On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:43:59 -0500, Warp wrote:

> 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.

How much have you actually studied US constitutional law and the US 
constitution?

Moreover, it appears you haven't actually read the decision from the 
federal judge (which I referenced), where she says that her ruling SHOULD 
NOT be taken to mean that the President shouldn't observe the NDoP until 
all appeals have been exhausted.

You do know what an "injunction" is, yes?  There isn't one based on that 
ruling.

>> 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.)

That was uncalled for.  I *could* respond in a similar spirit and say 
that you're not teaching me about the US constitution, only your 
ignorance of it, but I won't do that.

Yes, I'm a US citizen, and I've spent some time (more than most citizens, 
in fact) learning about the constitution and understanding its meaning - 
a meaning that doesn't cherrypick the parts that are relevant to my own 
point of view.

I consider myself pretty non-religious, and yes, I get annoyed with 
things like courthouses posting the 10 Commandments.  That's a little 
different than the President saying "if you believe in prayer, then pray, 
and here's a day for it".  I don't care if it's Obama or Bush saying 
that.  For those who want to pray, knock yourselves out.  I'm not likely 
to join you in doing so, and as long as you don't try to make me pray or 
make those who don't want to do so, hey, that's cool.

Jim

Post a reply to this message