Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gad zooks ! Don't these religious NUTBAGS have enough prayer ??? Why a special day ? Absurd. What if the NRA wanted a special day to shoot guns, or the fly fishers wanted a day to fly fish ? What if chefs wanted a special day to cook ?
Its a non binding resolution voted in by congress. Your first statement is to attack people with religious beliefs rather than the group that voted on it.
Your first instinct is to attack religious people.
The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof; ..."
It is at the very least arguable that setting up a NDP is a law (your argument that it's a proclamation and not a law notwithstanding) respecting the establishment of religion. If it's not that, what the heck is it?
the proclamation argument is not my argument. I have argued that even if it is law, it is constitutional.
Establishment must be understood in the context of the time it was written.
If you had read my posts here you would have seen what the heck it is.
Establishment speaks to the Government picking one religion/denomination and making that one the official state denomination. The framers wrote the establishment clause with England and the Church of England in view.
They had all suffered from some kind of religious establishment where government had established one denomination as its chosen faith with tax support and laws limiting other denominations.
They were keen to keep that from taking hold in a new nation.
They were not attempting to build a wall between government in general and all acts/expressions/promotions of faith. There is far too much writing by the framers that prove my point. Even Jefferson’s letter to Danbury makes that clear.
the proclamation argument is not my argument. I have argued that even if it is law, it is constitutional.
Establishment must be understood in the context of the time it was written.
If you had read my posts here you would have seen what the heck it is.
Establishment speaks to the Government picking one religion/denomination and making that one the official state denomination. The framers wrote the establishment clause with England and the Church of England in view.
They had all suffered from some kind of religious establishment where government had established one denomination as its chosen faith with tax support and laws limiting other denominations.
They were keen to keep that from taking hold in a new nation.
They were not attempting to build a wall between government in general and all acts/expressions/promotions of faith. There is far too much writing by the framers that prove my point. Even Jefferson’s letter to Danbury makes that clear.
I have read your posts and you don't really need to be so condescending.
As you said earlier, there was more than one founding father and they had different opinions regarding the place of religion in the political founding of the country. The Constitution we ended up with makes clear that Congress cannot pass a law "respecting an establishment" of religion "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I ask you again, if a NDP is not respecting an establishment of religion, what is it?
I have read your posts and you don't really need to be so condescending.
As you said earlier, there was more than one founding father and they had different opinions regarding the place of religion in the political founding of the country. The Constitution we ended up with makes clear that Congress cannot pass a law "respecting an establishment" of religion "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I ask you again, if a NDP is not respecting an establishment of religion, what is it?
Sorry for sounding condescending. It was not intentional. I thought this was a respectful exchange, which I have enjoyed by the way.
I see the NDP as a general promotion of faith in. I base that on the fact that it is inclusive of all faiths and does not single out one group over any other.
Barak Obama and George Bush before him have had Islamic Imams participate.
So not only does the NDP not choose the Baptist over all other Christians for government largess, it does not even single out the Christian faith as worthy of "establishment" at the expense of Hindu’s or Muslims etc.
Establishment is about the government making a choice that benefits one religious group over all others. NDP does not do that and therefore cannot be considered unconstitutional.
There has never been any indication that the founders intended to prevent government from promoting faith. As I have also pointed out, the first congress (chock full of founders by the way) actually PAID with government money a preacher to offer a prayer before that first congress went into session!
One certainly cannot make an argument that these guys intended to separate faith from the public square if they were using tax dollars to pay a preacher to pray over them…
True libertarians should be happy about this decision. I can't imagine any justification for the federal government either encouraging or discouraging prayer. I would be that Ron Paul would agree with me on this.
Well the Atheist has won again!
Wonder how much joy they feel when some child takes a gun into the classroom and blows everyone away?
Joy like a fountain because we got our way!
Took the hope away, so what is left for a poor sick kid that has nothing or nobody?
The satisfaction of some sick Atheist.
Well the Atheist has won again!
Wonder how much joy they feel when some child takes a gun into the classroom and blows everyone away?
Joy like a fountain because we got our way!
Took the hope away, so what is left for a poor sick kid that has nothing or nobody?
The satisfaction of some sick Atheist.
You have got to be kidding... Because a kid is an Atheist, they'll go into a classroom and blow everyone away?
And what 'hope'?? For many, religion has brought nothing but fear and strife to their lives...just look up some ex-christian commentary.
Maybe that 'poor sick kid' will learn to rely on what's around him, instead of some imaginary friend.
Nomander, it is all according to (as I see it) if the NDOP is a law, or can be considered a law. Nobody is demanding adherence to the NDOP, most times I forget about it, unless I hear something on the news.
No, I'm not restricted from exercizing my beliefs, and, no, I am not condemned for my beliefs. Some see this case as a pattern of attack on religion. I don't.
Like I said, this will more than likely go before the SCOTUS.
Think about it a second though. If it isn't and it is something that has absolutely no power, then it is not a violation. Now reverse it. That is, dictate that it can not be and you have everything that some would claim was done initially. The forced absence of any religion is the same as a forced religion.
This is the very issue to which is manipulated with the separation of church and state issue.
That way I can take the day off, sleep in, say a prayer of thank you, and jam my guitar for the day and be able to come on CD a watch both sides rant
One side will rant about a day of prayer, the other will rant that it is a paid day for no work done.
Either way I will feel refreshed after both from prayer and a day without the alarm clock, win win for me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
