Judge Crab issues Crabby Ruling on National Day of Prayer

[boedicca]

Can you cite the text in the constitution that states the red portion of your quote? Or one that indicates that a promulgation of Religion in general is OK, as long as it's not a particular religion?

Did you sleep through Civics class in high school?

Wikipedia, which is not exactly a Bastion of conservative thought, begins its entry on the Establishment Clause thusly:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era....

The same text is found here:

Establishment Clause


You can also search for various University websites for interpretations, if you are so inclined (although I doubt you will).

 

[Againsheila]

Where's the link? And from what I read:

US District Judge Barbara Crabb said the federal statute violates the First Amendment’s prohibition on government endorsement of religion.

A National Day of Prayer (just like establishing prayer days in school) is the government endorsing religion.

If you want someone to blame, blame the founding fathers.

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This does not prevent anyone from exercising their right to participate in religion.

Yes it does. I now do not have a day in which everyone from all religions can get together in this country and pray for the betterment of the world. How is that not preventing me from participating in my religion?

PS: I never cared about national prayer day anyway but I definitely care about it being shut down by the government.

 

[Modbert]

Yes it does. I now do not have a day in which everyone from all religions can get together in this country and pray for the betterment of the world. How is that not preventing me from participating in my religion?

PS: I never cared about national prayer day anyway but I definitely care about it being shut down by the government.

Except governments do not need to tell religions which day they can all can get together and pray for the betterment of the world. The religions can do it themselves.

 

[Againsheila]

Yes it does. I now do not have a day in which everyone from all religions can get together in this country and pray for the betterment of the world. How is that not preventing me from participating in my religion?

PS: I never cared about national prayer day anyway but I definitely care about it being shut down by the government.

Except governments do not need to tell religions which day they can all can get together and pray for the betterment of the world. The religions can do it themselves.

You know, the more you push me, the more I push back. This is just more proof of the growing anti-Christian bigotry in this country. Our government was founded on the right to religious freedom, not the right to freedom from religion.

 

[boedicca]

There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents the government from designating a National Day of Prayer. We have this and that day, week, and month for a variety of things for which many of us do not care (and some of these are Mandatory).

Prayer is volitional - and we have a long standing tradition in this country of Presidents designating a specific Day of Prayer. The only reason to get rid of it is to further Progressive Secular ideology at the expense of its religious competition.

 

[Modbert]

You know, the more you push me, the more I push back. This is just more proof of the growing anti-Christian bigotry in this country. Our government was founded on the right to religious freedom, not the right to freedom from religion.

A ha. Now why do you say anti-Christian bigotry? If this day was established for all religions like Boe is trying to say, then it's not bigotry against any religion. If it was anti-Christian bigotry, then it would have to be that the government is taking a day away for Christians. And if this day is proclaiming christian prayer, then it is illegal under the first amendment.

See how fun this is? So it can't be anti-christian.

Besides, why are the "I want the government out of my life!" wanting the government to be involved in their life? Shouldn't this be left up to the states anyway?

 

[Foxfyre]

Just a prelude to canceling Christmas.

I thought they already did that. Don't we have a 'holiday tree' on the South Lawn now instead of the traditional Christmas Tree?

But I still want to know how a National Day of Prayer violates any law or constitutional principle. I hope this one gets to the Supreme Court fast before it has time to fester into some more wierd precedents for other judges to use.

snopes.com: White House Ban on Religious Christmas Ornaments

Try not to repeat dumb things you hear in chain e-mails.

I didn't say anything about ornaments. But show me where we have a National Christmas Tree insead of a National Holiday Tree these days.

 

[boedicca]

A ha. Now why do you say anti-Christian bigotry? If this day was established for all religions like Boe is trying to say, then it's not bigotry against any religion. If it was anti-Christian bigotry, then it would have to be that the government is taking a day away for Christians. And if this day is proclaiming christian prayer, then it is illegal under the first amendment.

See how fun this is? So it can't be anti-christian.

Besides, why are the "I want the government out of my life!" wanting the government to be involved in their life? Shouldn't this be left up to the states anyway?

Please provide the link to the website for the Big Giant Monolithic Christian Religion that a Day of Prayer establishes.

 

[Modbert]

There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents the government from designating a National Day of Prayer. We have this and that day, week, and month for a variety of things for which many of us do not care (and some of these are Mandatory).

Prayer is volitional - and we have a long standing tradition in this country of Presidents designating a specific Day of Prayer. The only reason to get rid of it is to further Progressive Secular ideology at the expense of its religious competition.

Except you're trying to make the argument that just because it's tradition that makes it a good thing. That's a very ignorant statement.

 

[Modbert]

Please provide the link to the website for the Big Giant Monolithic Christian Religion that a Day of Prayer establishes.

I'm only using Sheila's logic. If you want someone to badger, badger her.

 

[boedicca]

A great many things that are tradition are perfectly valid and healthy.

Just sayin'.

 

[Cuyo]

I thought they already did that. Don't we have a 'holiday tree' on the South Lawn now instead of the traditional Christmas Tree?

But I still want to know how a National Day of Prayer violates any law or constitutional principle. I hope this one gets to the Supreme Court fast before it has time to fester into some more wierd precedents for other judges to use.

snopes.com: White House Ban on Religious Christmas Ornaments

Try not to repeat dumb things you hear in chain e-mails.

