Obama will still issue National Day of Prayer proclamation (Obama's departure from the Bush policys)

[Omaha Steve]

Source: USA Today

The blogosphere and Facebook have been overwhelmed over the past 24 hours with rumors and accusations that President Obama has canceled the National Day of Prayer, scheduled for Thursday May 6. So, is it true?

No. The rumors arise out of Thursday's decision by Wisconsin U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. She ruled that it violates the First Amendment's ban against a law respecting an establishment of religion (full decision pdf).

The Obama administration has both tweeted and confirmed in an e-mail to the Associated Press from spokesman Matt Lehrich that Obama still plans to recognize The National Day of Prayer as it did last year.

Bloggers that accused Obama of canceling the National Day of Prayer also cite displeasure with Obama's departure from the Bush administration policies. Last year, Obama decided not to hold an official White House service for the day, as former President George W. Bush did during his administration. (But Obama did make a proclamation.)


Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/04/obama-will-still-issue-national-day-of-prayer-proclamation/1

[LiberalFighter]

1. Proclamation fine. Event for Prayer not fine.

[jefferson_dem]

2. Exactly.

I'm extra vigilant on church-state issues. There's a super fine line but I know when it's being crossed.

[SkyDaddy7]

3. As far as I am concerned...

An official proclamation crosses the line! Not to mention the growing list of other violations of the Establishment Clause!

...I guess that qualifies me as an "Angry Atheist"???

[pattmarty]

4. I agree, mark me down as an angry agnostic.

[kdsimantel]

37. Amen to that!

I couldn't agree more.

[DavidDvorkin]

9. Quite right

It does cross the line.

[Capt. America]

31. +1

[skepticscott]

34. Since it should very easily be interpreted by the citizenry

as an official statement by the government that "you should pray today", yeah, it vaults over the line by yards. People's right to pray as a private matter has never been restricted, and they certainly don't need the government to tell them when's a good time to do it.

[SkyDaddy7]

43. I totally agree!

And the way religion is used to win elections, discriminate against homosexuals, attack women's rights, altering public school science (and now history with the Texas School Board crap), main stream science & medical research. It worries me.

[DissedByBush]

38. I'm not concerned

Does a day of prayer affect my rights in any way?

Nope. Let 'em say their prayers.

One not-so-angry atheist.

[SkyDaddy7]

41. Well, it is a good thing that others are concerned!

I respect your right to sit by and not worry about it because it does not directly impact you but it could.

I am not so much an "Angry Atheist" as I am a very concerned American.

[No Elephants]

59. "Let them pray" is not the issue. .

[LiberalFighter]

26. It be so much easier to eliminate tax exempt status for anything religious in nature.

That might eliminate a lot of churches.

But if they want to form an organization for the express purpose of providing needed services to help people that would be fine.

[No Elephants]

68. It's not a super fine line at all, at least not according to Thomas Jefferson. Please also see

Reply 67.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

35. Proclamation not fine. Event for Prayer even less fine.

[No Elephants]

67. Why is the Proclamation fine? Court says it's unconstitutional. Did you read the opinion?

Have you read all the SCOTUS cases on the Establishment Clause?

[safeinOhio]

5. Well lets just make those bloggers put up or shut up

Now that you want your day of prayer, lets have you decide which prayer to make it. Mormon? Catholic? Primitive Baptist? Etc.etc. You think there is a battle between religion and non-religion? Wait until it moves to "which" religion we are going to be. That would be the next logical step. The Founding Fathers saw that.

[dragonlady]

13. It would be hard for them to learn Hebrew or Arabic in two weeks

Better defer those until next year.

[glinda]

6. It should be changed to a "National Day of Diversity and Understanding" .

[joanmj]

7. good idea

[old mark]

30. Yeah, we don't have one like that, do we....we seem to have a National Pickle Week, though...

Priorities, I guess....

mark

[Demeter]

8. In every bet, there is a fool and a thief. -- Anonymous

Which one is Obama?

Every man is a damn fool for at least five minutes every day; wisdom consists in not exceeding the limit. --Elbert Hubbard

"An expert is a damn fool a long way from home."--Carl Sandberg


"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak out and remove all doubt." -- Abraham Lincoln

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. -- Richard Feynman

Who's more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him? -- Obi Wan Kenobi

[enki23]

16. er... what? did you look up "fool" quotes and regurgitate a bunch of 'em?

what the hell does that have to do with the subject at hand?

