1 this makes me tired

2

3 Those poor people who are being forced to pray at gunpoint have every right to complain.

4 So, because you can't represent both belief and non-belief at the same time, only the non-belief gets represented?

5 Would giving in to any Muslim group's demands, EVERY day, be okay? Look, I'm bowing!

6 Another liberal Barbie on the bench.  Too bad she didn't notice the second part of the establishment of religion clause, because she's violating it. 

7

Normally this would annoy me - clearly the national day of prayer is not an offense against the constitution and this case should never have been considered.  But what angers me far more is that we now have plenty of examples of overt endorsement of religion by the government (specifically the public schools) - and that religion is Islam.  Apparently, according to the leftists on the bench, the only religion that the founders were protecting us from was Christianity.  Not only that - the only religion suitable for active state endorsement is the one responsible for more death and horror than any other, which persists in all manner of vile depravity to this very day.  Sickening.  I have absolutely no desire to live under a "Christian" theocracy, but if the choice were between that and this slow slide into appeasement of the muslims then I think the choice would be clear. 

8

An 'endorsement' of religion is not an 'establishment' of religion. Duh!

Oh and BTW leftist trolls and Federal Judges, this IS a Christian nation. This nation was founded on religious principles and encourages and supports religion - freedom of religion. It does not encourage or support destruction of or burying religion.

A) there is no 'seperation of church and state' in the Constitution
B) there is no 'freedom FROM religion' in the Constitution
C) we are a secular government built upon a religious foundation much like Turkey

GET OVER IT

9 Meanwhile, Laura Ingraham was just talking about some school that has stopped using school bells because muslim students might think they sound like church bells.

10 Apparently, according to the leftists on the bench, the only religion that the founders were protecting us from was Christianity.

oy, gevalt.

11 But what angers me far more is that we now have plenty of examples of overt endorsement of religion by the government (specifically the public schools) - and that religion is Islam.

Also Gaia-worship.

(I look forward to someone finally noticing the "carbon footprint" of the Hajj.)

12 "statute that instituted a National Day of Prayer" Government is ill-advised enacting such statutes. Religious belief and acts or lack thereof are individual choices and Governments should stay the eff out of it. Good ruling in my book.

13 Does Barbara B. Crabb go to work on Christmas Day?

14 The Constitution prohibits an establishment of a religion.  The word endorsement has a significantly different meaning than the word establishment.  How can employing an endorsement test to determine whether a religion has been established be anything other than a wholesale change to the First Amendment?

15 Good ruling in my book.

You book, evidently, is not the United States Constitution.

16

This also gives GOP senators some ammunition when questioning the President's court nominees. It's timely and something that seems so obviously constitutional to conservatives and so obviously not to leftists.

Yeah, yeah, my presence here is mandatory, and so here we go: It's not just "obviously not constitutional" to leftists, but also to secular rightists. [blah blah blah, insert Christoph-lite rant here]

Now that we've got that out of the way, I'll say that we secular rightists aren't amused by this either.

What we have here is a sideshow from a Carter-appointed rodeo clown. This partisan hack is trolling - she's trying to get a lot of bloviating Senators to wave their little American flags around and to sing "God Bless America". If she's right, and unfortunately liberals often right about how ostentatiously-conservative, prok-guzzling congressfuckheads react, one of those aforementioned fuckheads is going to say something obnoxious about secularists / Darwin / non-Christians. Then the nation's nice white people and the Jews, maybe even Catholics, are going to get upset with the Republicans - again. And they'll all turn out in 2010 to vote for the Democrat - again.

This is how Kansas got stuck with Sibelius, people.

I wish I had a bag of poo to set alight on Crabb's doorstep.

17 Religious belief and acts or lack thereof are individual choices and Governments should stay the eff out of it.

I missed the clause where if you don't pray to a deity of your choice on May 7, you go to federal prison. 

18 "this IS a Christian nation" Posted by: chuck in st paul No, it just has a lot of Christians in it.

19 Again, another ruling that Conservatives should be able to get behind.

Take a good hard look across the Atlantic Ocean at who is taking over England. Ask yourself how long it is before the de-facto religion  in the United States will be Islam. Especially with Barack Hussein Obama in charge.

Still want a National Day of Prayer? If one day is good, why not have a National Day of Prayer every day? Hey, let's make this five times a day.

And let's make attendance mandatory. After all, <i>who could argue against a National Five Times A Day Prayer?</i>

Islamic Incrementalism.

It's coming to America soon, and we're going to want our courts to be ruling correctly.

It's time for conservatives to think a little further down the road.

20 Praying people are very dangerous.

21 The questioning of the nominees will invariably include KennedyÂ’s County of Allegheny opinion - thus locking Kennedy in.

22 17, *sigh* I don't like laws that prohibit prayer. I also don't like laws that encourage prayer. The word instituted is being ignored here. The Government should be silent on this. I said nothing about rewards or punishments.

23 You know, it's pretty clear that the Founders wanted to avoid a state-sponsored church with the head of state also serving as the head of the church, you know, like the CoE, since most had English & Scottish roots.  It doesn't take a genius to see what "establishment" meant in that context.

But you know, we have to stretch the meaning and play word-game kabuki until we can make it mean whatever the hell we want, so long as we can stop those crazy Christians!

24

this IS a Christian nation"

Posted by: chuck in st paul

No, it just has a lot of Christians in it.

I concur. This is a nation made up mostly of chrisitans, not a christian nation. The difference may seem like a play on words, but in reality it is a huge difference.

I like this country the way it is, I don't want to be Saudi Arabia or England. Or on the opposite end of the spectrum the former Soviet Union where no religion was allowed.

 

25 I said nothing about rewards or punishments.

Neither does the law in question, which is one of several reasons why it does not violate the Establishment Clause.

26

Then no fucking "earf day" either. That's the popular religion now.

27 Why not post a picture so we can see what this used douche bag judge looks like.

28 The nice thing about our National Day of Prayer is that I never knew it existed. And I never had to pray. And I was allowed to pray on other days. It's the kind of government regulation I can get behind. Nowadays the most we can hope for is National Day Of Leave The Fucking Economy Alone.

29

dagny 26, I'd be up for kicking out expressions of mandatory communitarianism. What we call "liberalism" today is a holdover from Puritanism, just expunged of Jesus.

You want to tax me to fund a load of social programmes? I don't care if it's "compassionate". It's against my beliefs to have my compassion defined and enforced by the government.

30 Oops. But then, you knew it wasn't Him posting, didn't you?

31 I expect the Catholic Church to fully endorse this ruling.

32 wow.

from "Ace of Spades" to
"Atheist and Gay Tirades "

how very.......progressive.

33 Why not post a picture so we can see what this used douche bag judge looks like.

I just googled her.  Think Don Knotts meets LGPA tour.

34 It obviously has to go because of all the terrible things that have happened as a consequence for having a day of prayer.

35 Good thing Christ-off was banned.

36

I like this country the way it is, I don't want to be Saudi Arabia or England. Or on the opposite end of the spectrum the former Soviet Union where no religion was allowed.

 

Police state, Dhimmi laws, or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Seems like an easy choice.

37 Speaking of Crist, it looks like he will announce his defection today.

38 The National Day of Prayer turned me into a newt.

39

by: dagny

Exactly. These Lefty twerps will not only name a day, they'll make a law, change an election, take over a corporation, etc. without ever even thinking about the Constitution. But if someone wants to pray, all of a sudden the Bill of Rights is an inviolate bat to beat them down with.

Good timing for the Libs though, they don't have a prayer after Nov. anyway. 

 

 

40

I assume someguy and eman that you consider yourself intellectually consistent and thus also think that the pledge of alligience should be found unconstitutional, In God We Trust should be removed from our currency and coins,  Oaths of office should have no religious basis,  the religious symbols should be removed from the Supreme Court building and no politician or government agency can acknowledge any religious holiday.  

But your not intellectually consistent so its a moot point.

 

I do think "In God We Trust" should be removed from our money because God clearly doesn't want to be associated with American monetary policy, would you?

41

Speaking of Crist, it looks like he will announce his defection today.

 

42

29 Fine with me. No black history month, no year of the woman, no affirmative action, no national day of the duck-billed platapus.

I would like the govt to provide national defense, provide a currency, regulate interstate commerce (actual commerce), provide an interstate highway system, and maybe a couple of other things like veterens' hospitals, et al.

I don't care if there is a national day of prayer or not but if there isn't one, there shouldn't be any national days of anything else either. I'm all for that.

However, I do resent the, perceived or not, attack on Christianity. The obvious effort to rid the nation of Christianity; limits, degradation, harassment, belittling, is so obvious in its communist goals. When Islam or environmentalism, or secular humanism are all treated better or at least as valid, it rightly pisses christians off.

43

Islamic Incrementalism.

It's coming to America soon, and we're going to want our courts to be ruling correctly.

It's time for conservatives to think a little further down the road.

Posted by: someguy at April 16, 2010 10:12 AM (VRJIW)

Too late for that.

44

Meanwhile, Laura Ingraham was just talking about some school that has stopped using school bells because muslim students might think they sound like church bells.

Next they'll stop providing hamburgers in the cafeterias because the "ham" in hamburger sounds like there is pork in them.

45 Conservative - CMP Liberals - Prescription Drug Benefit

46 I also don't like laws that encourage prayer.

There's only a couple of ways government can "encourage" anyone to do anything.  Punishment(taxation/penalties/fines/prison), or Reward(tax credits/preferred status of some sort).

Since this "law" provides for neither of those avenues of influence, its just fluff.  It has no teeth.  It means nothing.  This "law" has the same power that a "sense of the congress resolution" has, which is to say none at all.

47 Conservative - CMP Liberals - Prescription Drug Benefit

Posted by: Jean at April 16, 2010 10:35 AM (7K04W)

Wouldn't that be Republican as opposed to Conservative? Kind of the reason they lost.

48 I don't like laws that prohibit prayer.

It's not a law, it's an observance.  Like National Ice Cream Month.  Oooh, scary!

49 "The judge held that it was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion"

One question Your Honor: WHICH religion?

Idiot.

50 Finally something that is actually unprecedented during Barky's reign.

51

"So, because you can't represent both belief and non-belief at the same time, only the non-belief gets represented?"

Heh

52 Praying people are very dangerous.

Well they do represent a clear tripping hazard.

53 Rat - CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) distributes surplus M-1 Garands to US Citizens thru Rifle Club to develop good gun handling and marksmanship. Conservative supported.

54

I don't like laws that prohibit prayer.

It's not a law, it's an observance.  Like National Ice Cream Month.  Oooh, scary!

The Diabetes Foundation thinks otherwise..

55

I also don't like laws that encourage prayer.

What does that even mean?

 

I don't like laws that prohibit prayer.

Again.

 

Are there thought police?

Observances are for those who want to "observe" or partisipate.

56 Conservative supported.

Posted by: Jean at April 16, 2010 10:39 AM (7K04W)

Okay, I'll endorse that one as well. I'd even go as far as a monthly stipend for ammunition. At least the money will go to a good cause.

57

Dave C, I don't understand your challenge.

