On 1/11/2011 12:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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
The problem with this is that its the **same** excuse that is used by 
nearly every city council, and other government body, for ***actually*** 
violating the constitution, by having an opening prayer, then babbling 
about how it just wasn't convenient for them to find a Buddhist that 
day, or some such, to "flesh out" the roster and make it non-Christian 
specific. Oh, and of course, they ***never ever*** open without it, so 
it very much supports religion in general, even when they play lip 
service to being "fair" about which one of the, maybe 3, they will 
bother/allow to open the meeting.

Sorry, but Warp is dead right. The government promoting a day of prayer 
does not **in any way** imply anything other than an endorsement of 
religion in general, and too often, given the words of those who do such 
promotion, defend doing so, and get elected on the principle of the 
"Christian nation" BS, a *specific* one. Its kind of like how federal 
money gets spent on "faith based initiatives", yet, somehow, 99.9% of 
all the initiatives getting funded are Christian ones, even when other 
groups present alternatives, or worse, alternatives that are not "known" 
to lie, cheat, steal, or fail to provide the things they claim they need 
the money for (not that we would know, in many cases, since they are 
often sub-groups of bigger groups, and only the "government" money needs 
to be accounted for). The 0.1% is pure, 100%, lip service to the 
principle, and mean jack shit with respect to the idea that the 
government isn't "endorsing" something.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message