 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:04:42 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:40:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
Somehow I missed that, but at the same time, I fail to see how telling
people "if you believe in something, practice it" comes even close to
establishing a state-sponsored religion (especially the way the founders
were viewing it as it occurred in England).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Of course it is. It's an implicit encouragement from the government for
> people to follow a religious custom.
Does this mean Black History Month implies you should go out and be Black
for a few weeks?
(Sorry. Just being silly.)
--
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:
> he willingly broke the first amendment with
> complete disregard of the ruling.
Yep. Just like the last 60 years or so. :-) Plus, of course, the judge said
"I think it's unconstitutional, but let's push it all the way up before we
actually prohibit it." So he didn't break the law. He broke the law as
interpreted by one judge who admitted her interpretation might not be correct.
--
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:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:40:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Somehow I missed that,
Yeah. NDoP was established back when we were fighting the godless communists
in the 1950's.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:48:14 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:40:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Somehow I missed that,
>
> Yeah. NDoP was established back when we were fighting the godless
> communists in the 1950's.
Yes, back in 1952, but such a thing did actually exist off and on going
back to the 1700s in the US. The Continental Congress declared an NDP
back in 1775, and Washington proclaimed a day of public thanksgiving and
prayer back in 1795. (Obviously, the 1775 reference predates the US
Constitution). President Madison also declared an observance around 1813
as well.
So did Lincoln back in 1863.
Jefferson opposed it the idea in 1808.
The law as it stands today, just requires the President select a day for
NDP - it doesn't really say anything about what such prayer should be or
which denomination/religion/belief system should be the basis for such
selection.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
