US National Day of Prayer Ruled Unconstitutional

[JoeyKnothead]

From the article here:

A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional Thursday, saying the day amounts to a call for religious action.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic.

For debate:

Should the National Day of Prayer be considered constitutional or not?

[East of Eden]

When the Catholic Church beings to employ Altar Girls to be put in the position to begin with for priests to choose from, then there might be a point. So far all we have is people abusing those they have power over who, by the rules of the church, all happen to be male.

The offending male priests have equal access to girls, and yet the vast majority of their victims are male. What does that tell you?

[ChaosBorders]

You're basing your entire side of the argument on a crackpot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Reisman

Nice ad hominem. Is she a 'crackpot' because you disagree with her? I also believe Kinsey's estimate of 10% of the population being gay was way high.

Kinsey being wrong doesn't negate that she has a history of changing terms to support her preconceived conclusions:

It was a scientific disaster, riddled with researcher bias and baseless assumptions. The American University (AU), where Reisman's study had been academically based, actually refused to publish it when she released it, after their independent academic auditor reported on it. Dr Robert Figlio of the University of Pennsylvania told AU that, 'The term child used in the aggregate sense in this report is so inclusive and general as to be meaningless.'

Your accusation of ad hominem against her is also particularly amusing:

Reisman also asserts that Kinsey sexually abused children, although no biographer of Kinsey has found evidence for the claim.[3] Kinsey biographer James H. Jones writes that unless new evidence to the contrary becomes available, Reisman's claims that Kinsey may have witnessed or personally participated in child molestation under the guise of scientific research must be considered groundless.

And again changing terms:

Reisman writes that there are chemicals in the brain, which she has dubbed "erototoxins,"[9][10] that are produced by watching pornography and that have toxic influences on the brain.[11] Reisman lists these erototoxins as testosterone, adrenaline, oxytocin, glucose, dopamine, serotonin, and phenylethylamine.[10] While some of these chemicals are related to arousal or orgasm, none are specifically associated with toxicity or the viewing of erotic images.

Half the 'erototoxins' she listed are actually good for you, the other half are good for you under some circumstances and not so good if abused. Calling all of them 'toxins' though is completely absurd.

Practically half of the article on her is criticism of her work. And considering only 9 publications are listed, she doesn't appear to be particularly a heavyweight as it is. But despite this list of reasons not to take her seriously, you're taking her word over all of the studies that say you're wrong. I have seen few greater cases of confirmation bias in action.

[Abraxas]

When the Catholic Church beings to employ Altar Girls to be put in the position to begin with for priests to choose from, then there might be a point. So far all we have is people abusing those they have power over who, by the rules of the church, all happen to be male.

The offending male priests have equal access to girls, and yet the vast majority of their victims are male. What does that tell you?

That you are mistaken about the offending male priests having equal access to girls, certainly so in an isolated and controlled setting where they are able to abuse undetected.

[Lux]

The National Day of Prayer doesn't establish a particular religion.

It establishes particular religions using public funds. Do all faiths include praying? No. Does every citizen of the USA have faith in a god? No.
So, is it fair that their tax money is used to establish something they do not believe in? No.

We have separation of church and state, not of faith and state.

Maybe that should change.

There are 364 non-National Days of Prayer. Should I be upset with that?

This makes no sense.
How about there was a National Anti-Religion day, and it was funded with YOUR tax money.

[JoeyKnothead]

How about there was a National Anti-Religion day, and it was funded with YOUR tax money.

The win, with that one, is immense.

Many theists think nothing of just how much religious influence there is in our lives, and seem accustomed to having their way regarding imposing their religious notions onto others - even through force of law.

Turn it around on 'em and so many think they and their religion are "under attack".

In a society of multiple a/religious views it is fundamental to our getting along that we don't use government funds for proselytizing either way. No one, not anyone is prevented from praying when and where they see fit. They are however prevented from using taxpayer funded government positions to force or entice others to pray.

[East of Eden]

Practically half of the article on her is criticism of her work. And considering only 9 publications are listed, she doesn't appear to be particularly a heavyweight as it is. But despite this list of reasons not to take her seriously, you're taking her word over all of the studies that say you're wrong. I have seen few greater cases of confirmation bias in action.