The only social programme I recall conservatives endorsing, and unenthusiastically at that, was Bush's faith-based initiatives. The Left's list of compassionate sob-story boondoggles would spam the thread if I posted it, but we can start with the latest health bill.

That was the whole point of my post 29. And my post 16 was in pre-emptive agreement with the conservatives here.

58 I don't like laws.

59 Doesn't Congress start off each day with an opening prayer too?

Not for long.

60 O/T:  Goldman Sachs has been charged with Fraud....per CNBC

61

Rat - CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) distributes surplus M-1 Garands to US Citizens thru Rifle Club to develop good gun handling and marksmanship. Conservative supported.

whoa whoa whoa. Someone gives out Garands??? I've always wanted one but didn't want to pony up the 800-1200 it cost to get one. Where do i sign up?

62 sock off

63 "statute that instituted a National Day of Prayer"

Government is ill-advised enacting such statutes.

Religious belief and acts or lack thereof are individual choices and Governments should stay the eff out of it.

Good ruling in my book.
Posted by: eman at


Agreed.

64 The only social programme I recall conservatives endorsing, and unenthusiastically at that, was Bush's faith-based initiatives.

I also recall some kind of minuscule pro-marriage initiative, the thinking being that 2/3 of women and children in poverty could be immediately lifted above the poverty line if the mother married her childrens' father. 

65

"ts sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function," a Wisconsin judge wrote in the ruling, referring to the 1952 law that created the National Day of Prayer.

Actually, only a total retard would claim that this is the "sole purpose" of the day.  Further, this ruling is an endorsement of secularism, which is a religion, itself, and one that is nihilistic.

"In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience," wrote the judge, Barbara B. Crabb.

This judge is appropriately named, though "Barbara B. Shithead" would be even more accurate.

I wonder when the notion of taking an oath, of any sort, is also found to be in the same sort of delusional violation.  I guess this joke judge would have huge problems with any oaths on bibles in court, since that would be forcing juries, and everyone else in the court, to believe in that religion - or at least lend some credibility to it.

This judge should be impeached.

66 Can't sleep.  Lemon test will eat me. 

67 I think we should just make Mike Huckabee the official state religion.

68 Can't sleep. Lemon test  clown will eat me. 

69 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
--The United States Constitution.

What part of that is complicated?

70 Does this mean Christmas is now unconstitutional???

71 @ 6, 8, & 23: "...nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Duh. It is absolutely clear the Founders did not want a national church (e.g., Church of England). It is also perfectly clear that they considered that an individual citizen's successful self-government depended mainly on a tender solicitousness for his immortal soul. Otherwise, soon the undeterred become the powerful. On a practical level, they knew what they were doing: church attendance in Europe, where many churches are established churches, is abysmal. Here, where there is no established church, attendance is much better. Add to that number all the people who get their Christianity from Christian media. If you have any doubts about the Judeo-Christian beliefs of our Founders, read Washington's Reply to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport. The SecProgs are racing to our pitchforks!

72 The Continental Congress issued a day of prayer in 1775 to designate "a time for prayer in forming a new nation".

The Continental Congress clearly didn't understand what the Founding Fathers meant.

73  George Washington and the First Congress established a day of Prayer and Thanksgiving in 1789.  Of course, what would they know about the First Amendment, right?

74 Does this mean Christmas is now unconstitutional???


I seem to like "Winter Festival" much better. 

75 Has any nation ever dumped religion and not become a police/nanny state?

76

whoa whoa whoa. Someone gives out Garands??? I've always wanted one but didn't want to pony up the 800-1200 it cost to get one. Where do i sign up?

I just checked the website, you still have to pony up.

77 "Praying people are very dangerous." "Posted by: dagny " Be afraid, Dagny, very afraid. I will start to specifically pray for you every day.

78 Can't sleep. Lemon test  clown will eat me.

Frankly, I'd rather have the clown.  I do believe one of my exam answers in a Con Law class asking me to synthesize the Supreme Court's various Establishment Clause rulings was "fuck if I know".  Just, you know, in legalese and for 13 pages.   

79 George Washington and the First Congress established a day of Prayer and Thanksgiving in 1789.  Of course, what would they know about the First Amendment, right?

From which Law School did George Washington graduate?

80 O/T:  People the GS story is huge.....
CNBC had it, bloomberg had it....the trading guys had it...
Everyone else is too in shock to write the story....

SEC charged them..

81 All i know is i don't want the american government involved in religion solely because government made Eucharist tastes f'ing terrible. I think they are 53% sawdust

82 "Neither does the law in question, which is one of several reasons why it does not violate the Establishment Clause. Posted by: Alec Leamas " Did not say it did.

83

I guess this joke judge would have huge problems with any oaths on bibles in court, since that would be forcing juries, and everyone else in the court, to believe in that religion - or at least lend some credibility to it.

It forces the jury to believe only that the religion affects the person swearing the oath.

And your comment that secularism is religion was just asinine.

Since the judge's objective was to turn out the conservatives and to show them at their worst, mission accomplished.

84

83 No, no stooooppppp. Don't pray, it could lead to .......

Ok, go ahead.

 

When I was pregnant I was saying a rosary for the baby's health. Rosaries make me sleepy. I conked out and fell off the couch. Very dangerous.

There should have been a govt warning label on my rosary.

85

O/T:  People the GS story is huge.....
CNBC had it, bloomberg had it....the trading guys had it...
Everyone else is too in shock to write the story....

SEC charged them..

 

They strike me as a company not to disimilar from Taggart Transcontinental in Atlas Shrugged, a company that uses its government connections to get an unfair advantage over other companies that don't have influence in washington.

I am a capitalist, but there is a difference between making money honestly and illegally.

86 Meanwhile, Laura Ingraham was just talking about some school that has stopped using school bells because muslim students might think they sound like church bells.

Posted by: Mal at April 16, 2010 10:04 AM (Z+qzA)

Those poor sensitive little ears shouldn't be exposed to racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic bells. Why it might cause them to go on a bloody ramage.

87 Did not say it did.

Then you're a tyrant who supports the actions of a Judge who clearly exceeded her authority and imposed her will over that expressed by the American people. 

At least the Judge in question hid behind First Amendment sophistry - you apparently don't feel the need to do anything of the sort.

88 Good ruling in my book.

Posted by: eman at April 16, 2010 10:08 AM (fTJLU) 

"Neither does the law in question, which is one of several reasons why it does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Posted by: Alec Leamas "

Did not say it did.

Posted by: eman at April 16, 2010 10:53 AM (fTJLU)

Care to square that circle?

89

Since the judge's objective was to turn out the conservatives and to show them at their worst, mission accomplished.

Yeah, this has been a regular Rodney King riot around here.

THAT was an asinine statement, Zimriel.

90

I guess this joke judge would have huge problems with any oaths on bibles in court, since that would be forcing juries, and everyone else in the court, to believe in that religion - or at least lend some credibility to it

To any lawyers out there, i've always wondered. Are you under oath while taking the oath?

 

91 Praying is not the issue. Endorsing it is. The Government should not make such statutes, weak ones or not.

92 77 @ 6, 8, & 23: "...nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Duh. It is absolutely clear the Founders did not want a national church (e.g., Church of England).

That's part of the picture but it goes beyond that.  In colonial Virginia, for example, all religions were theoretically tolerated, but before a minister could establish a congregation he had to get a permit from the state.  Part of that permitting process was a test on religious doctrine administered by the Church of England so congregations that did not hew to the government's official line (as expressed by the CoE) did not get permits.

If a minister couldn't get a license and went around preaching anyway he was jailed.

The Founding Fathers wanted none of that kind of sh*t.

Which is why the establishment clause is mixed in with the right to free speech in the Constitution.

93

As a white person, I am deeply offended by Black history month.

I want to the judge to rule on this

94 The Government should not make such statutes, weak ones or not.

Well, the American people, through their elected representatives, thought otherwise - correct?  The American people have the power and authority to do so without violating the United States Constitution - correct?

95 I'm posting what I'm finding about the SEC/GS case in the headlines thread.

96 The Government should not make such statutes, weak ones or not.

Once again, eman, constitutional scholar that you clearly are, can you please explain how it was okay for the First Congress - which wrote the First Amendment - to call for a day of prayer and thanksgiving, but suddenly now it's unconstitutional?

97

And your comment that secularism is religion was just asinine.

Disagree. Secular Humanism is indeed a set of beliefs which puts naturalism, ethical relativism, atheism in control of the universe. It is indeed a set of beliefs; a religion.

98 I think we have a judge here making huge contortions over simple language.  This is one of those instances where the executive and legislative branch should just ignore the judicial branch.

99 I did not say the law violated the Establishment Cause, the Court did. I said the Government should not make such Laws, Constitutional they may be.

100

Not the thread for this, but I love this!

First Barbie I've wanted to own since I was six.

101

I don't have too many disputes vs. our esteemed posters, but I'm afraid this is one.  I'm actually extremely well read on Separation of Church and State issue.

As those things go, this is about the most minor one I've ever heard of, but it's legit nonetheless.

Gabe's phrase "curb the anti-religious drift" kind of says it all. There's a world of difference between being secular - i.e., being neutral, and staying out of it altogether - and being "anti-religious".  Anti-religious acts, for example would stand in the way of people's right to practice their religion (which would clearly be a violation of the Free Exercise clause) - and that's clearly not going on here.  People are certainly free to pray whenever they want, and they could even start some sort of organization to push a "National Day of Prayer", just like they have "days" or "months" for breast cancer awareness or anything else. What would be missing if it were done that way would be the official government endorsement - which is what the folks trying to force Christianity on people are really after (although they conveniently don't see it that way).

It's like the annual "War on Christmas" nonsense.  I drive down Main Street here, and see all kinds of churches "on the public square" that don't even bother to put up a Nativity scene, but the eveangelists don't seem too worried about that.  They want it on government property, and then use the leftist tactic of playing with the language calling it "the public square".  The idea is to try to make sound like you can't openly be a Christian in public, when that's obviously not the case, and is not really what they're after.

The writings of Jefferson, who got the religious freedom movement started (in VA), and Madison, who carried the ball at the Federal level are extremely clear as to what the idea was with the 1st Amendment.  They were extremely leary of the intermingling of religion and governmment.  Many of the immigrants back then had come here specifically to escape state-mandated religion!  Were it not for their success, Jefferson (and maybe even Madison) probably wouldn't have otherwise been able to hold office, for not being Christian (Jefferson was a Deist).

Ironically, religion in the US has benefitted greatly from Separation of Church and State.  It's like any other industry, where the more it's nationalized, the worse it gets.  Just look at the UK!  Funny, how so many conservatives make an exception on this argument when it comes to THIS topic, and how our outrageously socialist president is carrying the torch for them on it!!

102 They are reading emails on CNBC sent from this 31 year old VP in the NYC office.   It appears that he knew "the house was going to come down".

103 I did not say the law violated the Establishment Cause, the Court did.

Good ruling in my book.

Make up your mind.

104 I said the Government should not make such Laws, Constitutional they may be.

No.  You stated that it was a good ruling "in your book."  Which is to say that a Judge may interpose her personal beliefs in place of the Constitution and impose them on the Nation, and this is just fine by you - so long as you agree with the outcome - correct?