I didn't say anything about ornaments. But show me where we have a National Christmas Tree insead of a National Holiday Tree these days.

Ummmm... In that article I just linked. There's even a video of the White House Christmas Tree, being carried in a wagon with the words "WHITE HOUSE CHRISTMAS TREE" scribed on the side of it.

 

[Modbert]

A great many things that are tradition are perfectly valid and healthy.

Just sayin'.

Again, doesn't matter. Just because some things that are tradition are perfectly valid and healthy doesn't make this perfectly valid or healthy on the basis of tradition.

I'm sure some people would say exactly what you said back then, except about lynching. However, I'm sure you would agree with me that here in 2010, such a thing is universally not valid or healthy.

 

[boedicca]

Please provide the link to the website for the Big Giant Monolithic Christian Religion that a Day of Prayer establishes.

I'm only using Sheila's logic. If you want someone to badger, badger her.

No, you're not.

Christianity is a belief system - not a monolithic religion. There are many, many sects and organizations, some of which have quite opposing interpretations. A National Day of Prayer or a Christmas Tree do nothing to establish a Unified Church of the United States.

 

[boedicca]

I'm sure some people would say exactly what you said back then, except about lynching. However, I'm sure you would agree with me that here in 2010, such a thing is universally not valid or healthy.

And now that you've played the RACE CARD, you've conceded defeat.

My work here is done.

 

[Modbert]

No, you're not.

Christianity is a belief system - not a monolithic religion. There are many, many sects and organizations, some of which have quite opposing interpretations. A National Day of Prayer or a Christmas Tree do nothing to establish a Unified Church of the United States.

You seem to not get the fact she called the abolishment of this anti-christian bigotry. For it to be bigotry against christianity, it has to target christianity specifically.

 

[Againsheila]

You know, the more you push me, the more I push back. This is just more proof of the growing anti-Christian bigotry in this country. Our government was founded on the right to religious freedom, not the right to freedom from religion.

A ha. Now why do you say anti-Christian bigotry? If this day was established for all religions like Boe is trying to say, then it's not bigotry against any religion. If it was anti-Christian bigotry, then it would have to be that the government is taking a day away for Christians. And if this day is proclaiming christian prayer, then it is illegal under the first amendment.

See how fun this is? So it can't be anti-christian.

Besides, why are the "I want the government out of my life!" wanting the government to be involved in their life? Shouldn't this be left up to the states anyway?

Like I said, Christmas will be next. It was established for all religions, I'm convinced it is being stopped because of Christianity. The Muslims went to Washington and had their day of prayer and there was no uprising about that. Obama didn't even celebrate the "national day of prayer" though he prayed with the Muslim on the day that wasn't our national day of prayer. In a country that was up until recently, majority Christian, when you take a stab at religion, it's a stab at the Christian religion. Anybody that thinks otherwise has blinders on.

Our government isn't suppose to "establish" a religion. There's nothing in the constitution that says that they can't support a religion or many religions.

You may think this is a game, but there is a long line of people who've come here for their freedom of religion and it's slowly being chipped away. Since there is no other frontier, no place else to go...we have no choice but to start fighting back.

 

[Modbert]

And now that you've played the RACE CARD, you've conceded defeat.

My work here is done.

Not at all. I'm using a example that we can all universally agree with. There is no playing of the race card, except by yourself with such a statement.

Now since you're on the ropes, you've found your excuse to scurry away from this thread like a coward. I'll also take note that you never bothered to explain away my question about states right.

Kerry on.

 

[Cuyo]

Can you cite the text in the constitution that states the red portion of your quote? Or one that indicates that a promulgation of Religion in general is OK, as long as it's not a particular religion?

Did you sleep through Civics class in high school?

Wikipedia, which is not exactly a Bastion of conservative thought, begins its entry on the Establishment Clause thusly:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era....

The same text is found here:

Establishment Clause


You can also search for various University websites for interpretations, if you are so inclined (although I doubt you will).

So you're saying it's been interpreted that way, not that it actually says that.

Funny thing about law. Quite a bit of it on all levels is open to interpretation. Where no other guidelines exist, we use the "Reasonable person" rule. How would a "Reasonable person" interpret this? Since a reasonable person in the 17th century might not interpret this the same way as a reasonable person today, the law can actually change whilst the text remains the same, as is happening in this case.

Personally, I think the day is fast-a-coming when "praying" to whatever fictional character is your preference will preclude you from being considered a "Reasonable person." Sure, the US is lagging behind in this area (big surprise), but the foolishness cannot continue forever. But that's not really the issue in this case.

 

[Modbert]

Like I said, Christmas will be next. It was established for all religions, I'm convinced it is being stopped because of Christianity. The Muslims went to Washington and had their day of prayer and there was no uprising about that. Obama didn't even celebrate the "national day of prayer" though he prayed with the Muslim on the day that wasn't our national day of prayer. In a country that was up until recently, majority Christian, when you take a stab at religion, it's a stab at the Christian religion. Anybody that thinks otherwise has blinders on.

Our government isn't suppose to "establish" a religion. There's nothing in the constitution that says that they can't support a religion or many religions.

You may think this is a game, but there is a long line of people who've come here for their freedom of religion and it's slowly being chipped away. Since there is no other frontier, no place else to go...we have no choice but to start fighting back.

Uh, did you miss the fact he's going to issue the national day of prayer statement this year? And that he did so last year too?