Moderator: Moderators
For debate:Salon.com wrote: 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.
My problem would be that allowing it would then be used to argue for further violations of separation, or to argue a "history" that is tenuous to non-existent.perfessor wrote:I'm not sure that there is any funding involved, save whatever it costs to record a vote in the Congressional Record.Lucia wrote:What's wrong with privately funding the Day of Prayer? What are the specific reasons why the Day of Prayer should be publicly funded, keeping into account that there are many out there who practice religions that don't pray and some who don't practice any religion at all?
As an atheist, my reaction is basically a shrug. If people want it, no big deal, they can have it.
Yes, I understand that. My feeling is, you pick your battles. Someday, some bold legislator will propose a national day of non-prayer. When that happens, the howls of protest from the oppressed Christian majority will be deafening. It would be nice to say, "Well you got to have your day, now we get ours."joeyknuccione wrote:My problem would be that allowing it would then be used to argue for further violations of separation, or to argue a "history" that is tenuous to non-existent.
I can see that angle for sure. I'm not prepared to retract, but I for dang sure can't rebut your point.perfessor wrote:Yes, I understand that. My feeling is, you pick your battles. Someday, some bold legislator will propose a national day of non-prayer. When that happens, the howls of protest from the oppressed Christian majority will be deafening. It would be nice to say, "Well you got to have your day, now we get ours."joeyknuccione wrote:My problem would be that allowing it would then be used to argue for further violations of separation, or to argue a "history" that is tenuous to non-existent.
I'm a little confused...how would a national day of non-prayer work exactly?joeyknuccione wrote:I can see that angle for sure. I'm not prepared to retract, but I for dang sure can't rebut your point.perfessor wrote:Yes, I understand that. My feeling is, you pick your battles. Someday, some bold legislator will propose a national day of non-prayer. When that happens, the howls of protest from the oppressed Christian majority will be deafening. It would be nice to say, "Well you got to have your day, now we get ours."joeyknuccione wrote:My problem would be that allowing it would then be used to argue for further violations of separation, or to argue a "history" that is tenuous to non-existent.
I could see it working in several ways. For one, it could potentially expose the hypocrisy of some who would have the government enact their religious notions, but deny such to others. It could also be an "equal treatment" deal, where the DoP would be countered by an equal government proclamation of a "not" DoP. It could also engender debate about whether prayer can work to change things, where we could potentially measure which prayers work, and compare that to a day when folks don't pray.Chaosborders wrote: I'm a little confused...how would a national day of non-prayer work exactly?
The third one might be interesting except that people are not forced to pray on the national day of prayer anymore than they could be forced to not pray on a national day of non-prayer. So would the idea be that they are encouraged to not pray on the "not" DoP? I could see that as probably having the opposite effect on the people who would be inclined to pray in the first place.joeyknuccione wrote:From Post 74:
I could see it working in several ways. For one, it could potentially expose the hypocrisy of some who would have the government enact their religious notions, but deny such to others. It could also be an "equal treatment" deal, where the DoP would be countered by an equal government proclamation of a "not" DoP. It could also engender debate about whether prayer can work to change things, where we could potentially measure which prayers work, and compare that to a day when folks don't pray.Chaosborders wrote: I'm a little confused...how would a national day of non-prayer work exactly?
A National Day of Prayer is a day where, at public expense, the elected leaders of the nation encourage the faithful to pray to their various deities and to feel that such action is approved of by society. A National Day of non Prayer would then be a day where, at public expense, the elected leaders of the nation would encourage those without faith not to give into pressure to participate in prayer and to feel that such non-action is approved of by society.Chaosborders wrote: I'm a little confused...how would a national day of non-prayer work exactly?
Ok...I can certainly respect the promotion of tolerance of those without faith by society, but how exactly does one make someone who does not have faith participate in prayer? What would you be praying to? Do you normally feel pressured to pray to things you don't believe in? (And I would think this is a somewhat seperate issue than being pressured to believe in said things, which I recognize there are plenty of people who try to do.)McCulloch wrote:A National Day of Prayer is a day where, at public expense, the elected leaders of the nation encourage the faithful to pray to their various deities and to feel that such action is approved of by society. A National Day of non Prayer would then be a day where, at public expense, the elected leaders of the nation would encourage those without faith not to give into pressure to participate in prayer and to feel that such non-action is approved of by society.Chaosborders wrote: I'm a little confused...how would a national day of non-prayer work exactly?
I would say there was funding involved, since the national Day of Prayer's website is now asking for donations to save it. I have never heard of a National day that was of no cost to the government. If indeed there is no funding involved, I offer a retraction to the statement that I don't like my tax dollars going towards a Day of Prayer.perfessor wrote:I'm not sure that there is any funding involved, save whatever it costs to record a vote in the Congressional Record.
As an atheist, my reaction is basically a shrug. If people want it, no big deal, they can have it.
Where the government makes such proclamations, it is assumed a "patriot" would abide by the directive, so those who didn't follow the directive would be "unpatriotic". I base my opinions on this notion.Chaosborders wrote:The third one might be interesting except that people are not forced to pray on the national day of prayer anymore than they could be forced to not pray on a national day of non-prayer.joeyknuccione wrote: >adding numbers for clarity<
I could see it working in several ways.
1) For one, it could potentially expose the hypocrisy of some who would have the government enact their religious notions, but deny such to others.
2) It could also be an "equal treatment" deal, where the DoP would be countered by an equal government proclamation of a "not" DoP.
3) It could also engender debate about whether prayer can work to change things, where we could potentially measure which prayers work, and compare that to a day when folks don't pray.
Following my clarification above, yes, all would be asked to refrain, even if the actual wording may be to 'encourage'.Chaosborders wrote: So would the idea be that they are encouraged to not pray on the "not" DoP?
Which would move us back to point 1, the hypocrisy of asking non-theists to pray (per my notion), and then not abiding when asked to not pray.Chaosborders wrote: I could see that as probably having the opposite effect on the people who would be inclined to pray in the first place.