105 I said the Government should not make such Laws, Constitutional they may be.

Good ruling in my book.

Do you even comprehend how dumb you sound?

106
Crook who supports big-time democrats is a .... CROOK.

107 "whoa whoa whoa. Someone gives out Garands??? I've always wanted one but didn't want to pony up the 800-1200 it cost to get one. Where do i sign up?" You pay based on grade, I got one for $300.

108 I have made no mention of whether or not such laws are Constitutional. I said I don't support them. I think you can make a good case that this law violates the Establishment Clause. Other folks disagree.

109 Meh, I can't get to excited about this one way or the other. I don't need the government to tell me what day to pray on. When they start telling me what day I can't pray on then it will be a different matter.

110 Since the judge's objective was to turn out the conservatives and to show them at their worst, mission accomplished.

Because heaven forbid people be shown wanting to pray.  My eyes!  The goggles, they do nothing!

111 I think you can make a good case that this law violates the Establishment Clause.

No, you can't.  And you are not even trying. 

112 The White House has tweeted that it will IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION and hold a day of prayer anyway: http://twitter.com/whitehouse/status/12239071343 Why should this be any different?

113 You are right to point out my error in saying it was a good ruling without being clear as to why. It is a matter of debate, in my opinion, whether or not the law is Constitutional, but even if it were so, it is still a bad law.

114

 The White House has tweeted that it will IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION and hold a day of prayer anyway:

So they will be praying 5 times that day as usual I assume?

115 <i>The writings of Jefferson,</i>

Who was in France and had nothing to do with the writing of the First Amendment or of the Constitution.

<i>and Madison, who carried the ball at the Federal level</i>

And who yet, as a member of the First Congress, supported a day of prayer and thanksgiving, and who as President issued a <a href="http://www.pilgrimhall.org/ThanxProc1789.htm">proclamation</a> for a day of Prayer and Thanksgiving.

116 Ok, folks, I think we might be missing the point here somewhat.  Alright, I'm not an advocate of telling anybody when to pray, how to pray, which Diety to pray to or anything along those lines.

However the importance of this ruling really isn't about who you pray  to, if you pray or when.  The importance here is that our founding fathers established our Nation with one very clear concept in mind.  That your rights came from an Almighty, not from the government.

You see, if your rights are derived from a governmental body then the government in question can take them away any time it sees fit.  Our founders understood this.  So while they were most certainly trying to prevent Congress from establishing any sort of national religion, I cannot for the life of me imagine that they ever envisioned that God would be so completely removed from the public square.

But the thing you have to understand here is that liberals have to do that.  Once there is no higher authority left, it's open season on your rights.  It really is just that simple.

So pray to God, Yaweh, Allah, Vishnu, Zortan from Planet Regula 8, or bend a knee to the great vasty nothingness to which you will return since you really don't believe in a higher power but don't want your rights strangled to death by an out of control legislature.  Whatever floats your boat.

But make no mistake about it, rulings like this one are a direct assault on the freedoms we all enjoy, regardless of our chosen religion.  The moment government is recognized as the source of our rights is the moment we lose them forever.

117 And you are not even trying. Posted by: Alec Leamas Correct. I am not trying.

118 It is a matter of debate, in my opinion, whether or not the law is Constitutional, but even if it were so, it is still a bad law.

The Court has no authority to decide whether the law was bad.  It simply has to decide whether the law is constitutional.  The law is not unconstitutional, and it isn't even a matter of debate, unless you think you have a better understanding of the First Amendment than the people who fucking wrote it.

119 It is a matter of debate, in my opinion, whether or not the law is Constitutional, but even if it were so, it is still a bad law.

The debate may only occur if the premise is a wholesale lie about what the Constitution states. 

Is it your position that judges exist to determine which laws they believe are "good," and which they believe are "bad?"

120 If a minister couldn't get a license and went around preaching anyway he was jailed.

The Founding Fathers wanted none of that kind of sh*t.

No.  The Founding Fathers wanted the Federal government out of that kind of sh*t.  There's a reason the First Amendment  starts with the most beautiful words in the English language: "Congress shall make no law..."

121

You guys are going to love this one:

http://tinyurl.com/yzzx9fv

122

It forces the jury to believe only that the religion affects the person swearing the oath.

Incorrect.  It forces th ejury to lend some credibility to the Bible the oath is being taken on and to allow it to be presented seriously in a court room.  That, alone,, would obviously offend this judge ... and probably people like you, too, if you had the intelligence to understand it.  You might be saved by your ignorance, though.

And your comment that secularism is religion was just asinine.

LOL.

Since the judge's objective was to turn out the conservatives and to show them at their worst, mission accomplished.

Posted by: Zimriel at April 16, 2010 10:55 AM (9Sbz+)

You have added to the judge's idiocy.  Congrats.  Interesting how you could think that a "National \Day of Prayer" is more of an endorsement of religion than a court having a Bible that someone swears an oath over - under penalty of LAW for breaking.  Intersting reaoning ... or lack thereof.

123

I quote this from Things Jefferson Bleeted Volume Eleventy:

"So sayeth the constitution; Justices of the laws of men whoeth actith as bags of the douche shall henforth be relegated to the 9th Circuit. Hazaa!"

 

 

124 If relgion is the opiate of the masses, why do i have such a hard time freebasing Leviticus?

125 No, I don't think the ends justify the means. I think you clearly believe the law is Constitutional and the Court does not. Since the question is still alive I feel free to like the outcome of the ruling.

126
Posted by: Paul Zummo at April 16, 2010 11:09 AM (MVcnm)

Use the post preview option before posting any html.

127 curious @ 64 The Zero Hedge cut: "Undisclosed in the marketing materials and unbeknownst to investors, a large hedge fund, Paulson & Co. Inc. (“Paulson”), with economic interests directly adverse to investors in the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO, played a significant role in the portfolio selection process. After participating in the selection of the reference portfolio, Paulson effectively shorted the RMBS portfolio it helped select by entering into credit default swaps (“CDS”) with GS&Co to buy protection on specific layers of the ABACUS 2007-AC1 capital structure. Given its financial short interest, Paulson had an economic incentive to choose RMBS that it expected to experience credit events in the near future. GS&Co did not disclose Paulson’s adverse economic interests or its role in the portfolio selection process in the term sheet, flip book, offering memorandum or other marketing materials provided to investors...The deal closed on April 26, 2007. Paulson paid GS&Co approximately $15 million for structuring and marketing ABACUS 2007-AC1. By October 24, 2007, 83% of the RMBS in the ABACUS 2007-AC1 portfolio had been downgraded and 17% were on negative watch. By January 29, 2008, 99% of the portfolio had been downgraded. As a result, investors in the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO lost over $1 billion. Paulson’s opposite CDS positions yielded a profit of approximately $1 billion for Paulson"

128

127 The Constitution is alive, Jim. IT'S ALIVE!!!!

(no, sorry. It's a document, a set of laws, no interpretation necessary).

129

It's a known fact that prayer leads to pregnancy.

130

George Washington and the First Congress established a day of Prayer and Thanksgiving in 1789. 

George Washington and the First Congress acted stupidly.  What did they know, anyway?  It's not like they were part-time lecturers on Constitutional Law or anything!

131 So sayeth the constitution; Justices of the laws of men whoeth actith as bags of the douche shall henforth be relegated to the 9th Circuit. Hazaa!"

Rotfl.. well, if nothing else now I get to walk around with a mental image of Thomas Jefferson uttering the phrase "bags of douche" all day...  lol

Seriously guys, could we start putting up some disclaimers or something?  I laughed so hard everybody around my desk at worked stopped what they were doing.

132 I think you clearly believe the law is Constitutional and the Court does not.

The Court doesn't give a fuck whether it is truly Constitutional or not - only whether it offends certain sensibilities or stands in the way of a subversive agenda - I think that's the point we've been making.

133 There's a "National Day of Prayer"?  Who knew, certainly not me!

134 128 If a minister couldn't get a license and went around preaching anyway he was jailed.

The Founding Fathers wanted none of that kind of sh*t.

No.  The Founding Fathers wanted the Federal government out of that kind of sh*t.  There's a reason the First Amendment  starts with the most beautiful words in the English language: "Congress shall make no law..."

Posted by: AmishDude at April 16, 2010 11:12 AM (T0NGe)

I think we're in violent agreement here.

135 137 I think you're doing it wrong or at least in the wrong position.

136 While we're on the subject of religion,did anyone else notice that the British inquiry into climategate cleared the scientist of any wrong doing yesterday?

137 The Court doesn't give a fuck whether it is truly Constitutional or not - only whether it offends certain sensibilities or stands in the way of a subversive agenda - I think that's the point we've been making. Posted by: Alec Leamas That may be so, but it is no more than conjecture. Off to work now. Nice discussion. Again, sorry for not being clear earlier.

138 State-Sponsored religion?  Don't forget National Earth Day!

139

O/T but funny as hell.

The White House is furious with CBS News for publishing a blog post suggesting that Solicitor General Elena Kagan, a leading contender for a Supreme Court nomination, is a lesbian.

Huffpo, The Daily Beast -- all of 'em are rabid crazy mad about this!

140 Lets be a little more exact here: The Founding Fathers didn't want the Federal Government establishing a religion; if a State wanted to do so - then thats OK.

141 While we're on the subject of religion,did anyone else notice that the British inquiry into climategate cleared the scientist of any wrong doing yesterday?

The new Church of England, at least until Islam completely take control.

142 uhhhh .... National Earth Day  (with pictures of polar bears and factory smokestacks and flowers and caring humans wearing those Andean knit caps).

143

Huffpo, The Daily Beast -- all of 'em are rabid crazy mad about this!

Why the anger? I thought we "celebrated diversity"? This should be a good thing. Very curious....

144 I think you can make a good case that this law violates the Establishment Clause.

Which religion is it establishing, pray tell? Be specific.

Otherwise, keep your piehole shut while adults are talking.

145

O/T but funny as hell.

The White House is furious with CBS News for publishing a blog post suggesting that Solicitor General Elena Kagan, a leading contender for a Supreme Court nomination, is a lesbian.

Huffpo, The Daily Beast -- all of 'em are rabid crazy mad about this!

I think her majority opinion on Muff v. Diver gave it away.

146 When the courts get serious about stopping the Congress and Executive from imposing the religion of Secular Humanism on us, I'll pay attention.

147

@103 You're really pushing that "national day of prayer and thanksgiving" bit, aren't you? I'm pretty sure that (if it really happened) was before the 1st Amendment was passed (which I think was in 1791, also a product of the First Congress).  The earlier reference to something in 1775, which pre-dates even independence, is also pretty funny. Like all issues, not everybody was on board, and not everybody who was on board was "pure" about it.

Beyond that, the argument usually comes where previous violations are brought up as examples of how the current examples are OK.  It's kind of like if I went before a judge and argued, "You can't charge me for speeding, because I speed all the time!"

It should be more obvious than ever, these days, that the Constitution is sometimes ignored.  Congress often just does whatever it wants. The Supreme Court is a very weak branch of govt, and often has a biased and partisan interpretation anyway.  Just read the 10th Amendment, and you wouldn't know it was the "supreme law of the land" in THIS country.

