On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:19:00 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>   Well, look at it like this: You (and by that I mean the USA) have
> basically two options:
> 
>   1) Keep the government separate and completely neutral with respect to
> religion, taking no stance on it whatsoever (as long as they don't break
> the law, of course), like any other civilized country.

Declaring a national day of prayer does not have the government taking a 
stance on religion.  Just like a declaration of a National Day of 
Twinkies doesn't mean that everyone should go out and buy Twinkies if 
they don't want to.

"Shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion" does not 
mean that it prohibits people who work in government from ever talking 
about religion.

>   2) Keep arguing about the wording of your constitution, and the
>   government
> proclaiming religious events, and praying before state senate meetings,
> and causing all kinds of controversy and legal battles over the matter.
> 
>   Which one of the two choices seems more practical in the long run?

It's not really a matter of practicality, it's a matter of law.  Sadly, 
the two don't always go hand in hand.

Jim

Post a reply to this message