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 ...
Ellen Johnson wouldn't know a "violation of the Constitution" if one jumped up and bit her on the ass. If she is so worried about the U.S. Constitution, she might want to read the First Amendment and the part about Freedom of Religion. That First Amendment gives President Bush the right to ask people to pray for the victims of the hurricane. After she finishes that, she might want to find herself a man.
"You so quickly resort to name calling, ostensibly in defense of prayer - that is what strikes me as sad and illustrative."
See, PresbyRev, we don't worry about people such as you. You folks are so upset, please, by all means, leave. I'm sure many people would love to have you as their leader.
You simply ARE a sad, sad, little person. Besides, God willed that Bush should pray; who in the name of Calvin are you to object?
No...Satan with a lisp.
He was offering an expression of comfort and unity for a horrible situation. And you're offering strife and nit-picking? This is not an unusual situation for our leaders ....in a time of crisis....ANY crisis. What country are you from?
I wonder how they would survive in a strict muslim country where its MANDATORY to go to the local mosque and pray 5 times per day. Also, your absence at prayers are duly noted and dealt with e.g. Saudi Arabia.
Massachusetts still had an official state religion in 1817. The Constitution wasn't as "secular" as some are trying to make it. Even after the 14th Amendment was passed, there were people trying to amend the Constitution further, to create the separation of church and state, which was brought about decades later via *activist* federal court rulings.
Since when is that violating the Constitution?
They may not want to pray - that's fine. But neither the Constitution, nor any law that exists on the books, prohibit prayer in this case...
Unreal...I told my wife when she discovered this thread that there would be at least one FReeper who would agree with this nutbag--thanks for proving me right.
Quite true, ole tomjeff is the only President who didn't. I can imagine a certain personage getting very red faced at George Washington's orations. Not even Sinkbilly was that hard hearted.
Ping the likes of Long Cut and balrog666 if you want some real 'fun'. Nope, I ain't gonna do it.
LOL!
lol...please, let's not. I can only handle so much craziness per day.
She can talk but no one is listening
Smart chicks are hot
The second amendment states that Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise thereof. Specifically it's Congress; they are not allowed to do one thing; pass laws. This DOES NOT mean seperation of church from state. It means that Congress cannot interfere with religion and these days there is too much of the preventing the free exercise part. Other groups are free to do as they please. The president is not Congress and he is not passing a law the prayers have to be said.
Facts are such a pain in a debate... ;)
If God willed the suffering in N.O. - why pray to begin with?
I object to Bush's comment, not in the name of Calvin, but on the basis of our Constitution. I object to Bush calling for prayer not because people shouldn't pray or pray for those who suffer because of the hurricane - but because, by virtue of his role and the religious diversity that we see in the U.S. now and will see increasingly in the future - I think it is incautious of any president to call for religious activity.
Even those defending his call for prayer here do so on the basis of his call to pray being open to interpretation - prayer to wind, to Allah, to whatever. Isn't that sycretism? Isn't that an erection of a verbal statue of an unknown god?
You can take it - I'll leave it. Thanks but no thanks.
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.