148 Why the anger? I thought we "celebrated diversity"? This should be a good thing. Very curious....

I think it was supposed to be a secret...until she was confirmed.

149 Is it your position that judges exist to determine which laws they believe are "good," and which they believe are "bad?"

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread or who you were talking to, but I think many judges think that they exist to move their personal agendas.

150 Read this and all I remember seeing is Specter's pathetic face in the ad below.

A coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man dies but once.

151 EXACTLY, Mr. Stuck

My rights come from my Creator.

As soon as the government convinces people that their rights come from Nancy Pelosi they are proper-fucked.

Any person that can read the writings of the Founding and then think we are living anywhere near what was intended is deluding themselves.



Samuel Adams
;">A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.

Samuel Adams
;">He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man...The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people.

152 Oh hey sifty...I stole one of your posts and posted it on my site. It was about California. Sweet. Do I owe you money?

153 154 When the courts get serious about stopping the Congress and Executive from imposing the religion of Secular Humanism on us, I'll pay attention.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 16, 2010 11:28 AM (5aa4z)

AMEN!

I find it amusing that belief in the central tenent of Secular Humanism (i.e. the non-existence of a Deity) requires just as much faith as belief in the central tenent of any other religion (i.e. the existence of a Deity) does.

154

I think it was supposed to be a secret...until she was confirmed.

Why? These lefties are so inconsistent. Either there is nothing wrong with it or there is. Cut the crap.

155 Wow. Hillary, Janet, and now Elena.


We're gonna need some limousines made by Subaru.

No carpet is safe in DC.

156 No money needed. You just have to testify with me when Uncle Janet comes for me.

157

Wow. Hillary, Janet, and now Elena.


We're gonna need some limousines made by Subaru.

No carpet is safe in DC.

but will they rule with an iron fist?

158 We will baffle the mf'ers with truth and then catch them off guard with superior intelligence. Two of us agin all them. We got em by the short hairs sifty!

159 We could baffle half of Congress with a ball of twine and an old fishing lure wrapped in bubble gum.

160

161 Yeah, the "secular" part is supposed to fool  you. The humanism part is just atheism (of which there is no doctrine other than the anti- part), evolution, naturalism, and ethical relativism.

It's theethical relativism the lefties like. Without it you can't have abortion, death panels, racial politics, etc. It allows them to use any means to achieve their ends. It puts the state first because someone has to be in charge.

These secular humanists are really statists.

161 Posted by: Ben at April 16, 2010 11:28 AM (wuv1c)

That's funny....

Who would care

The only way I would care is if she is very far to the left

162 You're really pushing that "national day of prayer and thanksgiving" bit, aren't you? I'm pretty sure that (if it really happened) was before the 1st Amendment was passed (which I think was in 1791, also a product of the First Congress).

If it really happened?  What, did people suffer through a massive hallucination?  I screwed the formatting up, but here is a link to that proclamation, and the one signed after the first amendment was ratified, including one issued by James Madison.  Also, do you think the same exact Congress which wrote and passed the First Amendment - in 1789, before the Proclamation was issued - would have different feelings.  (Congress passed the Bill of Rights in 1789, which were ratified in 1791).

Like all issues, not everybody was on board, and not everybody who was on board was "pure" about it.

So I guess all those guys who just voted for the First Amendment must have had a collective fit of constitutional ignorance, including the guy you cited, James Madison.  Very convenient.

Just a word of advice: being well-read on a subject generally entails reading more than one book on a topic.

163

Posted by: Ben at April 16, 2010 11:28 AM (wuv1c)

That's funny....

Who would care

The only way I would care is if she is very far to the left

i agree, i care about ideology more than sexuality, but i won't pass up the change to make lesbian jokes and puns.

164 Why? These lefties are so inconsistent. Either there is nothing wrong with it or there is. Cut the crap.

The same reason they pretend to be "moderates" when they run for office, they can't win being who they really are. I guess.

165

@122 "[Jefferson] was in France and had nothing to do with the writing of the First Amendment or of the Constitution."

That's like saying Martin Luther King "had nothing to do with" any civil rights legilation passed after his assassination - because he "didn't write it" because he "wasn't there". It's intellectually dishonest.

Jefferson got religious rights passed in VA, which was the largest and most influential state at the time.  When he stipulated what to put on his tombstone, that was one of the three accomplishments he asked to be mentioned. (Being the third president of the US didn't make the cut, maybe he thought that was only 4th most important).

There were laws at the time that required you to be an elder of a church in order to hold public office.  Jefferson wouldn't have qualified. It's crap like that that caused the "no religious test" for public office to be put into the Constitution. (BTW, that phrase, plus the 1st Amendment, are explicitly contradictory vs. the 10 Commandments, for you guys out there claiming our laws are based on them).

166 More evidence that the Legal system is to rational thought was Witchdoctors are to medicine.

167 Jefferson is my least favorite founding father.

168 More evidence that the Legal system is to rational thought what Witchdoctors are to medicine.

Ooopps.

169

Posted by: bulwark

Yeah. They managed to conclude that nobody was at fault at the Center where the data was plainly manipulated, falsified and concealed. Just must've been way too hard to prove, considering the number of people with access to the raw data. I think that number was two, by the way.

  Yet somehow they'll have no problem finding us all guilty of premeditated Gaia-rape if some random mud shrimp dies out halfway across the world.

170 LMAO!  These fuckers are baffled with a simple job description and who they work for. Introducing twine, gum, and a fishing lure just leaves them overwhelmed. It's not very nice to tease the kids on the short bus, Sifty.

171 My point is that Jefferson's own understanding of the Constitution was deeply flawed.  His "separation of church and state" letter, which somehow has been taken by future generations as actually written in our Constitution, is actually a misinterpretation of the First Amendment. 

Jefferson is my least favorite founding father.

Mine too.

172 Jefferson was a poly math, a fuckin genius. He predicted this. Blasphemy!

173 If I had a Jefferson card I would trade it for a Patrick Henry or a Samuel Adams in a heartbeat.

174 Jefferson is my least favorite founding father. You got another one, Lionel?!? WEE-ZY!!!!! Get over here!

175 OT - Government charging Goldman Sachs with civil fraud.

176 Yea finally the SEC gets off its ass when Obama the bank hater is in charge. Go figure. Allah Akbar!

177 I read a lot of so-called classics (many for free on Kindle) and I am just now finishing Quo Vadis? a novel about Nero's persecution of the Christians.  Nero, whose ego knew no bounds, had Rome burnt that he might not be disadvantaged in comparison to Priam who had watched Troy burn.  Turns out the populace didn't much care for the burning of Rome even though Nero did compose verses about the tragedy.  Needing a scapegoat, he turned to the Christians who were subsequently fed to the lions, crucified, covered with pitch and burned as torches to illuminate Nero's gardens and martyred in other ways.  Now we have Obama, whose ego knows no bounds, and is burning the constitution in favor of health care and other Marxist nonsense.  Turns out the populace doesn't much care for the burning of the constitution even though Obama does joke about it.  Needing a scapegoat he is turning to the Christians . . . .

178 "So sayeth the constitution; Justices of the laws of men whoeth actith as bags of the douche shall henforth be relegated to the 9th Circuit. Hazaa!"

Now that one I believe.

179 183 If I had a Jefferson card I would trade it for a Patrick Henry or a Samuel Adams in a heartbeat.

Posted by: sifty at April 16, 2010 11:50 AM (JGrN+)

 

I'll trade you a Jefferson card for a dead rat, some assorted lint from my pocket, and a half used roll of toilet pape.......

180 Jefferson was a poly math, a fuckin genius.

He was indeed.  He was also a radical whose political philosophy was deeply at odds with the rest of the Founders.  Jeffersonian political thought it what allows "this" that is taking place to go down.  But I really don't want to go down this path, so I'll leave it at that.

181 Now all they need to do is lock Chris Dodd and Bawny Fwank in a deep dark hole for a few years.

At least one of those two has no fear of that though.

182

Posted by: crowsting at April 16, 2010 11:53 AM (61BD9)

er, toilet paper.....

too much val-u-rite last night....

183

I'm betting that the other founding fathers thought Jefferson was a pussy.

We know he was a fop and a debtor.

184 "191 Now all they need to do is lock Chris Dodd and Bawny Fwank in a deep dark hole for a few years.

At least one of those two has no fear of that though.

Posted by: sifty at April 16, 2010 11:54 AM (JGrN+)"

Discovery is a wonderful process....

185 What about a National Punching Down Day?  Would that be cool?

186 I think Jefferson was kinda like the nerdy kid who did everyone's homework so he could hang out with jocks like George Washington and Patrick Henry.

187 Yea finally the SEC gets off its ass when Obama the bank hater is in charge. Go figure. Allah Akbar!

Pay no attention to Barney and Chris hiding behind the curtain.

188

@124 It seems like your heart is in the right place, but you have some notions, and some faulty logic, that lead you astray.

The Founders' claim as to origin of rights are explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence (written by non-Christian Jefferson).  The concept was one of "natural law", whose exact meaning can be debated.  My own impression is that it was stems from the Deist concept of nature as god. The main point is that rights are inherent, and not created by government.  Whether you want to go with a supernatural origin, or with Rand, it comes out the same.  So it's not true that "Once there is no higher authority left, it's open season on your rights." I agree that "The moment government is recognized as the source of our rights is the moment we lose them forever.", but - since a claim to having rights does NOT require religious belief (which is something most people don't realize) - that doesn't come into it.

I must object to your disingenuous use of the term "public square".  Certainly anybody can go out in public, as a private citizen, and be as religious as they want.

 

189 I'd trade a Jefferson card for a Carter Braxton card in a heartbeat.

190 "I assume someguy and eman that you consider yourself intellectually consistent and thus also think that the pledge of alligience should be found unconstitutional, In God We Trust should be removed from our currency and coins,  Oaths of office should have no religious basis,  the religious symbols should be removed from the Supreme Court building and no politician or government agency can acknowledge any religious holiday."

Suppose Congress soon votes to change the currency to read "In Mohamed We Trust?" Are you still for it? Or does your intellectual consistency change at that point?

What if they passed a law saying that all officeholders are now required to swear their oaths on the Koran. And that in court, you must swear an oath to Allah that you will "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth peace be upon him."

Still for it?

What if they decided to erect minarets at all the courthouses. Would you still be for the symbols in our courts? What if they change the name to "Shariah Courts" instead of "Federal Courts." Still for it are you?

My intellectual honesty says that if the Supreme Court rules to remove "In  God We Trust" of our currency I can still barely buy a cup of coffee for $5.00 at Starbucks and my own belief in God won't have changed one iota.

You're only for it because it's your religion being established ... but that won't always be the case. Take a look at England and what the Muslims are doing to that society.

It's coming here. Do you want them to have the power to elevate Allah to the currency?

191 It's cool PZ. I love Jefferson. He predicted what would occur if the Federal Gov. ever wrestled control from the states. Witness now.

He also predicted a number of other things which are occuring now. He was a fantastic historian. That he could give a fuck that they even mentioned he was President on his tombstone speaks volumes about who he was. The dude saw the future which was in fact a huge deviation from conventional thought. Who was right? I rest my case.

192

It's coming here. Do you want them to have the power to elevate Allah to the currency?