Ms. Reisman was only one part of my article. You ignore the part where 70%+ of gays had had sex with minors, and that there is a movement within the gay community to legitimatize this.

[East of Eden]

It establishes particular religions using public funds.

No it doesn't. No church is being established.

Does every citizen of the USA have faith in a god?

The vast majority do.

So, is it fair that their tax money is used to establish something they do not believe in? No.

Are you also upset that tax money is used to promote ideas in public schools that many disagree with?

How about there was a National Anti-Religion day, and it was funded with YOUR tax money.

It would be an infringement on the constitutional right to free excercise of religion, probably. Like if you had an anti-freedom of speech day.

[Abraxas]

Practically half of the article on her is criticism of her work. And considering only 9 publications are listed, she doesn't appear to be particularly a heavyweight as it is. But despite this list of reasons not to take her seriously, you're taking her word over all of the studies that say you're wrong. I have seen few greater cases of confirmation bias in action.

Ms. Reisman was only one part of my article. You ignore the part where 70%+ of gays had had sex with minors, and that there is a movement within the gay community to legitimatize this.

-- Even homosexual activists don't try to hide the connection with pedophilia. In The Gay Report -- a book published back in 1979 -- authors Karla Jay and Allen Young found that 73 percent of those surveyed had had sexual relations with males 16 to 19 or younger.

An incredibly deceptive statistic. Give that survey at a local high school and see what percentage of respondents both male and female, straight and gay, had sexual contact with someone under the age of 19. You will notice, or perhaps not, but I will, that nowhere does that statistic give the age of the individual when they had this contact. The self reported incidents could very well be statements from when they were themselves a teenager. Further, because the study also includes 18 and 19, both legal ages, it gives the distinct impression it is trying to cast as wide a net as possible to malign gays where the lower ages simply weren't large enough to cut it.

That, and of course, the study's redefinition of any man preying on any man as a homosexual screams dishonesty and political agenda.

[McCulloch]

You ignore the part where 70%+ of gays had had sex with minors, and that there is a movement within the gay community to legitimatize this.

How is this at all relevant to the topic being debated?

It establishes particular religions using public funds.

No it doesn't. No church is being established.

In East of Eden's world, no religion is being established unless you can specifically identify the denomination being promoted by the state. The state is justified in blatantly promoting religion so long as no specific sect is named. His view is contrary to those of all practicing constitutional experts and of the courts, but no matter. ...

Does every citizen of the USA have faith in a god?

The vast majority do.

Where is the relevance? Can the rights of the minority be trampled on by the majority?

So, is it fair that their tax money is used to establish something they do not believe in? No.

Are you also upset that tax money is used to promote ideas in public schools that many disagree with?

It is not that we disagree with it that is wrong. It is that a practice of religion is being promoted with tax dollars. You may disagree with pagan Arabic numerals and prefer your children to learn mathematics using orthodox Roman numerals. But you're not going to get the schools to change.

How about there was a National Anti-Religion day, and it was funded with YOUR tax money.

It would be an infringement on the constitutional right to free excercise of religion, probably. Like if you had an anti-freedom of speech day.

But you would not have to participate. You could still do your praying. Why would you object to a tax funded National Day of No Prayer or a National Day of Irreligion? Now take whatever arguments you have against those and see how the same arguments would apply to the National Day of Prayer.

[Lux]

No it doesn't. No church is being established.

The fact that no names are being given means nothing. By calling it day of PRAYER, it obviously refers exclusively to those faiths that include prayer.

The vast majority do.

So?
Maybe that vast majority would consider funding their Day of Prayer with private funds? That would be awesome.

Are you also upset that tax money is used to promote ideas in public schools that many disagree with?

School is not for promoting ideas, it's for teaching and learning. Since nobody holds the monopoly on truth, schools should teach what is currently accepted as the most complete and probable explanation to each matter, present it's evidence, and instruct the kids and teenagers to come to their own conclusions.
As a parent, you're always free to teach your kids an alternate explanation.

It would be an infringement on the constitutional right to free excercise of religion, probably. Like if you had an anti-freedom of speech day.

Oh, so it's ok to have a publicly funded day on the matter of religion as long as it agrees well with your point of view, but if someone wants to have a day about how awesome not being religious is and funded it with your tax money, it's unconstitutional.
Turn the table around and you'll see why some of us disagree with the National Day of Prayer.