FFRF Opposes National Day Of Prayer [Have Barf Bags Wide Open and Handy]

Freedom From Religion Foundation ^ | 9/13/01 | Jerkweed

[careyb]

More FFRF News FFRF Action Alerts Back to FFRF's Home Page	P.O. Box 750, MADISON, WI 53701 Contact: Annie Laurie Gaylor Phone: (608) 256-5800 Email: fttoday@mailbag.com Statement on September 11 Terrorism Acts of Terrorism the Ultimate "Faith-Based Initiative"? September 13, 2001 This statement was released by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison, Wis.-based national association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics) working to protect the constitutional separation of church and state since 1978. Representing our national membership of freethinkers, as well as the 18.5% of U.S. citizens who are not religious, we join in the national mourning over the events on September 11, a horrible and senseless human tragedy. However, Bush's proclamation of Friday, September 14 as a "National Day of Prayer and Remembrance" shows the pitfalls of the "God is on our side" mentality, and the dangers of religious patriotism. While it may be natural for religious persons to turn to religion or prayer for solace, it is not the role of the President of the United States, or his spokespersons, to urge citizens to pray, to go to church, to turn to faith, or to observe a National Day of Prayer with worship. In fact, it appears that the terrorist disasters of September 11 may well have been the ultimate "faith-based initiative." These terrorists apparently expected to find a reward "in heaven" and were bent on starting a "holy war" with our nation. Our country should not fall into the trap of religious terrorists: Holy wars don't have solutions, they just have body counts. Religion is not the answer, it is probably the problem. As Pascal put it: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Prayer had its chance on September 11, and it failed. Imagine the unanswered prayers of hundreds or thousands of the victims of these terrorists. Official prayer will not solve any problems. We believe it is appropriate for President Bush to call for a Day of Remembrance, but leave prayer up to individuals. Civil War Col. Robert G. Ingersoll reminds us: "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." The nonreligious are among the victims and their families, and are represented in the ranks of the heroes, the firefighters and police officers risking or giving their lives to save others. It is offensive that the President of all Americans disregards the convictions, even the existence, of the more than 10% of the population that is not religious. The "God is on our side" mentality was responsible for these tragic acts of terrorism. We must not compound the dangers by a "One Nation Under God" response. # # For media members: If you are a member of the media and would like to receive periodic news releases from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, click here. For others: If you are not a member of the media and would like information on joining the Freedom From Religion Foundation, click here.
Page maintained by Dan Barker and hosted by the Internet Infidels.

[dely2]

When the original thirteen colony/states began writing their own constitutions in 1776, four colony/states [Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania]had never had an establishment of religion. The greater part of New York, had never had an establishment of religion. However, there were four counties in the area around New York City that did have an establishment. The other eight colony/states did have some form of an establishment of religion. An establishment of religion, in terms of direct tax aid to churches, was the situation in nine of the thirteen colonies on the eve of the American revolution. Within a period of seventeen years, that had been reversed. By approximately 1791, nine of eleven states that ratified the amendments of 1789 had ended that support. The process of formal disestablishment was quick and fairly painless in some states while in others, such as Virginia, the process would require a much longer fight--approximately ten years, and in still others (in the New England area) the process would go on well into the 1800s. Connecticut would disestablish in 1818, New Hampshire would disestablish in 1819 and Massachusetts would disestablish in 1833.

[dely2]

Oh, snappy comeback. What specfic comments did I make that you consider sophomoric?

[Texas_Jarhead]

That's all you're given me in response. Come on. What about...

Ah yes the good ole victim excuse. So all the 85% of America that believes in God should be restricted in their religious expression as called for by a religious President because you are "concerned that this message... that there are many of us who are not 'True Americans'...". If you feel that way don't blame us. Nobody has called you that. That feeling comes from your own self. I mean when I'm around rich people I don't feel second class even when they act like snobs. I don't buy secular victumology. You're not being forced to do anything you don't want to. You simply want others to restrict their behavior to make you feel more comfortable.

[TightSqueeze]

The Freedom From Religion Foundation can kiss my Catholic ass.

[dighton]

Author: Jerkweed

Thanks for the laugh.

[dely2]

I'm certianly not arguing that anyone should be restricted in their relgious expression. I think it is unseemly for the President to encourage or promote religion, his religion, the majority religion, or any religion at all. My country was just attacked. I don't see why this should be made into a recruiting oportunity for religious groups. As for the question about my age, I don't think I should have to respond, but let me say, "old enough to be retired from one of the fire departments that sent rescuers."

[Texas_Jarhead]

Firs I didn't ask about your age. I could care less.

You said, "I'm certianly not arguing that anyone should be restricted in their relgious expression."

Do you think the scenario I presented of prayer before football is or is not a restriction of the peoples religious expression.

Also, do you hear what you saying with this, "My country was just attacked. I don't see why this should be made into a recruiting oportunity for religious groups."

Come on. Really. Recruiting opportunity? How absurd. I guess there should not have been a memorial service at the National Cathedral today with all those politicians in attendance and the President certainly shold have have spoken.

I must run now but I'll check back later for your response.

Good day.

[BMCDA]

Well, the political system requires to be a pharisee. Just forget to call for prayer in a situation like this and you can forget your political career.
Whether it's constitutional or not is a minor problem as long as you have the sympathies of the people on your side and that's the case for the president as well as for a mayor of a small backwater town.

