Posted on 10/04/2008 2:27:00 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
MADISON, Wis. The nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics is suing President Bush, the governor of Wisconsin and other officials over the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
That is NOT true.
The First Amendment is very specific about what it says. It restricts the powers of the federal government when it comes to meddling in religion. It specifically addresses what can and cannot be done and by whom. It specifically prohibits Congress only from making laws. It says NOTHING about supporting or decrying, or even endorsing, religion.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And in typical liberal or atheist fashion, you totally ignored the second clause in the First Amendment which is *prohibiting the free exercise thereof*.
There is nothing unconstitutional about the President proclaiming a national day of prayer.
So just how do you consider China and France *successful?
You admit that China, at least, is not morally upright. Then what’s successful? Human rights? Working conditions for the people? Freedom for the people? Standard of living? Health? Justice system?
How is France successful? They’re about ready to be overrun by Islam. That doesn’t sound too successful to me.
Excuse us. So just because we have faith, we're not rational? Or capable of rational thought?
Newsflash.... Atheists have no monopoly on rational thought. As a matter of fact, behavior such as demonstrated by the lawsuit that this thread is about is a clear demonstration of that.
Atheists pretend we live in a religion-neutral country, and that this country was founded to be a secularist nation.
We have religious freedom, but we are essentially a Judeo-Christian nation.
Atheists don't want to believe this simple fact. They think that somehow it's pure coincidence that we've gotten along this way for 200+ years, and that we are on the verge of becoming a theocracy.
Of course they are doomed to immorality because they have no standard by which to base their morals on.
Our country is a perfect example as it is happening now.
France is another example especially the French Revolution, a bloodbath following the rejection of God if there ever was one.
Without some outside source of absolute moral values, people create their own, in which case you get what's happening in England today where they're stating that the old and sick have a *duty* to die to save resources for the young and healthy. Or like Nazi Germany where they slaughtered those who were infirm, or didn't toe the party line.
Rejecting the Judeo-Christian moral system dooms any society to failure and decadence.
Why do you insist on continuing to post cut-up, jumbled, and therefore misleading, representations of my posts?
I have no idea why you're so defensive, nor do I care, but I've very consistently pasted your very words, nothing jumbled or misleading about it! Unless one of course sees your message this way in the first place!
You've been asked several times, and not just by me, to give examples of atheistic societies either moral or successful as you have asserted and yet the only two instances I can see you've listed are China and France. No thinking (and yes moral) person could see either country in either light. China shows financial success with no freedoms and consistently poor human rights. France is plagued with terror within it's borders due to secular humanism allowing it's subsequent moral vacuum to be filled with militant Islam.
Are you hoping that people who havent read my actual posts (or who just dont remember them) will see what you posted and think I actually wrote those words in that order?
I pasted your words! and I don't know what order has to do with anything, they're either moral societies or they are not!...indeed your words ARE still there for all to see! Therefore I don't NEED to hope for anything.
Its dishonest and manipulative posting, and it shows an unwillingness to treat me and this forum with respect.
Please try to be more respectful and . . . yes, moral . . . tpanther. We all would appreciate it.
SPARE me the feigned indignation and projections! If you can't coherently make your argument, then I would suggest not making it in the first place.
It's best for the both of us to just move on.
Our Constitution is good for the governance of a good and religious people, it is inadequate for any other - John Adams.
Adams is stating the truism that freedom must come with a set of COMMON internal controls on behavior. Situational ethics cannot provide this framework or society. Only a “good and moral people” can live in such freedom.
And at this point, atheism is a "religion" under the Establishment Clause according to "controlling legal precedent."
If you look at the history of this discussion, you will see that I brought up France and China specifically as an answer to the following question, asked by metmom:
Failure of *some* atheistic nations? Which atheistic nations have not failed?
I did not provide those as examples of morally upright communities. Yet, by rearranging my words as you have, you make it look like I did. That is dishonest, irresponsible, and immoral.
I have not made any pronouncements about France and China’s morality or lack thereof.
Your continuing failure to misunderstand and misrepresent this fact, which I have explained more than once now, forces me to conclude that there is no point in trying to engage you in a constructive discussion here.
I am not ignoring any part of the Constitution here, metmom.
I am not trying to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
There is a difference between a government which allows for the free exercise of religion and a government which actively supports the exercise of religion. It is the latter that I oppose, not the former.
You are free to pray any day you want. It is none of my business, and it’s none of the government’s business, either.
“So just how do you consider China and France *successful?”
My point is not that they are particularly successful, or successful to any particular degree, but only that they have not yet failed. They are surviving, flawed and troubled as they are. And they hopefully will improve.
“We have religious freedom, but we are essentially a Judeo-Christian nation.”
Can you elaborate on this point?
Are you saying that America’s political system is essentially Judeo-Christian? Or that our legal system reflects a Judeo-Christian ethic? Or that our culture is essentially Judeo-Christian?
I think you are wrong to suggest that atheists don’t recognize the huge role Judeo-Christian philosophy (and, perhaps even more so, Christian institutions) have played in the shaping of America.
The well-known atheist, Sam Harris—who I don’t always agree with, mind you—even titled one of his books, “Letter to a Christian Nation.” That suggests he, at least, recognizes the dominant role Christianity plays in America.
But I just wonder what you think defines the essence of our nation, and in what way you think that essence reflects Judeo-Christian philosophy and/or traditions.
“Our interpretations of the Constitution do not have the force of law. The interpretations of the Supreme Court do.”
Of course. I was using “we” to refer to us as a nation, as a law-creating entity which includes the actions of the Supreme Court.
Again, the point is this: The fact that the Supreme Court interprets atheism as a religion for the purposes of interpreting the first amendment has no impact whatsoever on the laws regulating what counts as science or on the laws keeping evolution in, and Intelligent Design out of, the classroom.
I just don’t see anything here which will further the Intelligent Design movement. Thus, I predict that you will have to find another reason to eat popcorn.
As for the lawsuit regarding the National Prayer Day, I’m not so sure it is doomed to failure. This is not to say that I think it will succeed. If I had to guess, I’d say it will probably fail, actually. But I am hopeful.
Just to explain my perspective on the legal issues here in a little more detail . . .
There is a three-pronged test to decide if a law runs contrary to the establishment clause. One prong says that the law must serve a secular function. The question then is, what secular function is served by declaring a National Prayer Day?
If the answer is “none,” then the National Prayer Day is unconstitutional.
That is, unless you want to argue that, by declaring a National Prayer Day, President Bush was not enacting a law, but merely decorating our calendars.
If laws were created by popular vote, they might as well throw away the Constitution.
If anyone picks up that legal theory, IMHO, it will be quite entertaining to watch the court try to keep the government out of the establishment of atheism as the state religion through publicly funded education.
From your other post:
The "free exercise" clause and legal precedent cannot and I aver, will not, be dismissed by this Supreme Court. They will not favor one belief (including disbelief) over another.
People like this make atheists look bad.
Here’s a piece on the National Prayer Day which seems to support my views. It’s by a site called “Religious Tolerance”:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/day_pray3.htm
Here’s another piece that supports my view, and which has supporting quotes from religious leaders as well as such historical figures as Thomas Jefferson:
http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/National_Day_Of_Prayer_FAQ.pdf?docID=153
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.