This is total and utter bullshit!

[Cheyenne]

Chey, please tell me your tongue is at least partially in your cheek.

Partially.

Then again, there is probably some truth to it, too. Or do you really believe that it isn't likely for soldiers in battle to pray when they are under fire and afraid for their lives, even if they previously have considered themselves to be atheists?

How many atheists here can say they never ever prayed even once in their life, even if it was a "just in case" prayer to try to save a loved one who was dying, etc.?

Might make an interesting thread. I thought it was fairly common for people under extreme stress to turn to prayer, even if they weren't normally believers.

 

[modest mouse]

Sorry, I dont think men turning to religion out of desperation validates the religion.

I'm an atheist and I dont do 'just in case' prayers.

 

[kotori]

Farsighted? not really...they knew that they didn't want the church (Catholic) to be part of any control or government in their new country.

Not to get all "demoninational" but it wasn't Catholicism, it was Anglicanism. The Church of England was the official recognised-by-the-government (Parliament) state religion, and this was true in the colonies as well (at least by 1776). After the creation of the United States, the Anglican church in American became the Episcopal church, and created their own Book of Common Prayer, in part because of the fact the English prayer book made specific reference to the Royal Family, the King being the temporal leader of the Church. The first Episcopal bishop in the US was ordained by three Scotish Anglican bishops--same community, but distinct Church. The Disestablishment of the CofE happened in the mid-19th century.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I'm an atheist, I've been near death on several occasions, and I'm never prayed to any god, goddess, spirit, ghost, Easter Bunny, whatever. I think it is reprehensible that the politicians will ignore laws in order to garner votes from the stupidest and most repressive group in the country.

 

[peachykeen]

How many atheists here can say they never ever prayed even once in their life, even if it was a "just in case" prayer to try to save a loved one who was dying, etc.?

Might make an interesting thread. I thought it was fairly common for people under extreme stress to turn to prayer, even if they weren't normally believers.

Well, I can say I have never prayed to "God", but I do pray. I look at it as an extension of my meditation, really. For exmple, this summer when I was taking care of my mom while she was going the chemo I did a daily yoga/meditation/prayer ritual; which in theory I would like to do every day now as well but it ends up being only a couple of times a week. It's somehting I put out to the forces of the universe greater than myself, but not a 'god' per se.

 

[cg_allstar]

DCL, sorry but you are incorrect. Multi-denominational is a joke. Such a thing does not truly exist. The fact that the Senates own website 'assures' us that our Senators strongly reaffirm their belief in god is bad enough.

A chaplain should receive no taxpayer money nor should it be an officially recognized position. The opening prayer is blatantly unconstitutional.

The people who wrote the Constitution didn't agree with you.

 

[ma_guy]

The claim that the Congress's use a of a Chaplin is "unconstitutional" is entirely bullshit. The claim being launched here is based on a 1st Amendment issue but the 1st Amendment doesn't trump the body of the Constitution itself.

Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution gives the Congress the authority. ""Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."

The Congresss is free to setup it's own rules for conduct of it's internal affairs and there isn't a damn thing the Supreme Court can say about it. You can't claim something that is in the Constitution itself is Unconstitutional.

 

[lavender]

Actually, Ma_Guy, it's not a First Amendment issue. It's an Establishment Clause issue - the idea of separation of church and state.

 

[modest mouse]

Dudes, its obviously against the spirit of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, basically said it was a 'loophole'.

You can choose to go verbatim or with the Constituion as a living document.

 

[ma_guy]

Actually, Ma_Guy, it's not a First Amendment issue. It's an Establishment Clause issue - the idea of separation of church and state.

Quite right Lavy! I was think establishment but wrote 1st Amendment... My brain hasn't fully kicked in yet thgis morning..

The point still holds though.. Something that is within the Constitution can't be ruled Unconstitutional under another provision.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Scrambling around to find a loophole in order to violate the spirit of the law is pretty shady, don't you think?

 

[ma_guy]

Dudes, its obviously against the spirit of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, basically said it was a 'loophole'.

You can choose to go verbatim or with the Constituion as a living document.

Until the USSC rulings of the 1960s/1970s "the spirit" on the US Constiutution was interpreted otherwise. Prayer was allowed in public schools and religious icons were allowed on public property.

The Constitution being a "living document" doesn't mean that we are free it interpret in any manner we many choose as the whim strikes us. It is a living document because we have the ability to modify it through appropriate means which are spelled out in the document itself.

 

[unclej]

am i the only person on this board simple minded enough to believe that the constitution says what it says about church and state in order to keep the souther baptists or the presbyterians or the mormons from running the country as a church? saying a prayer on the battlefield or in the house chambers most certainly does not violate the constitution either in spirit or actuality.

i'm assuming this thread was started to begin a spirited debate. if a couple of you actually believe the bullshit your talking then you need to go back to school. or have you actually gotten out yet?

 

[ma_guy]

Scrambling around to find a loophole in order to violate the spirit of the law is pretty shady, don't you think?

Not near as shady as athiests screaming about anything vaguely "religious" to have it ripped from public view to further their own religion...

 

[modest mouse]

ma_guy,

I cannot argue the law with you because I simply dont have the ammunition. legally speeking i think you are correct.

