USAToday: Judge Rules National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional

[NOLASKINSFAN]

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

Sounded like you were. I'm glad we're on the same page.

[PokerPacker]

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.

yes, he did want to send them back to Africa, but regardless, the fact remains that he wanted slavery abolished.

The topic at hand is slavery, not racism. I can accept that Jefferson had prejudices against blacks, but he felt the idea of slavery in its essence was wrong regardless of his interpretation of inferiority of the people.

[Predicto]

Sounded like you were. I'm glad we're on the same page.

I wasn't, as I made clear in post after post.

So again, what is your point?

This discussion started with the claim that a National Day of Prayer must be constitutional because George Washington declared one, and he was a great Founding Father so he must have known what he was doing was OK.

I was pointing out that the views of an individual Founding Father do not answer what is or is not constitutional, because the Constitution was a compromise document that is full of ambiguity (it was written that way on purpose), and each Founding Father had his own views, opinions, and beliefs about its meaning and about how the nation would develop. Plus, each of them was internally contradictory as well, chock full of greatness and flaws and every human foible.

Thus, the meaning of the Constitution can only be found in its broad words and general principles, as interpreted and applied over time by the Supreme Court to specific situations.

Quoting a specific Founding Father is usually an empty semantic exercise that makes complex history into simplistic recitation of talking points to support a view you already held and were just cherrypicking quotes to support.

Deifying, whitewashing and misapplying the views of the Founding Fathers to support your preexisting political or religious views is just as foolish as crititizing the 18th Centurey Founding Fathers for not being as enligntened as 21st Century people on many issues. Both approaches are unfair, and reflect bad scholarship, and lead to particularly bad legal reasoning.

[PokerPacker]

Deifying, whitewashing and misapplying the views of the Founding Fathers to support your preexisting political or religious views is just as foolish as crititizing the 18th Centurey Founding Fathers for not being as enligntened as 21st Century people on many issues. Both approaches are unfair, and reflect bad scholarship, and lead to particularly bad legal reasoning.

Just quoting this because I like it.

although I may be a smidge in the deifying crowd

[Predicto]

yes, he did want to send them back to Africa, but regardless, the fact remains that he wanted slavery abolished.

The topic at hand is slavery, not racism. I can accept that Jefferson had prejudices against blacks, but he felt the idea of slavery in its essence was wrong regardless of his interpretation of inferiority of the people.

If you read his writings, in general he felt slavery was wrong because of its effect on the society of slaveowners. He didn't care much about the slaves and he was terrified of having them all freed and living among the vulnerable white population.

Be that as it may, it is a tangent not worth pursuing. As I just explained, my point is not to attack Jefferson (or Washington). It is to reject the idea that the expressions of any individual Founding Father have much, if any, use in legitimate constitutional analysis, expecially quotes and acts from after the Constitution was enacted.

[Jumbo]

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?

The part of my post you left out of your quote addresses what I think you're trying to communicate regarding complexity of such matters and how one, or even a few, comments such historical figures make on a matter may not reveal all there is to their thoughts on that issue.

I'm not totally sure what the focus is in this comment as a response to me, other than just innocuous dialog, or why you left out what you did, but I also don't care so there's no need on my end for you to elaborate.

[Thiebear]

In reading some of the remarks by the Judge:

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. Case: 3:08-cv-00588-bbc Document #: 132 Filed: 04/15/2010 Page 3 of 66 4 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.

-=0=0=0=-=0=0=0=-0=-0=-0=0=0=-0-=0-=-0-0=-=0=---00-=0=0

I thought he worded it quite well.

[Larry]

"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.

Aw, next thing you know, you're gonna try to claim that if you look hard enough, you can fins a phrase in the Bible that you can claim justifies anything you want.

[Larry]

In reading some of the remarks by the Judge:

Beat ya to it.

[Bang]

"Look at that little monkey go!"

-Howard Cosell

(I know it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion, but it was pretty funny when it happened.)

~Bang

[mcsluggo]

...

