With all his Christian rhetoric of late, it’s not surprising that President Obama will cave in to the religious right and sign the NDOP proclamation for May 7. Although he is eliminating the “We love Jesus” ceremony started by GW Bush, it is pretty disappointing that he doesn’t have the backbone to stand by the Constitution with more fervor.
The NDOP is clearly against the law. It is a proclamation by the US President urging people to pray. This is not about the president’s right to pray as an individual, rather using the office to officialize religion, namely Christianity. Exactly how is that defensible legally? It’s not. It’s wrong, and we should let him know about it.
Check out what you can do for our answer to the NDOP, the National Day of Reason, coincidentally on the same day.
I’m trying to find confirmation about the president agreeing to sign the NDOP proclamation so I can write an article about it for examiner.com. So far, no dice. Can you tell us where you heard this?
perhaps the line is fine considering race and religion….Fox News likes to quote how many people are christian in the us….a percentage that Im quite sure is changing by the day….
ha ha stupid religion is going away
The National Day of Prayer infers that all americans believe in some deity. This is inaccurate. Though in the minority, many americans do not believe in any religion at all. The signing of this proclamation is unacceptable.
I knew there was a love affair between the examiner.com and AA…
Dave…you’ve inadvertently proven the fact that the Sep. of Church and State is a myth…
This has to be one of the most ignorant, biased statements I’ve ever heard you make.
Show me one case prior to 1943 where ANY organization sued over the claim that the “National Day of Prayer” is unconstitutional…you can’t. Instead we’ll get links to comments from previous presidents, taken out of context in an attempt to prove this fact wrong…
Just about every president has asked for a “National Day of Prayer”…
I’m still waiting for Mr. Ed and Dave to sue the Dems over the use of taxpayer funds to promote Jesus at the end of their national convention…
DW said,
“The National Day of Prayer infers that all americans believe in some deity. This is inaccurate. Though in the minority, many americans do not believe in any religion at all. The signing of this proclamation is unacceptable.”
Response: DW, you know I know that you are a freethinker. That said, I know you find religion repulsive, as do I. But, I must ask, what do you expect of this guy. Some have said that I came here believing I was the atheist messiah (particularly humorous since I’m not atheist), what would happen to him if he adopted an atheist platform? As you said yourself, a mojority of Americans are religious. His role is to represent the will of the people, with great latitude of course, but what is often suggested to be his duty would collapse his credibility as president.
I just had a debate with another “godless” about free speech in Finland and whether or not muhammed was a pedophile. All points well made, but the bottom line is that if you don’t want to go the brutal dictator route, like China (which isn’t working) and suspend democracy, you must push back the ignorance of religion in a very patient and compassionate way. There’s a lot of really smart, useful members of society who are stricken with the self delusion of religion. I know, because my father was one of the smartest people I have ever met in my life.
We can whine and moan, and rightfully so, but religion is a product of the question born in all our minds, “why am I here”, and our fear of death. We can’t pass a law and cure it. And yet, the clock of nuclear midnight still ticks, but, unless a freethinker does emerge who can win the ear of, at least, most of the people, we’re toast, and so are our children.
The record of the past, other than alligators, coelecaths, and sharks, points to an inevitability of extinction for all species. If we go out now, though, they will have outlived us by millions of years. Sad, so much potential.
NeoWolfe
Here’s the source of information
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/5/1/the-white-house-on-national-day-of-prayer-a-proclamation-but-no-formal-ceremony.html
neowolfe
what is your basis that china route isn’t working.if it isn’t working it is because they have eased up a mistake in my view.look at us bs cults on every street corner taking money from the weak minded.
dave i think obama will disappoint all of his supporters by end of his term.
Wow…another broken promise…so much for “change we can believe in”…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090503/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo_trials
Poor saps…
phreedm-
Dave…you’ve inadvertently proven the fact that the Sep. of Church and State is a myth…
The NDOP is clearly against the law. It is a proclamation by the US President urging people to pray.
This has to be one of the most ignorant, biased statements I’ve ever heard you make.
Show me one case prior to 1943 where ANY organization sued over the claim that the “National Day of Prayer” is unconstitutional…you can’t. Instead we’ll get links to comments from previous presidents, taken out of context in an attempt to prove this fact wrong…
Just about every president has asked for a “National Day of Prayer”…
phreedm, you’re wrong. The issue isn’t whether something hasn’t been done before; slavery was done for decades, including by Presidents and Supreme Court Justices. Still was wrong.
The first President to be requested by ministers to proclaim a National Day of Prayer was Thomas Jefferson. He refused, in writing. All the founding fathers would have found that abhorrent; none had ministers preside at inaugurals, all attempts at a National Day of Prayer were rejected. Jefferson lectured the ministers that he had absolutely no power to do such a thing – since he had civil powers only, not theological ones.
