U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 04-20-2010, 05:13 PM
19,183 posts, read 28,371,569 times
Reputation: 4002


Originally Posted by BigHouse9 View Post
Here is the thing: What is wrong with a National Day of Prayer? Perhaps something like this can help to unite people. Perhaps it can make people take a second to stop and think about what they need or what they should do to make society better. Does it hurt anyone to have this? Why would you be offended at someone else taking the time to pray on his or her own time? basically for me, every day is a National Day of Prayer. I pray to become better, I pray for my fellow people to become better. I pray for my kids and their safety and their future. I pray for that people everyone achieve what they want and are happy. Why would someone have a problem with that?
I dont think anyone has a problem with that. Each individual enjoys free exercise rights and all the time he wants to practice those. I notice you excluded any mention of the government however. Let's keep it that way. It is the involvement of the government in providing special support and approval that is problematic here. That is what people object to. That is what the court ruled unconstitutional. None of what you personally choose to do with your day is bothering anybody.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 04-20-2010, 05:43 PM
19,183 posts, read 28,371,569 times
Reputation: 4002
Originally Posted by BigHouse9 View Post
Again so it is clear for you, while praying can be religious, part of the definition of "prayer" is as follows: "something prayed for" And the etymology of the words is from "obtained by entreaty". It DOES NOT have to be religious. Typical liberal "twist everything until our panties are all in a bunch" mentality. I pray for you.
You can pray for me all you want, but even divine intervention is not going to make it any more clear that you are desperately dancing around trying to define words that are at the very core of your religious beliefs and practices in such a way as to be able to claim that they are somehow not actually religious at all. Who do you think you're fooling? God is a religious concept. Prayer is a religious practice. The National Day of Prayer is sponsored by Shirley Dobson and the gang of extremist fundie whackos at Focus on the Family. The entire exercise is drenched in religion, and that's perfectly fine. Up until the point where the agency of the state is brought in to provide support and approval. At that point, the government has crossed the line. It exceeds its limited powers by showing favor toward one religion over another and toward religion over non-religion. It perfectly well deserves to be brought up short in those actions. Ms. Dobson and all others of a like mind are perfectly free to consecrate and celebrate this day on their own time and their own dime. But they have no business at all in trying to partner with and seek favor from the state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-20-2010, 06:27 PM
Location: Near Manito
19,521 posts, read 20,892,279 times
Reputation: 13832
A National day of Prayer does not require Congress to make a law establishing a religion.

Day of Prayer = Establishing a Religion?


Gay Pride Day = Establishing homosexuaity?


Mother's day = Establishing motherhood?


Personally, I 'd like to see us all pray that Sarah Palin is put away somewhere safe. Maybe they could chain one of her ankles to one of Cindy Sheehan's. A la Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-20-2010, 08:33 PM
Location: Michigan
57 posts, read 68,344 times
Reputation: 33
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
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?
I think the phrase "establishment of religion" is what is being argued. The government cannot establish one religion as the "law of the land", which is what drove the early settlers to this land, was to live free to practice the religion of their choosing, not a "national religion". I don't think sponsoring a DOP is setting up a religion as such. It is certainly not "establishment of religion" - like saying Catholicism or Buddhism is the National Religion. They have not dictated to what or to Whom prayer is said. I am a Christian, and I'd love to see the DOP continue because I know our country needs it, and I also understand its place in the minds and lives of the founding fathers. Besides, everyone is free to pray to the God or god of their convictions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-20-2010, 08:54 PM
Location: WI
2,886 posts, read 3,213,084 times
Reputation: 5066
I'm fairly liberal but honestly I don't see how the ndop is unconstitutional. You're not being forced to pray. It's like Christmas: no one is forcing you to celebrate it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-21-2010, 01:07 AM
Location: Right here; Right now
8,749 posts, read 4,435,415 times
Reputation: 1404
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Get a grip. The decision says nothing whatsoever about what you or others may do with your rights under the Free Exercise Clause. It deals only with what the government may or may not do given tne limitations on government power that are inherent in the Establishment Clause. I thought you all were in favor of limited government. Maybe only sometimes, huh?
What you just said, still does not make that proclamation a law.

What it boils down to is the lack of respect one group has over another. Based on that lack of respect, the President was just told to shut up about the ndp.

I find this hilarious really that people can be so clouded over getting their end across, the rest of the it...is lost in the making.

I'm looking at it from the judge down. If I, in just a few clicks look up the legal terms and definition and discover that, that was just a nice thing to have done each year and not a law...well, you know what I'm thinking about higher education right now and the people who think that have one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top