[Demeter]

18. Please Don't Make It That Easy

I can never resist a straight line.

[christx30]

29. I saw this one on Facebook the other day:

"If you are arguing with an idiot, make sure the other guy isn't doing the same thing."

[Raksha]

40. Good one!

"If you are arguing with an idiot, make sure the other guy isn't doing the same thing."

[penndragon69]

10. Change the name to

National day of antiquated ignorance.
That sums up religion pretty accurately.

[IndianaGreen]

25. How about National Day of Superstition and Ignorance

followed by a chicken sacrifice to the Santeria god Chango?

[No Elephants]

71. How about a National Day of Reason, instead? Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Reason

[onehandle]

11. I have no problem with this. It shows that the party is inclusive of people of faith.

Which is around 80% of America.

[enlightenment]

17. Yeah - it's been a really BIG problem, proving how

inclusive they are to people of faith.

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

27. It only shows kow-towing to superstition and ignorance

to some blood thirsty deity that hasn't done shit for the human race except genocide in the name of religion.

[krabigirl]

77. to be fair, it's not the deity's fault...only the fault of man and their organized gangs (religion)

[No Elephants]

60. True, it's all about the Party, not the Establishment clause of the Constitution.

[krabigirl]

76. wow, so the separation of church and state mean nothing, right?

[PSPS]

12. Policies

[Turbineguy]

14. It's a head fake!

He's gonna take away yer guns!

[onehandle]

15. That goes without saying. nt

[Democat]

19. Did you hear that Obama was born in Kenya?

That's what it says on the internet!

[Turbineguy]

20. No shit?

I thought he was born in Hawaii. What a dumbass I am. Thanks for setting me straight.

[No Elephants]

61. He was only born in Hawaii on his mother's side. On his father's side, he was born in Kenya.

It was very tough on his mother.

[liquid diamond]

21. I don't have a problem with this.

People are encouraged to pray, not forced. If atheists don't want to, don't do it.

[MindPilot]

33. How would you feel if there was a National Day of Ridiculing Religion?

The President would read a proclamation stating that Atheism is the morally and intellectually superior position.

But believers wouldn't have to listen to it; no one is forcing them.

[liquid diamond]

45. How about a more realistic comparison?

Seriously, if you feel so intellectually superior, why do you people panic over the idea of *gasp* prayer! Tolerant liberals believe that prayer doesn't hurt. It is hard to believe that there are liberal bigots, but they come out of the woodwork when religion is mentioned in a positive light.

[ProudDad]

56. This is COMPLETELY ANALOGOUS

The President would read a proclamation stating that Atheism is the morally and intellectually superior position.

That you don't see it illustrates why constant government endorsement of christianist myths is dangerous.

[MindPilot]

58. Isn't calling a fellow DUer a "bigot" kind of against the rules?

"You people"?! Me thinks you use a lot of coded language to be lecturing me on tolerance.

And for the record, I did not say "Atheism is intellectually and morally superior." I asked how you would feel if the President were to say that. Tolerance is about trying on the other dude's moccasins, not believing the obvious that prayer doesn't hurt. (It doesn't help either, but that is a whole 'nother discussion.)

[skepticscott]

36. Why do people need to be encouraged to pray

by their government? Why is this necessary in the slightest? Are people too weak and stupid to decide out for themselves when, where and how they want to pray?

[liquid diamond]

46. Feel free to ignore the government's plea.

Curse God and go about your business. You have that right, so what is the problem? You guys are blowing this way out of proportion.

[skepticscott]

48. Answer the question instead of ducking it

Why does the government need to be encouraging people to pray AT ALL? Are people incapable of deciding for themselves when, where and how they will pray?

[liquid diamond]

50. Why are you so threatened by prayer? It doesn't hurt.

[skepticscott]

51. Obviously you can't do more than duck a direct question

which is always a sign of someone on the losing end of an argument.

But in any case, please cite where I said I was threatened by prayer..if you can, which I doubt. I have no problem with people praying as a private matter, anywhere and any time they like. Knock yourself out. I have a problem with the government endorsing and encouraging religious practices, because it's unconstitutional, for starters, and because enormous harm is caused by a civil government sucking up to religious fundamentalists (which is all this is about, frankly). Do you understand the distinction?