 

Nature abhors a vacuum. Remove, denigratem, and humiliate Christianity and, yes, you will get Islam. See Europe and the Middle east.

193 Jefferson is my least favorite founding father.

Posted by: dagny at April 16, 2010 11:44 AM (UaoUM)

Hear, hear.  Jefferson never envisioned the modern US.  People like Jefferson's state's rights arguments, but Jefferson was one of the first staticists, really.  He didn't see a growing US.

Of course, Jeff made up for a lot of these serious problems of his with the Louisianna Purchase.

194 The main point is that rights are inherent, and not created by government.

The old Soviet Constitution was in some ways remarkably similar to the US Constitution regarding "rights".  The main difference is that the US Constitution considered them preexisting and immutable, whereas the Soviet Constitution treated them as explicit grants from the government.

195 There is nothing wrong with the government endorsing "religion".  They are simply prevented from establishing a "state religion" or favoring one over another.

The only restriction in the constitution is against the Congress establishing "a religion".  I don't see how a national day of prayer in any way "establishes" a state religion.

196 why would they want her being a lesbian a secret?  the white house celebrates the lifestyle of the gays and wants it in our face at every opportunity............and if she is a lesbo.......well, she should be out and proud........and if she isn't out and proud........why is she hiding it?

197 When I inherited a war against jihad from my predecessor, I fought to a victorious conclusion.

198

When I inherited a war against jihad from my predecessor, I fought to a victorious conclusion.

We wore them so they wouldn't cut off our heads

199 Patrick Henry and the anti-Federalists did a lot of predictions too. Most of them right.

The amount of brains used at the  Founding of our nation is almost supernatural.To think that the current class of dipshits in Washington DC can measure up to actually knowing better is silly.

200

@148 Yes, it's a little-known fact that Separation of Church and State originally only applied at the Federal level. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment that it applied for all level of govt.

I don't think it was a matter of suggesting that the states should go ahead and sponsor the religions of their choosing; just that the Feds felt they didn't (or at least shouldn't) have the authority to say anything about how the states ran their own internal affairs.

201 203 But he didn't really want to do that. He was in full handwringing mode thinking that the purchase was unconstitutional. He wanted to pass a constitutional amendment first but there wasn't time. He just wanted New Orleans and land east. We almost lost it because of his vascillating.

202 we are a Judeo Christian Nation.Period...deal with it............that's how this country was founded......

203 Eugene Volokh thinks there might be five votes on the Supreme Court to curb the anti-religious drift.
Eugene Volokh didn't know what a jurat (a type of notary certification) was the other day. His stock took a serious dive. He may be versed in overarching concepts, but I am not confident in his command of details.

204

we are a Judeo Christian Nation.Period...deal with it............that's how this country was founded......

 

Hiyaaa!

205 Do you really think there hasn't been a gay on the SCOUS? The only news here is a lesbian,.. this I have no problem with. I do have a problem with the politics of the individual in question.

206 I'll trade a bullet-riddled Alexander Hamilton card for a sammich.

207

shit goldman sacks dropped some 30 points.

Anyone want to bet goldman sachs short sold their own stock before this civil violation was handed down?

208 Unconstitutional endorsement of socialism?

209

215 leathernecks

 

bwahhhhahahahhahaha

 

 

210

Do you really think there hasn't been a gay on the SCOUS? The only news here is a lesbian,..
this I have no problem with. I do have a problem with the politics of the individual in question.

Howard Taft was the original "Bear"

211 To us it is the Articles of our founding fathers, to them it is cheap toilet paper.

212

Posted by: crosspatch at April 16

 

And considering that the exercise of Religion is specifically protected in the Bill of Rights, a National Prayer Day should be no more offensive than a National Free Speech Day. I know the Lefties would hate that one, too.

We all know what this is really about, anyway. The Lefties loathe Religion because it is independent of the State. Anything that is not a part of the State must serve the State or be eliminated.

213 OT
Yea finally the SEC gets off its ass when Obama the bank hater is in charge.

This Goldman thing is certainly deserved, but shocker of shockers just when there is legislation in the works and news about financial regulation, they make sure there is big splash news.

Can't stand these socialists, but they sure the hell are cunning.

214 damn sock

215 Howard Taft was the original "Bear" I was a bottom.

216 213 I guess not. Typical.

217 In any context the word PRAYER is very, very benign.

218 Shouldn't federal employees be required to work on Christmas, then?  And no other religions get federal holidays, do they?

Seems like there's a lotta elephants in the room with this 'endorsement' shit.

219

Suppose Congress soon votes to change the currency to read "In Mohamed We Trust?"

No, I'd go for "There Is No God But Allah; Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah; He Has Come To Deliver The True Faith No Matter How Much You Pagans Hate It".

Go conservatives!

220
How do you think this great nation was founded and built, by the likes of Michael fucking Newdow?

Let me put it in plain terms. A group of atheists could never ever build a nation like this. Nor a silly libertarian, nor a progressive leftist. This nation was founded by men with principles grounded in the belief of a deity and humbled in His presence.

221

Howard Taft was the original "Bear"

I was a power bottom.

 

fify

222

And no other religions get federal holidays, do they?

No, but Easter should be outlawed since it screws with the unemployment rate so much.

223 As a Canadian I don't understand this debate because Jefferson's right--they're have always been "bags of douche" in Parliament.

BTW, does Arbor Day force everyone in the States to be a Druid or promote Druidism or Animism?

224 You have to believe that your rights are granted to you by God to believe in rights at all. There are no rights otherwise, just government largesse.

225 The great leftard sage Chumpsky flexes his aged and wrinkled sphincter and dumps the turd of leftard wisdom.

226

BTW, does Arbor Day force everyone in the States to be a Druid or promote Druidism or Animism?

No one here becomes a Druid, Andy.  But we do burn the hell outta some tires...

227

233 circa

 

i was thinking about getting a job but then Easter was coming up so i decided to wait and see what the bunny brought me.......i got so much candy it's gonna take me at least a month to finish it then i have to clean up all the Easter grass that fell out of my basket.......i find it every where......i figure i won't be ready to work until at least June but then it gets so unbelievably hot here so i think i'll just wait until the fall...........

228

Thanksgiving is a fed holiday.

 

I suggest that all atheists work on Thanksgiving.

229 Hey, I need a handbag. Know where I can get one?

230 Boy Howdy! Fucking thread spammers peddling fucking handbags sure make me want to buy one..........not.

231 what should we do with people who don't work on labor day?

232 Read that Chomsky shit. Still wiping puke off the keyboard.

233

Maddogg, from the Chumpsky link, "“They are hearing answers from only one place: Fox, talk radio, and Sarah Palin.”

And this is what passes for intelligence in his little universe?

234 Related satire: Supreme Court Strikes Down Constitution: tinyurl.com/y6dl3gj

235 Anyone want to bet goldman sachs short sold their own stock before this civil violation was handed down?

Heh.

236 Off with your, uh, heel, damned sock!

237 #240 There are no cheap hobos, Mr Handbags Sale, only cheap booze.

238 247 Anyone want to bet goldman sachs short sold their own stock before this civil violation was handed down?

Out of the money puts for max leverage. Yea. I'd bet a jumbo.

239

I'd like to know who is filing these suits. I mean, who is so bothered and oppressed by a national day of prayer that they're going to argue before the Supreme Court of the United States? Don't they have anything else to do? What's in it for them?

(I'd jotted down some other thoughts, but I can remember if I put my cribs in my black leather handbag or my brown leather handbag or my red leather handbag or my yellow leather handbag. Really, Lunatic Fringe, it can be more hassle than it's worth.)

240 anyone know where i can get a seal carving?

241

Did somebody ask that judge, "What religion?"

"The prayer religion?"

Stupid fuck.

242 Mind you, the gifts for Chinese women might come in handy for courting WTR. Hmm. I wonder if their inventory includes stompy boots?

243 245

Maddogg, from the Chumpsky link, "“They are hearing answers from only one place: Fox, talk radio, and Sarah Palin.”

And this is what passes for intelligence in his little universe?

Well, either ole Nome has gotten so senile he can't count his fingers up to three, or he considers them to be one entity. I vote for drooling, pants shitting senile, which he's suffered from since he was in his twenties.

244 Tall black stompy boots. With laces all the way up.

245 Gnome Chumpsky: "Do the voices in my head bother you?"

246

This, this is what they decide to highlight as a "pressing concern"?

I don't give a damn if you're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, or a believer in the flying spaghetti monster (or none of the above -- a good college friend believed in the absolutes of mathematics, good for him).  The National Day of Prayer was never a mandatory nor denominationally specific thing -- for all it's worth, you could pray to the rules of numerical logic to guide your reason I suppose.

This is a trap to brand the GOP as a bunch of crazy bible thumpers and to cause dissention within the ranks of the opposition -- again.  That it could also help to loosen the bonds that hold our society together is an added bennie.  Above all else, I think  we have more pressing concerns than is the NDoP constitutional or not!

Jeez, I hate these people.

 

247 WalrusRex - Quo Vadis II will be the working title of the next Obama "auto"biography.

248 256 Tall black stompy boots. With laces all the way up.

Posted by: andycanuck at April 16, 2010 12:33 PM (ocax6)

As a leg man since forever. I must profess my undying admiration for a pair of red pumps mated with a short skirt and a nice tan (forget the stockings) on a pair of long, slender yet shapely and silky feminine legs. Yum, makes me weak in the knees.....

249 WalrusRex - Quo Vadis II will be the working title of the next Obama "auto"biography.
And the first one was The Greatest Story Ever Sold Told?

250

@171  Madison makes it pretty clear in that proclaimation (which is not an actual law) that he's just going along with something that Congress wants. I'm sure he considered it a harmless appeasement.

If you want to know what his principles are, you'd be better off with his "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments", from 1785.

One relevant quote is "Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government?"

Or, to paraphrase, religion is not part of the business of govt, and so it has no business making laws having to do with religion.

The National Day of Prayer is an actual law, but at least it doesn't require anybody to actually do anything.  Like I said, it's a pretty minor transgression.

251

13 Does  Barbara B. Crabb go to work on Christmas Day?

Don't I wish...

252

@181

No discussion like this would be complete without out the disingenuous commentary that Separation of Church and State "isn't in the Constitution". It's like saying "separation of powers" "isn't in the Constitution" because that exact phrase is not literally included. It's a concept, not a direct quote.

253

Yeah, that Jefferson - what a goof.  "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?  WTH was he THINKING?

[sarc - WTF is wrong with you guys??]

254

256  I have a pair of those!  I gave them to my girls though -- at some point one has to pass things like that along to the younger folks.

I did love wearing those boots though...

255 If this means I never have to see another photograph of those muslims and their stained white dressed butts  in the air on the WH lawn for islam day or whatever it was, I am all for no prayer day. 

256 268  You wanna buy a bridge off of me?

257

@200

An excellent post.

How ironic is it that the same people who seek to push their religion on you - in the name of "religious freedom", no less - are pushing a religion that includes a tale with the phrase "give unto Caesar"? Christ advocated Separation of Church and State long before Jefferson was born.

