Posted on 09/05/2005 7:32:04 PM PDT by Jacob Kell
The American Atheists organization says President Bush should stop urging prayer for Hurricane Katrina victims because it violates the Constitution.
Ellen Johnson, president of the group said Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Bush "should not be violating the Constitution by telling people to pray for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. It's unconstitutional for government officials to be promoting religion; and besides, judging from the speed of some relief efforts, officials should be busy working instead of preaching."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I don't think so. I totally agree with what is said in the Constitution. I left out "establishment", but implied it in my initial statement. The point is that it applies to Congress, and not to any other branch.
So ignore them if they do.
"Praying is great. I simply don't need the President, Congress or Supreme Court suggesting or telling me to engage in religious devotion."
Well, it's nice to know you don't need it. Don't listen, that is your right. I do need it and like it, as do thousands of other Christian Americans. That is OUR right.
And by the way...you have still failed to cut and paste the part in the Constitution where it orders the separation of church and state. Are you having trouble finding it?
I like your screen name! :o)
Watch the baby of a Judeo-Christian morality get tossed out with the "sectarian" bathwater. Really, there is no good reason to object to gay marriage, or child pornography, or man-boy lovelust without it, or something of similar authority and values in its place (and I don't see any rush to, say, Hinduism or Orthodox Judaism any time soon). Then puzzle yourself real good about why we find ourselves in a second Sodom.
Why are you so angry about prayer?
Do you need prayer?
Would you like some prayer?
What is the real issue here?
What is it about GWB and his call for prayer that really makes you so mad?
She's just proven she's wrong about at least 2 things...
i find that the American Atheists (the organisation) does not represent the thoughts of most Atheists i have ever known. They do seem to spend quite a bit of time and resources making ridicle of something they profess not to believe.
Why not? Just because of their position, they don't have to censor their own religious beliefs. They still have them, and if they want to encourage people to pray, or any other good thing, I'm all for it!
I just discussed this article and the posts that followed it with a friend of mine who is a card-carrying member of the ACLU and a proud supporter of John Kerry...he agrees you need to get over it.
When the President endorses a particular religion, or says if you don't pray, you'll be shot dead in the street, then I'd worry. Also, I noticed that it's not the hurricane victims who are upset at the thought of people praying for them.
We do need to pray for people like PresbyRev. I don't know about you, but I think I just heard the rooster crow.
Just leave us alone Ellen Johnson. If you dont want to hear what the President is saying just turn your darn TV off............go do something useful in your life. Will you?
How to get out?
I think you all missed the funniest part. The bottom of the article says
"Those wishing to contribute to hurricane relief efforts can donate to the Salvation Army online or by calling 1-800-725-2769. Red Cross donations can be made online or by calling 1-800-435-7669."
Hmmm ... no athiests?
BTTT!!!!!!!
That's bordering foolish. Those same OT kings, in many instances, pleaded with the people to lift their voices to the Lord. At other times - they, themselves petitioned Him for His consideration. (hint - King Hezekiah)
Are you afraid the President might usurp your authority? or that someone might turn from their ways and realize Him as Lord?
Whatever - a so-called "reverend" who holds no more advocacy for prayer than you appear, AFAIC, I have no respect for. For the true follower of Christ, His commands supercede the Constitution.
The Southern Baptist and Salvation Army Feed more and Shelter more than anyone else combined in the region
But the athiest have the media to get thier word out.
Things seem upside down so often
What Congress cannot do is establish a religion as the required religion, or pass any laws requiring any particular religious actions or behavior. That's an establishment.
At this point in time, though, the 1st Amendment has been so perverted by the ACLU, etc., that establish means to allow a little girl to have her prayer beads in school.
So, it's obvious there's a significant difference between establishment and endorsement. In Federalist #84, Hamilton wrote:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
As can be easily seen today, Hamilton pegged this one right on the money. I see any attempt to degrade our rights as citizens by changing "establishment" to "endorsement" as being the same usurpment Hamilton warned of.
The USSC has similarly usurped with their recent Kelos decision, changing "public use" to "public purpose". We must be vigilant all the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.