Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   Of course it is. It's an implicit encouragement from the government
> >   for
> > people to follow a religious custom.

> IF THEY BELIEVE IN IT.  It's not saying "even if you don't believe in it, 
> give it a try, you might like it".

  Yeah, like there were only two types of people: Those who firmly believe
and those who firmly don't believe. There is nothing in between. Like,
I don't know, impressionable children? Yeah, they don't exist.

  It's not the place for the government to tell people, even indirectly,
that a religion has a sound basis. There *are* impressionable people out
there who will believe something more easily if a high authority promotes
it. There is already enough misinformation out there. The government
shouldn't be encouraging it.

> >> "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.
> > 
> >   Of course they are free to do whatever they want, but not officially
> > on behalf of the government. The government has certain responsibilities
> > and duties towards their citizens.

> Of course they do.  And encouraging people to practice their beliefs - 
> whatever those beliefs are - isn't advocating for a particular religion.  

  Ah, so you want to nitpick between "advocating for a *particular* religion"
vs. "advocating religion". The government can be as religious as they want
as long as they don't advocate any particular religion.

  No, and a thousand times no. It's not the place for the government to
take any stance whatsoever on religion (or non-religion). It doesn't matter
if they differentiate between religions or not. That's not the issue.

  If you ask a government official, in an official setting, "what's the
government's position on religion?", the correct answer is "no comment".

> It doesn't establish a state-sponsored religion at all.  It says "hey, if 
> you believe in this, practice it".  Simple.

  A "national day of prayer" is certainly not a neutral proclamation of
religious freedom, "if you want to do something religious, just do it,
we won't stop you".

  Just think about it like this: Why exactly do you need a "national day
of prayer"? What's so special about that particular day? What purpose does
it serve? Why does the government have to declare a special day for that?

  If you think about the answer, you'll see that the government is not
being neutral and impartial in this matter, as they should.

>  Not advocating for Jesus, 
> not advocating for the Pope

  Advocating prayer. What's the difference, exactly?

> >   When the president speaks to the country on a televised official
> >   ceremony,
> > that's quite different from the president talking with a friend.

> Sure.  And saying "if you believe in this, here's an opportunity to 
> practice it" is different from saying "if you don't, we'll fine you or 
> lock your ass up in jail."

  You don't seem to understand the difference between promoting and forcing.

  You claim is "they are not promoting religion" and your argument for that
is "they are not forcing religion to be practiced". A fallacious argument if
I ever saw one.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message