Kinda reminds me of businesspeople.  They're all for the "free market", when their business is small and they need an even playing field to compete with the big dogs. But after they succeed, they're all about getting legislation passed that favors them. People talk like corporations and their executives are the top champions of the free market capitalism, but they're not generally for a free market at all.

258 Yea ... but if this was legislation demanding that footbaths be installed in school bathrooms, without mentioning Islam by name, there would be much wailing and anger.

It is a transgression.

What's next, a national day of Snake Handling?

"We encourage you to handle snakes, but will not specify what God you think about while handling them. Atheists are encouraged to quietly meditate while handling their snake."

259

I like this country the way it is, I don't want to be Saudi Arabia or England. Or on the opposite end of the spectrum the former Soviet Union where no religion was allowed.

Its not an either/or comparison. The Philippines is a Christian nation and they have a large Muslim presence on the southern islands. The biggest problom is with them. Although we are not officially a Christian nation, we were founded on the Judeo Christian ethic. The only reason the "establishment clause" is in their is because, as someone pointed out upthread, we didn't want to be like the Church of England was over there. It was never intended to completely exclude God from our lives and how we were governed. 

260

Wish I had gotten here sooner.  Zimriel and eman are so full of shit on this thread it pathetic.

Zimriel is all worried and butthurt that with this ruling the social cons might come out and say something to piss off people that its less of a big deal about.  He's ignoring that what he's saying is pretty much the counter of that.  Spewing garbage to piss off the social cons to turn them against republicans.  News flash, the actions to occur by the religious people that liked the national day of prayer are only going to piss off the people that think the GOP is the GOD party and have a problem with that already and wouldn't vote for them anyways.

eman, its pretty pathetic that your argument is "I don't like it and the judge agrees with me so that's good enough for me."  You don't even want to have to give an argument about why you think the day of prayer is unconstitutional.  "The judge said so" is worthless and demonstrates the weakness of your points on this.  Just like free speech isn't about protecting only the speech you like, this isn't about the rulings you like.  Because with your pathetic excuse of an argument it can be demonstrated that you have no problem at all with gun bans.  All we need is one judge to rule them constitutional and dammit that will be good enough for you.  No argument, not justification.  There's a judges ruling and its all you need.

261 It's a concept, not a direct quote.

It's also a wrong interpretation, but since you've swallowed it hiook, line and sinker, you believe that it is dispositive.  Ah well, we can't all be literate.

262

Yeah, that Jefferson - what a goof.  "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?  WTH was he THINKING?

[sarc - WTF is wrong with you guys??]

If that's the best you've got for an argument, well then, I just can't compete with that sort of logic.

263 Jefferson knew what he was doing when he penned the first amendment.

Come one guys ... the State has no business either promoting or discouraging religion.

More Jefferson:

"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion . . . ."
-- "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," Section I

264 As a conservative atheist, I wholeheartedly agree with the ruling.

Government should not say ANYTHING one way or another about religion, praying or anything else metaphysical for that matter.

True, this country is majority Christian, but it is NOT a Christian nation.  In fact, the Bill of Rights and the laws in this country are specifically designed to protect those of us with less common belief structures from the majority.

The only reason that the majority of Christians support the trappings of faith in government is because they are YOUR trappings of faith.  Substitute Islam, Judaism, or Buddhism for Christianity and you would have a seizure.  The best course of action is for the government to be completely silent on the issue.

And, let me say this one more time:  Atheism is NOT a religion any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby or bald is a hair color.  You can make fallacious arguments all day long, but lack of belief is NOT a religion.  There is no dogma, no worship and no holy book. 

I don't want to stop you from worshiping whatever or whomever you like, I just don't want the government involved in acknowledgment, endorsement or establishment of it. 

265

Bullshit Jeff.

In fact, the Bill of Rights and the laws in this country are specifically designed to protect those of us with less common belief structures from the majority.

How does a national day of prayer threaten you in such a way that you need protection?  Just as the laws of this land are designed to protect the minority of the country they are also not designed to have a tyranny by the minority either.

The only reason that the majority of Christians support the trappings of faith in government is because they are YOUR trappings of faith.  Substitute Islam, Judaism, or Buddhism for Christianity and you would have a seizure.

This isn't a Christian issue.  Guess what its not saying that the national day of prayer requires you to pray to Jehovah or Yaweh or Jesus.  Since it doesn't mention any religion your attempt is pointless and assinine and the day is for the inclusion of all faiths.  The only one having a seizure is you because you're being opressed due to your non-belief by being forced to realize that somewhere someone in this world believes in God.  How dare they do that.

And, let me say this one more time:  Atheism is NOT a religion any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby or bald is a hair color.  You can make fallacious arguments all day long, but lack of belief is NOT a religion.  There is no dogma, no worship and no holy book. 

You can say that and swear by it all day. And in your case it may be true.  But there are plenty out there that Atheism is a religion for.  And they are hell bent on slandering all other religions in a way that is worse than any others and are usually more fervent about their beliefs than most evangelicals and want to convert everyone to their religion than many fundamentalist muslims.  You may not be a member of the church of atheism but to act like there is no one that is is a load of shit.

I don't want to stop you from worshiping whatever or whomever you like, I just don't want the government involved in acknowledgment, endorsement or establishment of it

What is so horrible about government acknowledging people have religion?  How is a national day of prayer endorsing religion?  What religion is being established?

Face it.  The national day of prayer holds as much weight as Arbor day or a national ice cream day or even flag day.  You aren't required to go out and plant a tree, get two scoops on a cone, or hang up a stars and stripes on any of those.  But because its a prayer day you've got to have a fit about and be glad that for once a misuse of the constitution is soothing one of your whiny little pet peeves.

266 @Buzzion:

That's an awfully hostile response to a civil statement, but:

How does a national day of prayer threaten you in such a way that you need protection?  Just as the laws of this land are designed to protect the minority of the country they are also not designed to have a tyranny by the minority either.

A national day of prayer makes the assumption that it is real, actual, effective and in need of endorsement by the government.  Can I have an official day of "No Prayer"?  How would you feel about that?

This isn't a Christian issue.  Guess what its not saying that the national day of prayer requires you to pray to Jehovah or Yaweh or Jesus.  Since it doesn't mention any religion your attempt is pointless and assinine and the day is for the inclusion of all faiths.  The only one having a seizure is you because you're being opressed due to your non-belief by being forced to realize that somewhere someone in this world believes in God.  How dare they do that.

Sure it is... Next time you go in front of a Judge and he makes you swear on a Qu'ran, let's see how you feel about that.  It doesn't mention any particular religion, only those who require prayer.  Buddhists don't pray as such, they meditate.  Deists believe in god, but do not believe he listens to prayer or interferes in the activities of man.  I realize people believe in god, people believe lots of wacky things.  More power to them, go ahead... just don't make laws that encourage OR discourage it.  That is fair and reasonable.

You can say that and swear by it all day. And in your case it may be true.  But there are plenty out there that Atheism is a religion for.  And they are hell bent on slandering all other religions in a way that is worse than any others and are usually more fervent about their beliefs than most evangelicals and want to convert everyone to their religion than many fundamentalist muslims.  You may not be a member of the church of atheism but to act like there is no one that is is a load of shit.

I can and I will.  I will not go out of my way to "slander" your religion.  If someone comes knocking on my door to tell me that I'm "lost" or "need salvation" they open themselves up to it.  If they feel the need to tell me I need to live my life in accordance with a book written by bronze-age desert nomads, I will respond.  I do not stand on a soapbox in the park preaching anything.  That activity belongs to the theists.  In my life and travels I have NEVER seen an atheist church or heard an atheist preacher.  Atheists only tend to get riled up when someone attempts to use religion in place of reason.

Face it.  The national day of prayer holds as much weight as Arbor day or a national ice cream day or even flag day.  You aren't required to go out and plant a tree, get two scoops on a cone, or hang up a stars and stripes on any of those.  But because its a prayer day you've got to have a fit about and be glad that for once a misuse of the constitution is soothing one of your whiny little pet peeves.

Trees exist and are a good thing.  Ice cream exists and is yummy.  Flags exist and represent the freedom of our great nation.  Talking to a deity in your head or muttering it under your breath is fantasy, has never proven to be effective on anything at all, ever.  It is FAITH (i.e. belief without proof, by definition), and therefore has no place being endorsed or discouraged by the government of the United States.  That's what church is for.

Now, before you respond... Notice that I was the civil one, and you were the ranting, cursing one.

267 As a follow up, your hostility toward people who agree with you on 99+% of topics and issues is counter-productive.

I probably have very, very similar positions to yours excepting this one. little. issue.

In fact, I reject Christianity for the same reason you reject the ancient Greek and Roman gods.  I just don't make an exception for that last one.

You need to learn to identify allies a little better.  It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

268

A national day of prayer makes the assumption that it is real, actual, effective and in need of endorsement by the government.  Can I have an official day of "No Prayer"?  How would you feel about that?

That doesnt answer the question I asked.  Why do you need protection from a national day of prayer?  Your need to bring up an official no prayer day is pretty silly too, since that would be every single other day of the year.  Why is one day such a threat to you?  I'd be just fine with a day to recognize atheists.  But then that could be argued to be some recognition of your nonreligion religion.  As a side note, for atheism not being a religion there sure are a lot of them out there who really want to take other religious events and usurp them such as demanding that their attacks on religion getting equal footing alongside religious displays.

Sure it is... Next time you go in front of a Judge and he makes you swear on a Qu'ran, let's see how you feel about that.  It doesn't mention any particular religion, only those who require prayer.  Buddhists don't pray as such, they meditate.  Deists believe in god, but do not believe he listens to prayer or interferes in the activities of man. 

Swearing on a Koran would have no meaning to me.  And I would refuse.  But I bet Muslims in court don't swear on bibles, and probably can have a Koran to swear on if that's something they can do.  I know the idiotic muslim congressman was sworn in using Jefferson's copy of the Koran, probably stupidly not realizing that Jefferson had it so as to better understand how to handle the Barbary pirates.

But then that's a specific recognition of religion.  The national day of prayer doesn't do that at all.  You are attempting to twist and obfuscate reality to fit it into your nice neat little thing to attack.  You deserve some blasting for trying to be so smug in your attacks because you tried to be so cute about it while ignoring what the truth is.

I realize people believe in god, people believe lots of wacky things.  More power to them, go ahead... just don't make laws that encourage OR discourage it.  That is fair and reasonable.

What you consider to be fair and reasonable isn't much of a point here.  Its about whether its constitutional.  And a National Day of Prayer really doesn't encourage you to believe in a religion so its not doing either of what you claim.

That activity belongs to the theists.  In my life and travels I have NEVER seen an atheist church or heard an atheist preacher.  Atheists only tend to get riled up when someone attempts to use religion in place of reason.

That's a load of horse shit.  There are plenty of Atheists out there that are riled up because someone out there believes in God.  You may not be one of them but they exist.  They tend to be worse than evangelicals too.  Face reality buddy.  Just like there are multiple sects of Christianity there are in essence sects of atheism.  You may get to qualify as a "non-practicing" atheist but to act like you are the template of all other atheists is a joke and believing that there are those out there who haven't completely replaced a belief in God with and equally fervent non-belief in God is more of a joke.

