Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Have you read the first amendment to the US Constitution?

> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to 
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

> Now tell me how a declaration of a National Day of Prayer by the 
> executive branch is (a) Congress establishing a law respecting the 
> establishment of religion, or (b) prohibits the free exercise thereof.

  I think that you are falling into interpreting literally the words
rather than wanting to understand the meaning of the text. Or, more
precisely, you are arguing "it doesn't explicitly prohibit this, hence
it allows it".

  The sentiment of the text is quite clearly the same as with most other
constitutions in most other countries: The government shall not endorse
nor prohibit religions.

  If you are trying to argue "but hey, it literally only says that the
government shall not *establish* religions, it doesn't say anything about
the government endorsing *already established* religions" you are
deliberately distorting the meaning of the text by arguing over semantics.

> The way I read it, it actually encourages and promotes the free exercise 
> of religion, including the right of one *not* to participate.

  No, it doesn't. It only says that the government must not endorse nor
prohibit religions. Where exactly do you see the "promotes the free
exercise of religion" part? The government must *allow* it. It doesn't
say it should *promote* it.

  Sheesh, I can't believe a Finn must teach you your own constitution.
(Ok, I don't know if you are a citizen of the US, but I'm assuming you are.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message