But I think Congress has the right to have a chaplain, legally. But they have a responsibility to the people not to have one. its too bad they made sucha lousy decision.

I strongly agree that atheists are enforcing their religion on anyone by not wanting religious symbols validated by Govt. That seems like a naive view.

***

uncle j, Your post is hopefully being misinterpreted. It comes off like a judgemental asshole.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Just to clarify a point....children can still pray in schools, the court ruling simply restricts the official involvement in prayer. Teachers aren't allowed to lead prayer, or take time out in class for prayer. Kids can, and do, still have after-school prayer groups, can meet together during lunch, etc. In the same way, there is nothing keeping Congess from having little informal prayers if they like, but making it an official part of the day's agenda is a violation of the spirit of the Establishment Clause.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Not near as shady as athiests screaming about anything vaguely "religious" to have it ripped from public view to further their own religion...

you know what the quickest way to change people's minds about that is? Start putting up the symbols of other religions next to theirs. It's ok to endorse the religion you believe in, just as long as the heathans stay in the closet, right? The government has a responsibility to remain neutral in regards to religion. There are churches on every block, religious symbols on a large percentage of private property.

The REAL reason for people supporting forcing their religious symbols on the public is because they feel the need for validation, not because it is just, fair, or even legal. They also want to force others to believe as they do. When you allow one group to display only their symbols, you begin to take away rights from others. And claiming that atheists are taking away your freedom...your freedom to take the freedom from others?

 

[kotori]

Until the USSC rulings of the 1960s/1970s "the spirit" on the US Constiutution was interpreted otherwise. Prayer was allowed in public schools and religious icons were allowed on public property.

The Constitution being a "living document" doesn't mean that we are free it interpret in any manner we many choose as the whim strikes us. It is a living document because we have the ability to modify it through appropriate means which are spelled out in the document itself.

I wouldn't typically think of the terms "whim" and "Supreme Court" in the same sentence. The job of the Court is to interpret the Constitution, and they can't help but to do so in the spirit of the times in which they live. Sometimes that means chosing one part of the Constitution over another, too. And hey, the overturn themselves too.

 

[Lancecastor]

With their mullahs....er, chaplains doing chants....er, prayers to open and close each session, the US government is very similar to the Iraqi government, yes?

I'll bet the Supreme Being gets a huge giggle out of the hatred that adherents of every religous-political sect spews at the others.

Lance

 

[ma_guy]

The REAL reason for people supporting forcing their religious symbols on the public is because they feel the need for validation, not because it is just, fair, or even legal. They also want to force others to believe as they do. When you allow one group to display only their symbols, you begin to take away rights from others. And claiming that atheists are taking away your freedom...your freedom to take the freedom from others?

The "REAL" reason? It's a pretty bing presumption to assume that one knows what everyone else thinks or does.

I could argue your point in the exact reverse here. Do Athiests object to the religious icons of others because they need to have their belief validated? Do Atheists want to force others to believe as they do?

 

[A Desert Rose]

the Supreme Being gets a huge giggle ...

Lance

I bet this Supreme Being with the huge giggle has a giant moustache that scares the bejesus out of STG, too.

Okay, I am going to take a bath now.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

The "REAL" reason? It's a pretty bing presumption to assume that one knows what everyone else thinks or does.

I could argue your point in the exact reverse here. Do Athiests object to the religious icons of others because they need to have their belief validated? Do Atheists want to force others to believe as they do?

Do you remember when you were a kid, and you and a sibling would fight over a toy, and your mom would decide to just take the toy away from you both? Well, if you have an official decision to allow for one public religious display, then all religions must be allowed equal access to display what they like. Do you really want to see a Ten Commandments monument in a courtroom one day, then in a month there's a Star of David, a totem pole, a gold statue of Buddha, etc? The only two fair and legal choices is official recognition of ALL religions, or official reciognition of NONE...which one do you think is going to cause less problems?

 

[phrodeau]

Attendance in school is mandatory.

Nobody would say diddly if a congressman walked in after the end of the prayer.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Attendance in school is mandatory.

Nobody would say diddly if a congressman walked in after the end of the prayer.

on the other hand, wouldn't it be more in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution to do the prayer outside, in a conference room ofr something, and then start the day?

 

[ma_guy]

Do you remember when you were a kid, and you and a sibling would fight over a toy, and your mom would decide to just take the toy away from you both? Well, if you have an official decision to allow for one public religious display, then all religions must be allowed equal access to display what they like. Do you really want to see a Ten Commandments monument in a courtroom one day, then in a month there's a Star of David, a totem pole, a gold statue of Buddha, etc? The only two fair and legal choices is official recognition of ALL religions, or official reciognition of NONE...which one do you think is going to cause less problems?

There is a significant distintion between "recognition" and "establishment". The government already officially recognizes hundreds of religions (many of them are officially granted tax-exempt status.).

At the same time the government is prohibited for "establishing" any of them as the standard religion endorsed by the government itself.

Whether either position may or may not cause less problems is supposed to be irrelevant to the law. Freedom of Speech can cause a lot of problems too but we don't run around stripping that right away from everyone because it "might cause problems".