[liquid diamond]

52. Saying a prayer isn't "sucking up to religious fundamentalists".

People are free to decide whether or not they want to practice religion whether it is "endorsed" by the government or not. Atheists love to compare that to advertising. Fine. Treat it as a company endorsing a commercial product (new shoes, a television, a weight loss plan). Ignore it or buy it. The choice is yours. How horrifying.

[skepticscott]

53. You really are completely clueless about this, aren't you?

"People are free to decide whether or not they want to practice religion whether it is "endorsed" by the government or not."

You must not know a thing about history or why the establishment clause is in the Constitution, or you wouldn't even dream of saying something so assinine. Companies do not have the coercive power that governments have exercised throughout history, and companies advertising their product is not prohibited by the Constitution. The government endorsing religion is.

And btw, this is exactly about sucking up to Xstian fundies. The only reason that every president and every presidential candidate parades their godliness before the public is to appease the religious right.

[liquid diamond]

72. Explain how the government is more coercive than a commercial

company in regards to endorsing religion. People bash the Christian faith constantly. People can practice whatever religion they want in America. It seems that they are not subject to the government "imposing" religion. I don't get the hostility toward a president's faith, but they aren't going to hold back speaking their beliefs because they offend you. Now cry me a fucking river.

[ProudDad]

55. There's a big difference between government endorsed

bullshit religiosity and "and advertisement"...

If you don't know the difference, you're part of the problem.

This is supposed to be a SECULAR setup -- don't need no stinkin' endorsement of spurious Dog myths -- in fact, they're DANGEROUS...

As your ignorant responses testify...

[liquid diamond]

73. The way you describe religion shows me you are

incapable of intelligent debate. It must suck having that intolerance and hate bundled inside. It just goes to show that yes even liberals can be bigots.

[ProudDad]

74. Who you calling a "liberal"

I am a Nontheist-Anarchist; religion is irrelevant to me.

I don't care if you feel a need to worship Baal, God, Kali, Jesus or feces dangling from your nether region. All religion is irrelevant and silly to me and has no purpose in my life...

BUT...

When you religionists try to push it on others, your "right" to your religion ends when State-sanctioned proselytizing begins...

By pushing your particular set of myths and wondering why some people are offended, you Sir or Madam are the bigot, not I,

As for intelligent debate, the Founding Fathers settled the question. Being primarily Deists and distrustful of any organized religion, they produced a framework that specified a secular state with NO promotion of ANY religious dogma allowed. Being the hypocrites they were, they didn't succeed in practice but they laid the groundwork for an eventual Secular State.

There has been considerable backsliding, especially since the early 1950's Red Scare that produced that egregious "under God" bullshit on our money and pledge (along with prayer in the schools and stupid proclamations like a "national day of prayer" that leaves out a substantial portion of the population).

I find that the most bigoted and unintelligent "debaters" are religionists such as yourself when confronted with actual facts that counter your myths.

[longship]

75. Ever heard of a slippery slope?

To say *nothing* about the fact that it violates the first amendment of the US Constitution.

The government has no business having anything to do with religion, or prayer.

That's the very simple issue.

[SlipperySlope]

79. Nope, never heard of him.

[No Elephants]

64. Au contraire. You are diminishing its importance way more than you should.

BTW, it has nothing to do with cursing God, which I would never do. It has to do with separation of church and state, period.

[No Elephants]

62. It doesn't give you pause that a judge thinks it's unconstitutional? Have you read the opinion?

[IndianaGreen]

22. National Day of Prayer was a C Street cult idea, and Obama is doing their bidding!

The cult known as The Family, which runs the infamous C Street house for rightwing members of Congress, was behind the establishment of the National Day of Prayer.

Rachel Maddow Draws Fire From GOP Rep. For Reporting On 'The Family' (VIDEO)

Jason Linkins
First Posted: 07-14-09 12:07 PM | Updated: 08-14-09 05:12 AM

Apparently, "The Rachel Maddow Show" has drawn fire from the office of Congressman Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) over a segment aired last week on The Family, an organization that's best known for organizing the National Prayer Breakfast but becoming better known for "C Street." C Street is a house where several members of Congress reside, and through which Mark Sanford and John Ensign are receiving some sort of undefined "counseling" for their extramarital affairs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/rachel-maddow-draws-fire_n_231538.html

We didn't vote for Obama for him to cater to the American Taliban, which is what The Family is.

