I feel discriminated against...

[Death from the Sea]

The First Amendment doesn't say the government can't make generalized religious days. It just says that the government can't establish a church or type of religion and FORCE it on the people.

Now if the non-praying people here are offended by National Prayer Day, because you are excluded or don't believe or what-ever, too bad. If you say that prayer day is biased and offensive, then what about Mothers Day or Fathers Day? aren't they biased against orphans? orphans don't have a mom or dad to share that day with.

Now until they make you pray and tell you who to pray to and how to do it, the government is still abiding the 1st amendment.

[Exonerate]

Since they can endorse religion, lets have them sponsor a lack of religion day, and we'll call it even...

[Alyeska]

The First Amendment doesn't say the government can't make generalized religious days. It just says that the government can't establish a church or type of religion and FORCE it on the people.

Incorrect. The First Amendment states the Government has no place endoring anything related to religon.

Now if the non-praying people here are offended by National Prayer Day, because you are excluded or don't believe or what-ever, too bad.

Well fuck you to.

If you say that prayer day is biased and offensive, then what about Mothers Day or Fathers Day? aren't they biased against orphans? orphans don't have a mom or dad to share that day with.

These days are not government sanctioned.

Now until they make you pray and tell you who to pray to and how to do it, the government is still abiding the 1st amendment.

No, they are not. According to your line of reasoning the government can establish Christianity as the offical US religon just so long as active participation wasn't required. That is clearly false.

[Coyote]

Well, my local paper here said that this was the "53rd annual Prayer Day" so I'm afraid this has nothing to do with GWB's initiative. It's been going on for years and I never heard about it 'till now. Sounds like it is linked to that "Under God" stuff in the Pledge.

But as Mike said, ignorance or attack, the results end up being the same-- I just say that there is a difference in how rational people deal with it.

While I do believe in God, I follow a completely different set of rules than our calendar is prepared to deal with, I feel a sort of discrimination but not the same type or same level as others here. "No, I'm not doing anything special for Christmas..." and the incredulous looks that follow...

That's why I don't say "Just ignore it and it'll go away, it's just one day, yaddayadda..." Every year, through the year, I have to re-define and re-defend. It gets old.

Just out of curiosity, was anyone (like in a school or some other public venue) pressured or placed in a position of attending something like this?

[RedImperator]

On the establishment clause (this is copied and pasted directly from an older post of mine, but it's 2AM and I feel no need to retype the argument):

Nice theory. Too bad James Madison disagrees with you.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm

Jefferson wasn't a framer of the Constitution, but his imput is always interesting.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qjeffson.htm

Noah Webster is a favorite of those who take your view of the establishment clause. Unfortunately, his attitudes during the founding period, which are most relevant to a discussion of the Founder's intent, were quite different from his views later in life.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qwebstrn.htm

George Mason? Separationist.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmason.htm

Charles Pinckney? The same.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qpinck.htm

Edmund Randolph was so concerned about the separation of church and state that he worried about the clause forbidding the establishment of a religious requirement to hold Federal office, because he felt that might imply the government has religious authority.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qrandolf.htm

What about the Congress as it debated the First Amendment (which had to pass both houses before it became part of the Constitution)?

Well, sorry, but it seems that the Senate came up with three different versions of the establishment clause that would have weakened it to merely forbidding Congress from respecting any establishment of religion OVER ANOTHER (a major component of the accomidationalist argument), all of which failed in favor of the stronger language actually used.

What's all this argle-barlge mean? Basically, it casts serious doubt on your argument that the Framers only meant to prevent the establishment of a "state religion", a common accomidationist argument that isn't supported by the writings of the framers themselves (and, no, out of context snippets don't count).

In other words, the accomidationist view of the Establishment Clause that a few are arguing for in this thread (it's okay if the government supports religion if it supports them all equally or supports religion in general without supporting any specific one) is wrong (and, no, I don't give a good Goddamn what William Rhenquist says about it--Chief Justices have been plenty wrong in the past; summon the ghost of Roger B. Taney if you think otherwise). In my view and the view of quite a few constitutional scholars, the Establishment Clause strictly forbids the Federal Government from promoting religion AT ALL. The free exercise clause, of course, prevents it from interfering with religion, but claiming that not establishing a "national prayer day" somehow violates the free exercise clause is absurd. The quotes from the Framers and especially the debate on the floor of the House and Senate over the wording of the First Amendment make it very clear what the intent of the amendment is.

[Darth Wong]

Just out of curiosity, was anyone (like in a school or some other public venue) pressured or placed in a position of attending something like this?

When I was a kid, they still had school prayer, if you can believe it. It was against the bill of rights, but the school districts just kept doing it until they were finally forced to stop by higher levels of government. And if you didn't bow your head, you were penalized.

[Stuart Mackey]

Just out of curiosity, was anyone (like in a school or some other public venue) pressured or placed in a position of attending something like this?

When I was a kid, they still had school prayer, if you can believe it. It was against the bill of rights, but the school districts just kept doing it until they were finally forced to stop by higher levels of government. And if you didn't bow your head, you were penalized.

I dont recall that in any of the state schools I went to. The catholic school I went to never forced me to pray to anything..mind you, I would have loved the fight if they had tried
I was sent to sunday school..one of the best things my parents did. It taught me respect for others, how to pinch biscuts that I was not allowed, and how to spot bullshit from 50 paces. I was the noxious kid who was always asking 'why?' and demanding proof of creationism..never did get a straight answer.
Never underestimate the annoyance power of a cynical 6 yearold.

[RedOcean]

Bush is a stupid, fundamentalist prick who can't tell the Constitution from a hole in the ground. Living in the U.S is starting to get really fucking scary. I'm seriously considering leaving the country. Damn Bush!

[RedImperator]

Bush is a stupid, fundamentalist prick who can't tell the Constitution from a hole in the ground. Living in the U.S is starting to get really fucking scary. I'm seriously considering leaving the country. Damn Bush!

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=19257