two articles
May. 6th, 2010 09:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tinpraRuling won't stop National Day of Prayer this year
and
Justice Denied For Christians As Counsellor Refused Right To Appeal
opinions, on the first one at least, later. gotta run!
EDIT
So Mom actually told me about the National Day of Prayer ruling the other day...maybe Sunday. If you don't know, US District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that the National Day of Prayer, with its Presidential Proclamation, is unconstitutional; it infringes on the rights of others who do not wish to pray and causes the state to unlawfully promote religion. I can't find the exact quote from the Judge, and so I'm not sure if she says it's actually unconstitutional, but I believe she does. However, here's the actual quote from the first amendment as found on the National Archives' website: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
As many of you know, it's the very first line of the first amendment to the Constitution (i.e. the Bill of Rights). As many of you also know, the term "separation of church and state" is not found in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It's found in some of Thomas Jefferson's writings. I'm pretty sure I've argued the finer points of this with Katya before, but to be very technical it doesn't exist (something another judge pointed out a number of years ago, now). I won't disagree that the sentiment isn't there in a sense. It very clearly says that a government should not create a religion, make a particular religion--or in our day religion at all--an institution, or stop anyone from practicing a religion--or, again, not practicing one. The question then becomes does the National Day of Prayer and its government backing do any of those things? Does it create a religion? Does it set up religion as an institution? Does it stop someone from practicing their chosen religion as they see fit, or not practicing religion as all?
As far as I know, there is no compulsion to actually pray on the National Day of Prayer. There is also no compulsion to pray a specific prayer, to pray to a specific person or diety. The National Day of Prayer doesn't have an particular rites that must be observed from year to year. I'm sure each president has consistently observed it in his own way during their tenure, but that probably hasn't been the same from president to president. And although people who are against this see it as yet another crazy/stupid Christian thing, and the continuance of it a concession to the "Christian Right" they are technically the only ones assigning the National Day of Prayer to a particular religion. It's not the National Day of Prayer to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, or the National Day of Prayers to the Ancestors, etc and so on. There also aren't any police beating you with clubs or tasing you if you aren't performing any religious observances at all.
Also, a lot of what I've seen from people online who are against the National Day of Prayer has been along the lines of "It doesn't do anything." "It's a pointless waste of time." "Why don't they do something more useful like give blood/help the poor/get a life." I think for most people thinking along those lines nothing I could say about how I've seen prayer change the person praying might be moot. But I can't imagine that some of the great leaders of our age fervently believed in prayer. Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, the Dali Llama, etc. to name a few. Prayer did not make them less. It didn't prove their stupidity, it wasn't a sign of laziness, or a show of weakness. For many, I'm sure, it helped lend them strength. And whether you want to argue that they didn't actually need to pray, clearly it didn't hurt them. Even if it prayer does nothing in the end, it doesn't hurt the one who doesn't want to pray either.
and
Justice Denied For Christians As Counsellor Refused Right To Appeal
opinions, on the first one at least, later. gotta run!
EDIT
So Mom actually told me about the National Day of Prayer ruling the other day...maybe Sunday. If you don't know, US District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that the National Day of Prayer, with its Presidential Proclamation, is unconstitutional; it infringes on the rights of others who do not wish to pray and causes the state to unlawfully promote religion. I can't find the exact quote from the Judge, and so I'm not sure if she says it's actually unconstitutional, but I believe she does. However, here's the actual quote from the first amendment as found on the National Archives' website: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
As many of you know, it's the very first line of the first amendment to the Constitution (i.e. the Bill of Rights). As many of you also know, the term "separation of church and state" is not found in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It's found in some of Thomas Jefferson's writings. I'm pretty sure I've argued the finer points of this with Katya before, but to be very technical it doesn't exist (something another judge pointed out a number of years ago, now). I won't disagree that the sentiment isn't there in a sense. It very clearly says that a government should not create a religion, make a particular religion--or in our day religion at all--an institution, or stop anyone from practicing a religion--or, again, not practicing one. The question then becomes does the National Day of Prayer and its government backing do any of those things? Does it create a religion? Does it set up religion as an institution? Does it stop someone from practicing their chosen religion as they see fit, or not practicing religion as all?
As far as I know, there is no compulsion to actually pray on the National Day of Prayer. There is also no compulsion to pray a specific prayer, to pray to a specific person or diety. The National Day of Prayer doesn't have an particular rites that must be observed from year to year. I'm sure each president has consistently observed it in his own way during their tenure, but that probably hasn't been the same from president to president. And although people who are against this see it as yet another crazy/stupid Christian thing, and the continuance of it a concession to the "Christian Right" they are technically the only ones assigning the National Day of Prayer to a particular religion. It's not the National Day of Prayer to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, or the National Day of Prayers to the Ancestors, etc and so on. There also aren't any police beating you with clubs or tasing you if you aren't performing any religious observances at all.
Also, a lot of what I've seen from people online who are against the National Day of Prayer has been along the lines of "It doesn't do anything." "It's a pointless waste of time." "Why don't they do something more useful like give blood/help the poor/get a life." I think for most people thinking along those lines nothing I could say about how I've seen prayer change the person praying might be moot. But I can't imagine that some of the great leaders of our age fervently believed in prayer. Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, the Dali Llama, etc. to name a few. Prayer did not make them less. It didn't prove their stupidity, it wasn't a sign of laziness, or a show of weakness. For many, I'm sure, it helped lend them strength. And whether you want to argue that they didn't actually need to pray, clearly it didn't hurt them. Even if it prayer does nothing in the end, it doesn't hurt the one who doesn't want to pray either.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-06 04:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-07 01:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-07 02:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-07 02:12 am (UTC)The article sounds interesting. I'd be curious to know what kinds of belief the writer has. A while ago Times Magazine, or maybe New York Times, ran two articles that was supposed to show opposing sides of a Judeo-Christian debate but for the Judeo-Christian perspective they chose someone who is only vaguely religious. From what I understand they received a number of letters from very confused people wondering where the 2nd side was.