothered, but they are correct.

Your narrow interpretation of the Establishment Clause has not been followed by the courts for a long, long time.

[NOLASKINSFAN]

That is romanticizing history, and is completely inaccurate.

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery.

George Washington

[PokerPacker]

You know, in a world of slavery, owning a slave is not the worst thing you can do in the world. If Washington didn't have those slaves, perhaps a more cruel person would have them. Its not like he could just set his slaves free and they'd be accepted in the world.

On a somewhat related subject, I highly recommend reading Frederick Douglass' autobiography. Gives a really good look at life as a slave and how different owners can affect the living conditions of a slave. Very eye-opening in other regards, too.

[Seabee1973]

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery.

George Washington

More more more

[PokerPacker]

More more more

I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach [slavery], in any practicable way. the cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle [possession] which would not cost me in a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected: and, gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. but, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.

-Thomas Jefferson

[Predicto]

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery.

George Washington

You are completely missing the point.

"Sir: With this letter comes a Negro (Tom) which I beg the favour of you to sell, in any of the Islands you may go to, for whatever he will fetch, and bring me in return for him: one hhd of best molasses, one of best Rum, one barrel of Lymes if good and cheap, … and the residue, much or little in good ole spirits…That this Fellow is both a rogue and a Runaway…I shall not pretend to deny. But . . . he is exceedingly healthy, strong and good at the Hoe… which gives me reason to hope he may, with your good management sell well (if kept clean and trim'd up a little when offered for sale… must beg the favor of you (lest he should attempt his escape) to keep him hand-cuffed till you get to Sea."

- George Washington.

[Jumbo]

More more more

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” (GW the heathen)

“My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth" (GW the lib peacenik)

“Let your heart feel for the afflictions and distress of everyone, and let your hand give in proportion to your purse.” (GW the commie hippy)

:pfft:

Actually, as with any politician of any era, if one wanted to, it's pretty easy to string together a list of GW quotes that on the surface look like him talking out of both sides of his mouth on several key issues of the day.

But as with any number other things often reduced to a lower common denominator of intelligence, it's more reflective of context and complexity and the struggles most humans have with avoiding contradictions.

[Predicto]

More more more

Why? What do these quotes prove to you? That George Washington was infallaible? That his owning hundreds of slaves was just some sort of mistake? That the well-documented accounts of him having his slaves regularly and viciously beaten are false?

I'm not a critic of George Washington. He was one of the greatest men who ever lived. The true Father of the Country, in the best meaning of the words.

But I'm a critic of people who pretend that the Founding Fathers were so perfect that their views, on every issue, must be perfect too.

Why bother to quote Thomas Jefferson? He wanted to deport all blacks back to Africa, and outlaw the presence of any free blacks in Virginia. Some of his writings are loaded with talk about the mental and emotional inferiority of blacks, while other writings bemoan slavery. He was a complex man.

[Predicto]

I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach [slavery], in any practicable way. the cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle [possession] which would not cost me in a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected: and, gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. but, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.

-Thomas Jefferson

"Comparing [blacks to whites] by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, in memory [blacks] are equal to whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigation of Euclid; and ... in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous."

- Thomas Jefferson

[PokerPacker]

"Comparing [blacks to whites] by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, in memory [blacks] are equal to whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigation of Euclid; and ... in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous."

- Thomas Jefferson

No question, he did think blacks were inferior, but he still was against slavery.

He worked to limit expansion of slavery in new territories, and he worked to make it illegal to import slaves in Virginia.

[NOLASKINSFAN]

Actually, as with any politician of any era, if one wanted to, it's pretty easy to string together a list of GW quotes that on the surface look like him talking out of both sides of his mouth on several key issues of the day.

The results of their lives should speak for themselves. It is an oversimplification to say "well, it could go either way". GW was adamantly against slavery. Slavery, wickedly, was the way of the world. He went along with the system, true. Could have he have fought it harder? Perhaps, but at what cost?

[Predicto]

No question, he did think blacks were inferior, but he still was against slavery.

He worked to limit expansion of slavery in new territories, and he worked to make it illegal to import slaves in Virginia.

He worked to make it illegal for blacks to be in Virginia as free people too. He wanted to abolish slavery only if all the blacks could be sent back to Africa.

And the biggest reason to make it illegal to import slaves into Virginia was that it cut into local business - Virginia was the biggest breeder of slaves for the nation.

[Predicto]

The results of their lives should speak for themselves. It is an oversimplification to say "well, it could go either way". GW was adamantly against slavery. Slavery wickedly, was the way of the world. He went along with the system, true. Could have fought it harder? Perhaps, but at what cost? [/font]

Again, what is your point? I'm not criticizing George Washington. He was a great man, one of the greatest ever.