We can no more have that, than we can have a National Day of Atheism.
No government should tell you how you should worship. Or whether you should worship at all.
When asked to explain the first amendment, jefferson said it’s purpose “was to establish a wall between church & state”.
President Obama – you’ve torn down that wall. And thus violated your oath of office.
Neowolfe:
I have no fear of death. I did once. Now I know it will be a totally unconscious blackness, a sleep without dreams from which I will never awake. I don’t fear that, why should any one?
Why am I here? Why do we have to have an initial overbearing purpose. Our purpose is of our own making. We came along, like the tiger, like the mammoth, like countless other organisms. We may become extinct someday; the record of extinctions indicates this is inevitable. Must we sit around and ring our hands and moan ” Woe is me!”? We are here to live, just like any other creature. Our goals are our own, fabricated as we go. Like a wise man once said, “My goal is to have a good meal”. As good as any goal, better than some.(and no , I don’t remember the exact quote, nor the person who said it.)
daveh-
Hate to say it, but you’re wasting you’re time with phreakshow and their ilk. People on the far right have shown recently that they hate America, and what the Constitution stands for. The first Amendment gets their panties in a wad, and speaking of wads, they would blow theirs if the country would turn into a theocracy.
They’re despicable. Their spokespeople- Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc, show nothing but disdain and divisiveness for America.
Every clear thinking person knows that the NDoP is unConstitutional, but until we have a President that stands up against these wack-jobs, I’m afraid we are stuck with it.
And I thought Obama and the Democrats were perfect. Well, at least he’s still a fascist.
davehuntsman says:
May 3, 2009 at 1:57 am
Please provide proof of this statement. When was Jefferson asked about the first amendment and gave your answer?
The phrase did not come from an interview…it came from a “private” letter.
Boise Jim says:
May 3, 2009 at 8:09 am
Really BJ? I’ll bite. Exactly how has the “far right” shown their hatred for America and what the Constitution stands for…?
DW said:
“I have no fear of death. I did once. Now I know it will be a totally unconscious blackness, a sleep without dreams from which I will never awake. I don’t fear that, why should any one?”
Response: I know what you are saying, that death is not like the “Night of the Living Dead” which implies that death is pain that can only be cured by eating the brains of the living.
But, I think you side stepped my point with semantics. You can know with assurrance that death ends all suffering, but it also ends all joy, it ends what you are. Sitting in a hospital bed, when your doctor says that your condition is untreatable, and you will be dead within the next few hours, you cannot tell me that your guts don’t clinch, and wonder how this will affect those you love. And even if there was no one who cared if you lived or died, inside your deepest primal emotions is the one that makes a mouse run from a cat. You can read, meditate, reason, dissect the logic, but you will never escape that fear of the end of you. It is built into your instinct, right along side of your attraction to females.
NeoWolfe
reason said:
“what is your basis that china route isn’t working.if it isn’t working it is because they have eased up a mistake in my view.look at us bs cults on every street corner taking money from the weak minded.”
Response: Well, if you ever watched the news, you’d know the Tibetan monks are maintaining a very viable protest.
Please, don’t get me wrong, one of the few things I admire about China is their secular prohibition of religion. The flip side of that coin is what they did to accomplish it. Bullets through the brain, then charge the family for the price of the bullet? Absolute authority. Tiananmen square?
Russia made it illegal to teach children religion, admirable. But, the russian orthodox church was their state religion, and their only basic difference with catholicism was the infallibility of the pope.
I’ll say it again, since religious people are the majority, the only way you will quash them at this point in time is by suspending democracy. Careful what you wish for.
NeoWolfe
NeoWolfe
The phrase did not come from an interview…it came from a “private” letter.
You’re wrong. The ministers in Danbury asked President Jefferson, in his professional capacity as President, to explain what the first amendment meant. He wrote the answer, with his Attorney General present in the room and who read the letter, on January 1st, 1803. (Yup, he was working in his office with staff on New Year’s Day).
Phreek- How about torturing prisoners 183 times so they could coerse a bogus connection to Saddam Hussein so they could start their war against Iraq for the sole reason of stealing oil for Haliburtion and their Carlyle Group portfolios.
I was waiting for a post on Torturegate. Isn’t just lovely that even after releasing the evidence, O’Same feels it’s politically expedient not to try them. I feel bed for all the people who thought they were voting for FDR but got Barry O’Ford instead.
teammarty says:
May 3, 2009 at 6:56 pm
FDR had spies hung during WW2…
davehuntsman says:
May 3, 2009 at 6:05 pm
He wrote…? Sure sounds like a letter to me.
No, it was the Attorney General Levi Lincoln of Massachusetts.
Please read the actual letter before you assume to know what they were discussing. No where in their letter do they ask about the first amendment.
