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

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:08:49 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> 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.

I don't entirely disagree with what you've said above.  Having a prayer 
of any sort during government proceedings is a problem for me.

But that's not what we're talking about here.

> Sorry, but Warp is dead right. 

I respectfully disagree.  But hey, we can do that.

> The government promoting a day of prayer
> does not **in any way** imply anything other than an endorsement of
> religion in general, 

Which in and of itself does not violate the the constitution.  
Acknowledging that some people are religions is different from saying 
"You must pray on this day, and if you don't, you're going to jail".

From a historical context, that's what the founders were dealing with:  
In England, there was a state-sponsored religion, and practicing 
protestants were legally barred from practicing their own non-state-
sanctioned religion.

> 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.

And those things should be dealt with individually.  That doesn't 
inherently make the NDoP a bad thing or a violation of the US 
Constitution.  Again, this is something entirely different than the 
subject at hand.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12/01/2011 7:14 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> Oh, and in the case of snakes, during very early development, as I
> understand it, they do form limbs, but then those are reabsorbed, before
> they form fully, the "code" turning off, and other code scavenging the
> remains for other purposes.
>

Well yes.  During early development you and I formed gills but before 
they were fully formed they were reabsorbed or scavenged for other purposes.

You wouldn't say that all tetrapods possess gills today though would you?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   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.

  Of course it is. It's an implicit encouragement from the government for
people to follow a religious custom.

> "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.

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

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Paul Fuller <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote:
> On 12/01/2011 7:14 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> >
> > Oh, and in the case of snakes, during very early development, as I
> > understand it, they do form limbs, but then those are reabsorbed, before
> > they form fully, the "code" turning off, and other code scavenging the
> > remains for other purposes.
> >

> Well yes.  During early development you and I formed gills but before 
> they were fully formed they were reabsorbed or scavenged for other purposes.

> You wouldn't say that all tetrapods possess gills today though would you?

  AFAIK snakes have vestigial limbs (usually quite obvious when looking
at their skeletons).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:04:42 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   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.
> 
>   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".

>> "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.  
It doesn't establish a state-sponsored religion at all.  It says "hey, if 
you believe in this, practice it".  Simple.  Not advocating for Jesus, 
not advocating for the Pope, just simply saying "if you believe this, do 
it."

>   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."

The former is not establishment of a state-sponsored religion.  The 
second is.  Note the differences.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> life on Earth wouldn't exist because
>>> all bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up, killing all living
>>> organisms.
> 
>> Well, unless they evolved in San Diego. ;-)
> 
>   The reference is completely lost on me.

Water outside doesn't freeze in San Diego. It rarely goes below freezing 
here, let alone long enough to make water freeze solid outdoors.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> helping structures which are later removed as obsolete.

That too. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> (I don't know if there are concrete examples of this.)

It's trivial to do in a lab. Take any experiment that speciates fruit flies, 
for example. Stop it half way through and let them mix together again. 
Bingo, it happened. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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'll just point out again that it wasn't the executive branch, but the 
congress, that declared a national day of prayer.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message