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

....

says the man that spends hours a day defending the world (or at least the interweb) against the tide of ignorance on important issues, like..... say... the constitionality of the national day of prayer?? :evilg:

[Jumbo]

says the man that spends hours a day defending the world (or at least the interweb) against the tide of ignorance on important issues

Yeah! That's our job! :pfft:

[Predicto]

says the man that spends hours a day defending the world (or at least the interweb) against the tide of ignorance on important issues, like..... say... the constitionality of the national day of prayer?? :evilg:

Sad to say, this is my life on the Tailgate. Whenever ignorance raises its head....

It's a never ending battle, but someone's got to do it... and you're too lazy (and ignorant ).

[mcsluggo]

Sad to say, this is my life on the Tailgate. Whenever ignorance raises its head....

It's a never ending battle, but someone's got to do it... and you're too lazy (and ignorant ).

true... while my ignorance is truly impressive... it is still trumped by my laziness

[Larry]

Sad to say, this is my life on the Tailgate. Whenever ignorance raises its head....

It's a never ending battle, but someone's got to do it... and you're too lazy (and ignorant ).

Bart: Work here is done. I'm needed elsewhere now. I'm needed wherever outlaws rule the West, wherever innocent women and children are afraid to walk the streets, wherever a man cannot live in simple dignity, wherever a people cry out for justice.

Crowd: ********

[Predicto]

Bart: Work here is done. I'm needed elsewhere now. I'm needed wherever outlaws rule the West, wherever innocent women and children are afraid to walk the streets, wherever a man cannot live in simple dignity, wherever a people cry out for justice.

Crowd: ********

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[No_Pressure]

flawless analogy

Don't you remember the 1st Amendment?

Freedom of speech/press

Right to peaceful assembly/protest

Separation of Church & State

Separation of Boobs and State

I mean c'mon.

[greenspandan]

another blatant violation: the federal government is replete with boobs >:[

[Seabee1973]

another blatant violation: the federal government is replete with boobs >:[

Leave Joe Biden out of this

[Seabee1973]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=986904

An official with the National Day of Prayer Task Force believes the strongest military force in the world has bowed to pressure from a small group of people who oppose prayer at the Pentagon.

John Bornschein was responding to news that the Pentagon has withdrawn an invitation for evangelist Franklin Graham to take part in an interfaith ceremony at the Pentagon.

Plans called for Graham to be part of an ecumenical service at the Pentagon during the National Day of Prayer event set for May 6, but after groups such as the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and the Council on American Islamic Relations complained about statements Graham had previously made about Islam, the Army announced it had withdrawn its request for the evangelist to speak.

Click above to read more.

Probably should go in its own thread but ill kep it in this one for now

[Corcaigh]

An official with the National Day of Prayer Task Force believes the strongest military force in the world has bowed to pressure from a small group of people who oppose prayer at the Pentagon.

Or maybe the Pentagon corrected a bad mistake they made when they withdrew an invitation to someone who has said:

"True Islam cannot be practiced in this country. You can't beat your wife. You cannot murder your children if you think they've committed adultery or something like that, which they do practice in these other countries."

This was in a recent interview on CNN, not off-guard comments made in private.

He also said "Islam is a very evil and wicked religion."

Seriously, is he the kind of person who should be invited by the military to play a leading role in a national Day of Prayer event?

[Seabee1973]

Or maybe the Pentagon corrected a bad mistake they made when they withdrew an invitation to someone who has said:

"True Islam cannot be practiced in this country. You can't beat your wife. You cannot murder your children if you think they've committed adultery or something like that, which they do practice in these other countries."

This was in a recent interview on CNN, not off-guard comments made in private.

He also said "Islam is a very evil and wicked religion."

Seriously, is he the kind of person who should be invited by the military to play a leading role in a national Day of Prayer event?

So you believe the followers of Islam should be able tro beat their wives and kids and commit murder?

[PokerPacker]

"True Islam cannot be practiced in this country. You can't beat your wife. You cannot murder your children if you think they've committed adultery or something like that, which they do practice in these other countries."

I guess he never read the bible.

[mcsluggo]

123456789101112

[RichmondRedskin88]

National Breast Cancer Awareness Day is offensive to me because I do not have breasts, and therefore unconstitutional, and must be cancelled.

Suddenly that image of the "Brawn" from the Seinfeld episode popped in my head.