[struggle4progress]

49. I think you're confusing "The Family"s National Prayer Breakfast in February

with the annual National Prayer Day proclamation usually issued by the President in May (based on an act of Congress signed into law by Truman about sixty years ago)

I find them both silly and think the Republic would be better off without them. But they're not the same thing

[No Elephants]

63. Not necessarily. The Fellowship was responsible for the Prayer Breakast, which

began around the same time Congress passed the law about the Proclamation. They were only a year apart. It's a safe bet The Fellowship lobbied for the NDP, whether it originaed it or not. IMO, it's a pretty safe bet that it originated the idea, too.

Within another year "under God" was in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Knights of Columbus get the "credit" for that one, but, again, I suspect at least some involvement by The Fellowship.

[No Elephants]

69. The Family and C Street are part of The Fellowship, which pre-dates both groups and is

much larger.

Since the NDP was an early 1950's law, I'm guessing it was The Fellowship that at least lobbied for it, if not instigated it. The Presidential Prayer Breakfast, which began at around the same time, was definitely the brainchild of The Fellowship.

Like Bohemian Grove, The Fellowship is international. See also The Carlyle Group, for whom Poppy Bush worked after his Presidency. IMO, it's the financial counterpart of The Fellowship an/or Bohemian Grove, but that's only my opinion. I haven't seen anyhing that says that. All three are international RW groups, though.

[lynne]

23. I don't have a problem and see no conflict -

- as the proclamation does not state that you must pray to a specific entity or be a certain religion and it certainly doesn't state that the government says you must do it. As any/all religions pray or have a moment of silence and reflection, I have no problems or conflicts.

[IndianaGreen]

24. Those that believe the mythology of religion can do so in their temples

and should keep from having the government issue ridiculous proclamations to the gods.

[frylock]

28. matthew 6:6..

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

http://bible.cc/matthew/6-6.htm

[lynne]

44. Actually, those that believe the mythology of religion can do so anywhere they please -

- which is one of the wonderful things about this country!

[MindPilot]

32. If their faith is so strong and their numbers so great...

why do they need the government to help them pray?

[abq e streeter]

39. As someone who believes in ,and practices, daily prayer, official government endorsement offends me

As does ( even more) the words "under god" being the pledge...However, while I have been and continue to be, anywhere from upset to furious about some of the "compromises" of the Obama administration, this one is something I do understand in terms of political expediency and practicality and cut him some slack on. It is relatively innocuous and I see no need to give ammunition to our enemies over something like this; sometimes you gotta know which battles to pick to fight , although god knows , (pun intended, BTW) in my opinion he hasn't picked nearly enough of 'em, but this one would seem to me to be unnecessary and counterproductive. This is just my opinion, and to anyone who disagrees and thinks this is a stand that should be made, I understand your perspective and acknowledge that you may very well be right.

[No Elephants]

70. This is a battle his oath of office requires him to fight, though.

If he believes the Court decision is correct.

He could at least say he is suspending the Proclamation until the final court decision in this matter.

[lazarus]

42. Not cool

Just mentioning atheists in the inauguration speech is not enough. I want National Atheism Day. He's bending over backwards to please all the faiths, how about the rest of us?

[Odin2005]

47. And we non-believers get slapped in the face, again.

[No Elephants]

65. Along with believers who believe in separation of church and state.

It's about the Establishment clause, not about atheists OR believers.

[krabigirl]

78. yep...or people who believe in God but not religion.

[ProudDad]

54. It should be cancelled!

It's is obviously unconstitutional along with that "In God We Trust" bullshit!

But this is the hypocritical USAmerikan Empire, what else should one expect from a fascist, corporate capitalist kleptocracy?

[truthisfreedom]

57. Obama's not taking away our right to not give a shit. But I do wish he'd replace that day with this

one:

International Let's All Coexist Peacefully Day.

[No Elephants]

66. There is one Act of Congress, circa 1952, requiring that the President

issue a Proclamation on a day convenient for him. There is another Act of Congress, some time in the 1980's, requiring that the day be a certain Thursday in May (first? second? third? I forgot which).

The case may be appealed.

The President is about to issue a Proclamation.

WARNING:

If you're interested in thinking about separation of powers, either alone, or in connection with everyone's oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constiution, all this could cause your head could explode.