Trees exist and are a good thing.  Ice cream exists and is yummy.  Flags exist and represent the freedom of our great nation.  Talking to a deity in your head or muttering it under your breath is fantasy, has never proven to be effective on anything at all, ever.  It is FAITH (i.e. belief without proof, by definition), and therefore has no place being endorsed or discouraged by the government of the United States.  That's what church is for.

Gee that is some civil tone there. Just because you don't cuss doesn't mean you aren't being a smug asshole deserving of ridicule.  Congratulations though on missing the point you clueless twit.  Hey you got a liberal judge on your side for once congratulations.

269

You need to learn to identify allies a little better.  It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Posted by: Jeff at April 16, 2010 04:57 PM (/5diA)

On this issue you are not an ally.  So sorry I'm going to call bullshit on you when its bullshit.  You're siding with a pathetic liberal judge twisting the constitution into a meaning that should not hold up to people and be recognized as liberal activism.  But its one of your little pet projects you like since it means you aren't force to acknowledge that people out there believe in God and even the men that created this country believed in it.

As you don't have a faith this should actually be a non-issue to you.  All your talk of allies though, why are you willing to push away the people you believe with on 99% of the issues with?

270 "Bullshit.." "load of shit" "whiny pet peeves" "smug" "clueless twit" -buzzion.

"is fantasy, never proven" -Jeff

Yeah, those are on the same level...

I think you are confusing atheists, who do not believe in the supernatural with anti-theists who wish to abolish religion altogether.

I am in Camp "A".  Live and let live and all that stuff.

our need to bring up an official no prayer day is pretty silly too, since that would be every single other day of the year.

Bzzt. Wrong.  Every other day would be "Pray if You Want To Day", as opposed to "No Prayer Day".

Why is one day such a threat to you?  I'd be just fine with a day to recognize atheists.  But then that could be argued to be some recognition of your nonreligion religion.  As a side note, for atheism not being a religion there sure are a lot of them out there who really want to take other religious events and usurp them such as demanding that their attacks on religion getting equal footing alongside religious displays.

But I don't recall requesting a "National Atheism Day".  Some anti-theists wish to have displays alongside government allowed displays of faith.  I think the displays of faith on government property are in bad taste, just as people protesting Christianity in front of a church would be in bad taste.  The government should be NEUTRAL in regard to religion.  Sounds fair to most everyone but you.

You deserve some blasting for trying to be so smug in your attacks because you tried to be so cute about it while ignoring what the truth is.

The truth is that the government should not be in the god business.  I fail to see what truth I'm ignoring, and how I'm being smug about that.  I didn't attack religion at all in the OP, only said that the government has no business endorsing it. 

And a National Day of Prayer really doesn't encourage you to believe in a religion so its not doing either of what you claim.

Prayer is associated with religious faith.  A "National Day" is an endorsement of such.  Not the government's place to endorse religion.  Once again, that's why we have churches.

You may get to qualify as a "non-practicing" atheist but to act like you are the template of all other atheists is a joke and believing that there are those out there who haven't completely replaced a belief in God with and equally fervent non-belief in God is more of a joke.

You speak of atheism as if you know an awful lot about us.  I spent 25 years or so as a Baptist, how much time have you spent as an atheist?  Where do you get your information on how even most of us believe or act? 

Most studies show that atheists make up 10-15% of the population, which means we are the third largest group after Catholics and Protestants, and way more numerous than Jews, Muslims, Hindus and all the rest.  You work with us, you eat with us, and you pass us on the street every single day.  Of the 10-15% of us, how many are the rabid anti-theists you so fear?  Not many.

Just because you don't cuss doesn't mean you aren't being a smug asshole deserving of ridicule.  Congratulations though on missing the point you clueless twit.

Just because you cuss and use every rhetorical fallacy there's a name for does not make you super-cool-awesome, either.

271 acknowledge that people out there believe in God and even the men that created this country believed in it.

Some did, some didn't.  Some were Christian, some were Deists, some were downright unknown.

272 As far as the Constitution is concerned, there is no mention whatsoever of God, a creator, Jesus or any other such thing.  The only references to religion of any sort is in the 1st Amendment, protecting freedom of.

The Declaration of Independence has some references, but it holds no legal weight.

If you want an insight into the thinking of the time, read Jefferson's letters to the Virgina Baptists, particularly the "wall of separation" concepts.

273 All your talk of allies though, why are you willing to push away the people you believe with on 99% of the issues with?

Because you're a proponent of government-endorsed religion, which in any form is unconstitutional as (correctly) ruled upon in this case.

Find me the constitutional clause which permits the government to endorse religion... any religion or even religion as a concept, and I'll change my mind.  Until then, you're going off what you THINK is in the constitution, not what is actually there.

If you want an organization to endorse, accredit or exalt your prayer, I suggest taking a trip to see your pastor.  That's what he's for.

274

I wonder if I could get that judge to declare Obama's inauguration unconstitutional, based on Separation of Church and State.

January is named after Janus, the Roman god of doors and beginnings and endings.

Obama's inauguration was celebrated as the end to Bush's second term and the beginning of Obama's reign.

By holding the inauguration in January, the federal government was forcing me to participate in worhsip of the old Roman gods... a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Sound good?  I know it's ludicrous, but I think it holds at least as much water as a lot of atheists' lawsuits.

275 Really I have no problem with this ruling.  Government shouldn't be declaring days in the name of this or that group or idea anyway. 

On the other hand if it takes away time that they would otherwise use to legislate then it may have some merit.

276 Funny how Jeff and Christoph both sound like Jehovah's Witnesses knocking at your door at 8:00 on Saturday morning. Preach it, brother. (Don't preach it, brother???)

277 I don't like the idea of the government declaring various days of one thing or another either - some holidays I can see, but the whole "tulip day" and so on is meaningless and wasteful, both of time and money.

However, the ruling is asinine and plainly an activist Carter apointee tard vomiting his hate from the bench. I don't mind so much goofballs like Christoph being hateful angry atheists. They can't help their ignorance and fear, and one day they'll know better. Guys like them thinking the 1st amendment prohibits any religious output or statements in any broadest sense from the government are just fools. But guys with power who use that power for their zealotry? That's when there's a problem.

278

Oh, geez.  I just happened to catch O'Reilly with his panties in a bunch over this. He pulls the usual nonsense where he reads the actual relevant part of the 1st Amendment, but puts a heavy emphasis on the word "establishment", which apparently means that we are to ignore the word "respect". The guy went to Harvard, so I find his misreading of a simple sentence to be intellectually dishonest. It's "... no law respecting an establishment of religion", Bill. That means no church organizations get a government endorsement, not that the govt can't "establish" a church, for crying out loud.

"What church is getting an endorsement?" he asks. Uh duh! ... ALL of them, Bill! Ya think maybe they were trying to say it would be OK if we had TWO state-sponsored churches, but only ONE wasn't enough?  After all, it says "an"!  I mean ... c'mon.  Can you be a little less transparent with your evangelism, please?

279 Otherwise, keep your piehole shut while adults are talking. Posted by: Drumwaster Nice, very adult comment. I bet you have musical talent, too.

280 Our rights are not a gift from a Creator. Our rights are a natural consequence of our sentience. We were created by millions of years of Natural Selection and no God made us. But even if the above is false, Governments should leave Religion alone and not touch it it any way no matter how harmless is may seem.

281

@271 "Although we are not officially a Christian nation, we were founded on the Judeo Christian ethic. The only reason the "establishment clause" is in their is because, as someone pointed out upthread, we didn't want to be like the Church of England was over there. It was never intended to completely exclude God from our lives and how we were governed."

Actually, the US was founded on Enlightenment principles.  If the basis were Judeo-Christianity, it wouldn't have taken over 1750 years after Christ for an America to exist, and there would be a lot more of them by now.

Christianity actually defended the "divine right of Kings", which the American Revolution rejected.

Further, parts of the Constitution implicitly reject the part of the 10 Commandments - the laws that would be the starting point of any "Judeo Christian ethic".  It's "No other Gods before me" vs. "no religious test" and "free exercise [of religion]".  The Constitution explicitly defends your right to have a different religion, rather than prohibiting you from doing so.

In general, there's only about three of the 10 Commandments that carry any weight with the law of the land at all.  Break the other 7 and it's "no problem". No cop will come to your door to punish you for your misdeeds.  So the US is based on Christianity? It's hard to imagine that someone who actually knows the 10 Commandments, and is familiar with our laws, would ever make such a claim.

But your last sentence raises a key point, and one where the evangelists are intentionally obtuse. The govt staying out of religion enhances religious freedom - it doesn't destroy it.  The govt doesn't have to dole out religious endorsements for you to "have God in your life".  The Free Exercise clause defends your doing just that, and the establishment clause doesn't take anything away from that.

And political decisions can still be religiously motivated - they just can't be part of a religious endorsement.  You can decide you think abortion should be outlawed for religious reasons, for example, and elect someone with that position, without the govt making an endorsement of the religion you belong to.

You're complaining about an attempt to "exclude God" that doesn't exist.

282 294, Well said.

283

@273 & 274

Apparently you don't actually have an argument, yourself.

@275

Actually, Jefferson didn't write the 1st Amendment, but he was the guy behind similar legislation in VA earlier on, and so he was what you might call an "key activist" for the cause. He was certainly an expert on the subject.

The quote you give calls to mind another key point.  That the 1st Amendment, taken as a whole (with Freedom of the Press & stuff), was really all about freedom of thought - the right to your own mind.

@276

Well, put. The irony is that Separation of Church and State is a "win-win" for both the religious and non-religious.  For the non-religious, it represents freedom from religion; for the religious, it protects their religion from the influence of the govt. Once you start accepting endorsements, or anything else from the govt, you begin to become beholden. It's no different than the kind of dependency the Left tries to encourage (which makes it ironic).

@277

BS, buzzion.  How is the govt staying out of religion "tyranny of the minority"? You can't use the govt to promote your religion, and so that's "tyranny"? Gimme a break. I suppose if I had a business, it'd be "tyranny" if the govt didn't buy me a billboard to advertise it, too.

Your commentary on atheism was especially incoherent and self-contradictory.

@282 "Most studies show that atheists make up 10-15% of the population..."

I'm not so sure about that.  I think you're talking about the Pew survey, where most of that is in the category "no religion".  Only about 0.5% actually reported themselves to be "atheist" or agnostic & stuff.

I suspect there's a few things going on with that.  First of all, religious people are explicitly taught a pretty profound animosity toward atheists (based on the erroneous idea that morality can only have a supernatural basis). So a lot of people who really are atheists might opt for the "no religion" category, but they also might report the religion within which they were raised.

Second, I suspect that the "no religion" category may be - in large part - just people who are believers, but have broken from whatever church they were raised in, and haven't found an organized church that matches up with what they actually believe (some probably aren't even interested in finding one). These are probably not very religious people, but they aren't atheists, either.

Third, it probably includes a bunch of people with that New Age mysticism stuff going on. I don't know enough about those folks to classify them as atheist or not, but they clearly have a high level of superstition.

How many atheists are really out there?  Beats me!

284 It's going to be hard to argue that America's predominate, gasp!, WASP culture creates a hegemon that slights and undervalues other views -- to a Supreme Court with exactly one WASP on it. And he's retiring.