Jefferson also never disagreed with their assumptions…
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/dba_jefferson.html
It may also come as a surprise to you that Jefferson’s original letter was edited AFTER he asked Lincoln to review it. Try and open your horizons to also understand the political landscape of Jefferson’s time.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html
I’ll take the Library of Congress view over any and all atheist web sites…
I’ve heard many opinions on the first amendment in these comments, can someone clarify what is documented as Fisher Aimes’ views on the seperation of church and state? I believe he was the man who wrote the first draft of the first amendment to bring before congress. I’m just curious to hear what his reason behind writing the amendment was.
Whatislife asks:
“I’m just curious to hear what his reason behind writing the amendment was.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment
Phreedumb wants to say the US is a christian nation, with is total bullshit. If you study the constitution against historical backdrop, the philosophy is “free mason”, not christian (the christian part was preserving slavery, something the freemasons hated). Doubt me? Check this out.
http://bessel.org/constmas.htm
The first amendment was designed to prevent the government from ever establishing a state religion. It also guaranteed freedom of religion (ancient free mason law). And a biggie, freedom of speech, which is why we can go online and say “fuck religion”, without fear of reprisal, at least from the government (you’ll go to jail for saying that in Finland).
NeoWolfe
Quote from NeoWolfe: “And a biggie, freedom of speech, which is why we can go online and say “fuck religion”, without fear of reprisal, at least from the government (you’ll go to jail for saying that in Finland).”
You’re saying it on the Internet. What makes you think you aren’t saying it in Finland? Ever heard of Salman Rushdie?
Can you imagine the howls from the Rabid Religious REich if there were to be a “National day of Anti-prayer”?
As some may recall, about a month ago members of the Okla legislature announced their intent to erect “10 commandments monument” at State Capitol.
Here’s my latest Letter to Editor in response to these Okie Dopie Moronic legislators:
America Not True Christian Nation
About the Times Record March 31 headline, “Legislation Puts Ten Commandments in Capital.” The article states “Sen. Randy Borgdon, R-Owasso, said the monument recognized the historical importance of the Ten Commandments and had ‘nothing to do with religious viewpoints.’”
To that, I respond: Hogwash! The Ten Commandments are exclusively religious: Exclusive to Judaism and Christianity. Moreover, as public policy, seven of the Ten Commandments are unconstitutional.
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Under our Constitution, one can worship any god or no god, not just the Hebrew God. As Thomas Jefferson said, “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.” Under our Constitution, we can make any deifying image.
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy god in vain.” Under our Constitution, we can say both profound and profane things, including profaning the Hebrew God or Zeus or Thor.
“Remember the Sabbath … Keep it holy.” Under our Constitution, we may work any day, even those deemed “holy” by any sect.
“Honor thy father and thy mother.” Under our Constitution, we are not required to do so.
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Under our Constitution, we may have sex with any consenting adult, in or outside of marriage.
“Thou shalt not covet … .” Under our Constitution and our economic system, one may covet anything.
Finally, the 1797 Treaty between the USA and Tripoli, approved by a unanimous Senate, states: “… The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion … .” It is only modern-day historical revisionists who try to recast our secular nation as a “Christian nation.”
Here’s what Madison, generally regarded by most credible historians as the “Author of the Constotution”, had to say about separation:
“The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State .”(Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
“TOTAL SEPARATION of CHURCH from STATE”.
So, not only do me have Jefferson referring to separation of church and state, but we also have the “Author of the Constitution”, James Madison, making the same pronouncement.
I’ll match those two and their understanding of what is best for the country as opposed to ANY modern-day (christian) historical revisionists.
“Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov’t in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
To the Baptist Churches on Neal’s Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
Who does not clearly understand the pellucid connotation of Madison’s phraseology,”a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters.”?
Answer: The Rabid Religious Reich, and other historical revisionists(phreedm) bent on recasting our SECULAR nation as a “christian nation”!
phreedm: here is Jefferson’s letter.
Nothing YOU or modern-day historical revisionists can alter the historical ACT of Jefferson and Madison’s (see above) letters and their import to development of legal precedent.
“To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802
I just love how current christians don’t understand that the seperation is there for their own protection. We all know perfectly well how much the different christian sects hate each other and the only reason why one of them hasn’t gained complete control is because of the seperation of church and state.
How long would it take for example if the seperation was not there anymore, for the christians to start attacking each other in order for one of them to gain the title of state religion? I would say a few minutes. Tops.
And lets not harbor any delusions that when this happens that they wouldn’t start descriminating HARD against any non-christian religion right out of the gate.
Just a hypothetical (Which seems very far from reality after reading about the newest Dobson debacle), but would it be constitutional for the government to speak out against religion? If it is insisted that Atheism is not a religion and that people still have the right to believe in whatever nonsense they want, I see no reason that a President would be unlawful in standing up and saying that religion is a crutch for society and a waste of our resources. Any thoughts?