[norton]

I'm sure these opinions are taken very seriously in the Islamic world.
They have so far acted with complete and warming concern for the beliefs of the 80 or so percent of the world that is not Muslim.
The west should be ashamed of wanting to use all those churches, temples, mosques, and roadside shrines that dot the landscape.

OK, sarcasm off:
FFRF was a very dim blip on the radar scope before Tuesday.
I imagine it will become even less inspiring, and less noted, following this diatribe.

[Vineyard]

Your ignorance of the founding of our country, and the role that religion played in it is utterly astonishing.

You must be a publik skool dropout .. . ..

Our Founders didn't want the State creating and controlling religion .. . and they didn't was a theocracy. BUT.. They did acknowledge God.

Some states had a "religious test" that courts did not strike down in the 1800's . .. . Some states required that an officeholder acknowledge God and Christ . .. under the presumption that atheists or agnostics might not take an oath of office seriously, and would have "relative" rules rather than absolutes. So for you to make the statements you made. .. shows your ignorance!

There are many well written books that describe the influence of religion . . . and the books cite articles written by founding fathers, and quote court decisions upholding religious values, and upholding requirements such as the one I cited above. Find some of these books, read them (or get someone to help you ...) And THEN maybe you can make some comments that are valid. Til then ... shut up if you don't want to expose your ignorance!

Mike

[Jay W]

The thought that occurs to me now is that almost all of America is now Bush (red) zones.* Unfortunately, a few Goron (blue) zones like this FFRF are still in our midst.

The FFRF could have at least kept quiet about their reactions regarding our National Day of Prayer and Mourning.

------------------------

*The coloration should be reversed, but as I recall USA Today's map had the Bush zones in red and Gore's in blue.

[glock rocks]

I think it is unseemly for the President to encourage or promote religion, his religion, the majority religion, or any religion at all.

does he lose his rights upon taking office?

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.

whatever you think it is that gives you the right to call the president “unseemly”
appears to be that which gives him the right to express himself
in our nation's hour of need.

surely, the media didn’t need to cover the event this morning, and if
my recollection is correct, most modern televisions have an off switch.

i’m not a bible thumper, but i do think you are being, well, unreasonable
at this crucial time in our republic’s history.

by some perversion of the above quoted source, it is
legal to burn an American flag.

by analogy, should it be illegal for a government school to fly one?

i am trying to be rational, not hostile here. think.

[deadrock]

And a non-religious fanatic.

[Rome2000]

Freedom From Religion Foundation, looks like you better relocate somewhere that cares.

[glock rocks]

You must be a publik skool dropout .. . ..

the statements you made. .. shows your ignorance!

... shut up if you don't want to expose your ignorance!

my, that was Christ-like of you. </sarcasm>

[MPB]

Religion is not the answer, it is probably the problem.

Statements like this make it clear (as it has been clear to me for years) that the FFRF is more about trying to eradicate religion, not just about constitutional issues of the so-called "separation of church and state".

What they fail to realize is that calling for a national day of prayer is not an example of government establishing a religion.

It's time that everyone immediately stopped referring to the "separate of church and state" as some constitutional thing, when what they really mean is the establishment clause which is totally different.

[eastsider]

It's time that everyone immediately stopped referring to the "separate of church and state" as some constitutional thing, when what they really mean is the establishment clause which is totally different.

It's past time.

[Sally'sConcerns]

Up until today, I had been outraged, numb, angered and a host of other emotions.

Today, I listened to Billy Graham's 'prayer' and also what I suppose was the opening hymn.

For me, today, it all became personal and 'real' to me. I suppose one could say today is MY day of true grief. I got down on my knees and prayed. I sobbed. I lost it today.

I suppose my post will be considered out of line but other than my husband (who fully understood) I have no forum or anyplace where I can share my feelings today. I would hope I would find a place here and be able to share my feelings openly.

Thanks in understanding and bearing with me.

[SUSSA]

That's odd - there's nothing in there that makes it unconstitutional for him to encourage us all to masturbate as we watch gay porn. Does that mean he should ask us to do this? Does that mean we would support him if he did suggest it?

You miss the point. As you say there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits the president from asking this. Nor is there anything in there forcing us to support him if he does. Those who support such a request are free to follow it and to vote for people who also support that action. Those of us who oppose it are free to say so and to vote against him and others who support that.

The above group is; ". . . working to protect the constitutional separation of church and state since 1978. " There is no such constitutional separation. Nor is there anything in the constitution prohibiting people from pointing that out.

The constitution gives the president the right to ask us to pray. He is a citizen and has a right to freedom of speech just like you do. We are free to pray or not pray as we see fit.

The constitution does not give him the right to demand we pray. Nor does it give you the right to forbid him to ask.

Many people on all sides of many arguments miss the beauty of our constitution. It protects the great and the small. It also protects the popular and the unpopular.

It is obvious why unpopular speech needs protection. We forget that popular speech also needs protection. We accept P.C. bs.

We are forbidden to call people Negro, Indians, cripples, handicapped, etc. There is nothing wrong with any of these terms. Non are derogatory. They became unusable because some small segment of each group needed something to complain about and something to attack for personal gain.

The above group is doing the same thing. They are looking for victim status for personal gain.

President Bush's request that people pray harms no one. Only people who are looking for a way to become a victim would think that it does.