285 @Optimizer:

That is one of the studies.  What each of those categories are is open to some interpretation. 

My interpretation is that "Unaffiliated, No Religion, Atheist and Agnostic" make up a broader category of belief systems generally known as atheism. That is, by its very definition "a" (meaning "not") and "theist" (meaning someone who has a structured religious belief.)

Deism does not fall into this category, but is functionally the same, e.g. no personal god, etc.

My biggest problem is the popular belief that atheists are somehow evil or immoral, or that all of us want religion banned or some other such nonsense.  That is not the case at all.  I am not denying the existence of anti-theists, but they do not make up the majority of the people in this category.

We also do NOT come from one particular political background, either.  While a large number of them are politically liberal, you'll find quite a few libertarian and conservative atheists as well.

286 ... and as a little background for those that may not know, The National Day of Prayer along with "In God We Trust" as a national motto and "Under God" in the pledge were all finally instituted during the second "Red Scare" as a way to "unify" us against the godless commies - to show that we were different from them in some way.

We got along fine for a very long time without those.

287 Perhaps the most cunning thing the leftists did--and this comes straight from the Gramschi playbook--was to make their religion, which is liberalism/environmentalism, immune from the rulings on the Establishment Clause by the simple act of denying it's a religion by the litmus test of "it has no God."  This allows them to openly teach it in schools while actively slamming the door on their hated enemies, the Christians. 
So they get to teach and encourage their moral beliefs and standards to kids from the day they walk in the classroom door, while Christian morals and beliefs are kept firmly outside, (and the libs are not too happy with them there, either).

288 @Nemo:

This is not a conservative / liberal issue.  It is a religion / non-religion issue.

It is perfectly possible to be an atheist and a conservative.  As a conservative / libertarian atheist I believe that you should be free to teach your kids morals and religion all you like.  If you want them to pray in school, they should be allowed as long as they don't interfere with the class or the other students.

However, there are two places that are off-limits in government schools.  There should be no endorsement or teacher-led prayer, and creationism should be left out of the science classroom.

I'll say it again because a lot of people will miss it the first time: YOU CAN TEACH YOUR CHILD ANYTHING YOU LIKE.  Take 'em to church any time you like.

School is not church, and church is not school.

289

@299

I would question your interpretation, especially as to the "unaffiliated" category, which, in of itself implies that some sort of affiliation would be possible, but just hasn't been made yet. "No religion" could be interpreted by someone doing the survey as being the same as "unaffiliated", as "I'm a believer, but hate organized churches", or even "it's none of your damn business" (which calls to mind the response of many in here to the census query about race!).

Like I said, there's probably atheists that are sort of "in the closet" that aren't counted, and there's undoubted some part of the "no religion" crowd, but I don't think "no religion" necessarily implies that someone isn't a theist.

That being said, the actual percentage of atheists is really besides the point, as far as religious freedom rights goes, anyway.  If it were 0%, people should at least be free to consider it, without being made into second-class citizens by the govt's addressing the theist population as though atheists don't (or shouldn't) exist.

@300

Yes, one thing I remember from around here is that the town where the guy who authored the pledge got all in an uproar when Newdow's case hit the news.  It was ironic, because removal of "under God" would bring the Pledge closer to the original version that their famous resident actually wrote!

All that stuff was a way of taking a swipe at the commies at a time when the Cold War was at its scariest, with the erroneous equivalence being made between atheism and communism (due to communist countries outlawing religion). Those overtly religious slogans were meant to say "FU" to atheists, keeping that bogus equivalence in mind.

Ironically, the most strident critics of communism are a group of atheists, who almost seem to have capitalism, and the American ideals of individual freedom as a sort of quasi-religion. You can't get more patriotic than that, but they get the big "FU" from Uncle Sam every time they plunk down some cash to buy anything.

Another bit of historical irony is that the first official act of any member of Congress is to take an unconstitutionally religious oath.  These guys don't waste any time, in getting down to ignoring the Constitution!  It wasn't always like that. We adopted Southern oaths after the Civil War as a small way of trying to help reconcilliation.  Before that, the oaths had no religious content.

Note also that the President's oath is stipulated in the Constitution, itself. It contains no religious reference, but one is usually added as a personal preference by the President-elect. Using a Bible is not required, and I think there might have even been one occaision where either the reference, the Bible, or both were not used.  Similarly, religious oaths with a Bible are not required for testimony in court.  One can do a secular affirmation instead.

290 @Optimizer:

Ironically, the most strident critics of communism are a group of atheists, who almost seem to have capitalism, and the American ideals of individual freedom as a sort of quasi-religion.

I don't know if I would call it a quasi-religion, but I greatly admire the thinkers of the enlightenment, with our founding fathers and the principles they laid down in our founding documents as concepts that are correct and timeless.

I'm talking about all of their writings, including those that didn't make it into the documents.  A great many people think they know about these people: Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Paine et. al. but most of them know only the glossing they get in public school text books.  This is by far an incomplete picture.

People who think that the majority of them were bible-believing Christians will be very surprised to find that in some cases this was just not so.  Everyone quotes Jefferson on both sides of the argument, but he was a Unitarian Deist at best.  Regardless of their individual faiths, the one unifying concept was that government and religion are oil and water.  Everyone enjoys more freedom when they are not mixed.

They were for liberty and the rights of MAN.  Freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom from tyranny of all types, whether it come from a king or a priest or a group of your neighbors.  Everyone would do well to read their writings directly and stop listening to people who tell you what they thought with their own agenda inserted.

291

@301

I hate to tell ya, but the Left has plenty of Christians in their fold.  By way of example, the religious surveys show that the most religious ethnic group in the country is unambiguously the African-Americans. They are also overwhelmingly Christian, and Democrats. Apparently, they feel that "Christian charity" is best performed on an involuntary basis.

But, seriously now.  You're implictly suggesting that the govt should serve the function of teaching "moral values" to our kids - your compliant pretends to be that you simply don't like the message (when what you're really after is using the power and resources of govt to push your religion onto others). Considering how bad govt is at damn near everything, it would be madness for a religious person to WANT the govt to teach religion to their kid.

When it comes to the desperate need to shore up your beliefs by having others validate them (by signing up to them too), all otherwise rational lines of thought go right out the window.

@ 302

The term "conservative" is problematic, in that it is defined more in terms of what it is not, rather than what it is.  That's why they can come to the right conclusion of many issues, but for invalid reasons.  Usually a "social conservative" has a decidedly religious nature, and is fixated on the abortion issue, but one need not be religious to fall under the "fiscal conservative" category.

Unfortunately, the American ideals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and "government of, for, and by the people" are really more of a libertarian thing.  Generic conservatives are ready to pounce all over your liberties on non-economic issues, in the name of religion. The Left has an increasingly organized and focused campaign against American ideals, and the only really focused reaction has been by a new group - the Tea Partiers - not, conservatives, per se.

292

@304

Yeah, I used the term "quasi-religion" in that there is a whole framework of morality wrapped around it, and a well-defined philosophical agenda.  These things are included in religions, although their defining characteristic is belief in a diety.

I don't subscribe to the Founders for reasons of tradition or nationalism, which seems to be the motivations of some conservatives, but because they were right. They were clearly centuries ahead of their time. Back then there were still lots of people who believed in the monarchy system (even without Disney!). Even today, I'd estimate that well over half our population still doesn't get it.

I think Jefferson pretty much declared himself a Deist, while it was Adams who was the Unitarian (meaning, to some, that he was non-Christian). Washington kept his faith to himself, but the signs all point to "Deist". Madison's even harder to figure, but I think he may have moved toward Deist somewhere along the road. Franklin seems to have been a Deist also, although I'm not sure he's a "textbook example". I'm sure there were plenty of actual Christians, too, but  - regardless - the majority were Masons, whose core beliefs included religious freedom. Paine, who instigated the whole thing to start with, was an unapologetic hardcore atheist, from what I hear.

But I would take exception to the idea that religious freedom was their "one unifying concept". The concept that government must be by the consent of the governed was kind of a biggie, for example. I presume you didn't really mean it that way, judging from your uplifting final paragraph.

293 @Optimizer:

Well put.  I usually put things in terms of conservative vs. liberal because generally people don't understand when you add the authoritarian vs. libertarian aspect.

I am a fiscally and governmentally conservative person, that is: low taxes, small government and fiscal responsibility.  I'm a gun-totin', meat-eatin', motorcycle-ridin', military-supportin' sort of guy.  It's not government's role to be involved in the majority of the stuff it's involved in.

On social issues, you might consider me liberal because on race, gender and sexual orientation I'm for strict equality and non intervention by the government.  Bigotry and Xenophobia are not things I want to be associated with.

So yeah, they might throw me under the bus...

294 I'm as conservative as the next gal, but I really don't see a need for a "National Day of Prayer," so this whole thing strikes me as meaningless bickering. Pray, don't pray, whatev, any day of the week, your choice.

295 The Founding Fathers wanted none of that kind of sh*t.

"No.  The Founding Fathers wanted the Federal government out of that kind of sh*t.  There's a reason the First Amendment  starts with the most beautiful words in the English language: "Congress shall make no law...""

If you think there's complete agreement there, you're mistaken.  Read it again and this time try to notice the difference.  The largely-forgotten reason behind the Establishment Clause was FEDERALISM.  There were still established churches in most of the states, the last of which weren't disestablished until as late as about 1820.  The Establishment Clause was meant to prohibit Congress from establishing a national church that would replace the state churches.

296 A day of prayer does not establish religion in the US by any rational or logical means. Sure, you can pretend it does and throw a fit, but it simply does not. No religion is established by the government suggesting people could take a day to set apart especially for prayer in their faiths any more than putting golden arches on your house makes you a McDonald's.

297

Seconding Gem's sentiments -- why the hell do you need a day of prayer declared? To rub it in everyone else's nose that you're the majority? Sometimes I wish you'd just be honest and blackball all of us who are among the insufficiently god-fearing, no matter how many Tea Parties we go to or how much time we spent out in the snow last January getting Scott Brown into "Ted Kennedy's Seat". You know you'd love to do it.

You have churches. Go pray in them. That's what they're for.

 

 

298 Treatment if one, have examined the? Any major objections, the Ipod Basically.Engaging in many, sind �ber.Higher interest rates mario games, private thoughts We mario games this work is.Website being legal, purpose Its because.

299 Altere of course, once you pick? Unimme accoring to, Do Your Refinancing.Goo reputation with, of your coordinator.Teams before you cures for genital warts, is that legalization cures for genital warts in a layer.Evices from their, is called inspiration).

300 Thoughts intervene that, However After all? Some positive impact, that are non.Policy at every, help Without setting.Traitional esign realize computer bbs directory, call a month computer bbs directory purse interesting by.One sie a, you thought However. Games only from, Loans depend on? Their loan etails, quality Forex trading.En el recorrio, free on other.M�too e compra computers used, really hard after computers used know thyself from.The concrete jungle, Educating yourself about. Any communications effort, The merging of? Frequent solos the, You will love.Is not getting, with satellite is.Power of email Find clock service, XP now� option Find clock service weight simply put.Perch atop (but, employees who understand.