No present-day political leader in USA would DARE say such, PROOF.
Altho’ I’d greatly admire any politicain who was BOLD enough to use one of my favorite Jefferson quotes:
“…and the day will come when the mystical generation of jesus by the supreme being, as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the FABLE of the generation of Minerva in the Brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the DAWN of REASON and FREEDOM of THOUGHT in these United States will DO AWAY with ALL this artificial scaffolding.” Th Jefferson 1823 letter to Jh Adams.
To fully appreciate Jefferson’s DERISION of the divinity of je-zeus one must understand the Fable of Minerva nad Jupiter.
Jupiter, a Roman god, had the hots for a goddess, Metsis, who did not have reciprocal feelings for Jove. Every time Jupiter would try to “take” metsis she would mystically transform herself into a deer and scamper away or a hawk ands fly away.
One day she turned into a fly, but Jupiter caught her and ate her, LIERALLY!
For the next nine months Jupiter had a banging and clanging iside his head that was so severe he finally had a felllow god cleave his head open…and VOLIA out popped his fully-formed adult daughter, Minerva, clad in battle gear, including sword and shield, which she had been banging for nine months!
Where is a Jefferson-like political luminary when we truly need him/her?
VOILA
Hah I understand that there isn’t a chance of it happening anytime soon, my question was simply that if I live to see a day when rational thought isn’t political suicide, wouldn’t it be tough to argue that bashing religion is constitutional?
In saying that I also realize that, despite a clearly defined first amendment, it’s tough to argue that a day of prayer or week of spirituality go against the constitution as well.
Proof says, “In saying that I also realize that, despite a clearly defined first amendment, it’s tough to argue that a day of prayer or week of spirituality go against the constitution as well.”
Govt sanctioned prayer , govt imprimtur of approval of prayer is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, notwithstanding popular conventons to the contrary.
geoih asked:
“You’re saying it on the Internet. What makes you think you aren’t saying it in Finland? Ever heard of Salman Rushdie?”
Response: Yes, but, I don’t think Whutthole would like him. I’m not sure that I do either. He seems to think that mythology and science mix. My point of view is that where what is convincingly proven ends, that is also where my belief ends. The rest is where I sit a self appointed juror waiting for more information. You can’t take me off the jury, I appointed me myself.
You asked: “What makes you think you aren’t saying it in Finland?”
Response: This is the world wide web. What I am typing now is world wide.
Believe it or not, I have no quarrel with the Finns. I have no idea what sort of social issues they are dealing with, and have no advice how to best deal with them. I just bring up these issues to remind freethinkers that there are no black and white issues. Except one, survival of the human race. No compromises.
NeoWolfe
So that makes for another day for fools then?
As outspoken as we all are about being atheists, I think this is an area where we need to give Obama some slack.. I am against a national day of anyhting religious however, this is one that needs to chipped away at, baby steps, baby steps… At least Obama isn’t throwing an I love jesus party in the east wing of the white house.. He didn’t even have a public service to recognize the “National Day of Prayer”. He threw the religous right a bone that they probably aren’t satisfied with anyway.. He is the first Pres. that I can think of that openly believes in evolution.. can we expect more than that at this point? If anyone in this forum ran for any office and ran on a platform of what they really thought, none of us would win.. Grant it noble to say what you really think, but those on the fence may need to warm up to the idea of no supreme being and becomming a free thinker.. Baby steps, baby steps.
Shodan- I couldn’t agree more, evolving away from religion will likely be more effective than attempting an enormous leap, but this certainly does not mean we should be satisfied with government advocation of prayer. The more we push BEHIND Obama, the more likely this progress is to speed up.
So, in response to the NDOP, I wore my ‘proud to be an American atheist’ shirt to the grocery store today. No reaction, either positive or negative – which is about what I expected (shrug). Then again, there weren’t many people there midday on a Thursday.
I see what your saying PROOF.. I agree. govt. advocation of prayer goes directly against separation of church and state.. My point is, I think Obama is smart for doing what he did.. Focus on the ISSUES and not what the religified right wants to focus on… Knock it down one step at a time.. He couldn’t have gone up there and done what most of us would want him to do and say “This is rediculous, why waste my time”? The right would have “crucified” him (for lack of a better term)… And like you said, an enormous leap might be hard for many of them to wrap their heads around… Freethough takes some time..
Anybody else seeing the signs that somebody is posting here under multiple monikers?
Signs?? Nope.
And I do hope and trust that switching to Wordpress has eliminated the previous ability to ferret out personal information (email/IP addresses) about posters. At least, it was supposed to.
what is what paranoid about?
and we definitely need to initiate a national day of wishing it were so
What- just because two people agree on something for once I don’t think we need to call the authorities. But if you feel the need Dave, by all means check our IP addresses or whatever you need to do.