Atheists Sue President Over National Prayer Day

Fox News ^ | October 3, 2008 | Associated Press

[AndyTheBear]

MADISON, Wis. — The nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics is suing President Bush, the governor of Wisconsin and other officials over the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer.

[metmom]

It does more than prevent the government from establishing a religion. It prevents the government from making any laws which support or decry religion.

That is NOT true.

The First Amendment is very specific about what it says. It restricts the powers of the federal government when it comes to meddling in religion. It specifically addresses what can and cannot be done and by whom. It specifically prohibits Congress only from making laws. It says NOTHING about supporting or decrying, or even endorsing, religion.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And in typical liberal or atheist fashion, you totally ignored the second clause in the First Amendment which is *prohibiting the free exercise thereof*.

There is nothing unconstitutional about the President proclaiming a national day of prayer.

[metmom]

So just how do you consider China and France *successful?

You admit that China, at least, is not morally upright. Then what’s successful? Human rights? Working conditions for the people? Freedom for the people? Standard of living? Health? Justice system?

How is France successful? They’re about ready to be overrun by Islam. That doesn’t sound too successful to me.

[metmom]

And as for why I align myself with atheists: It’s because I value rational thought as a tool for understanding ourselves and our place in the world.

Excuse us. So just because we have faith, we're not rational? Or capable of rational thought?

Newsflash.... Atheists have no monopoly on rational thought. As a matter of fact, behavior such as demonstrated by the lawsuit that this thread is about is a clear demonstration of that.

[Darkwolf377]

I feel as an atheist (but not one of THOSE atheists) I can speak to this.

Atheists pretend we live in a religion-neutral country, and that this country was founded to be a secularist nation.

We have religious freedom, but we are essentially a Judeo-Christian nation.

Atheists don't want to believe this simple fact. They think that somehow it's pure coincidence that we've gotten along this way for 200+ years, and that we are on the verge of becoming a theocracy.

[metmom]

My point is, we have no grounds for concluding that all atheistic nations are doomed to immorality. I wouldn’t jump to such conclusions.

Of course they are doomed to immorality because they have no standard by which to base their morals on.

Our country is a perfect example as it is happening now.

France is another example especially the French Revolution, a bloodbath following the rejection of God if there ever was one.

Without some outside source of absolute moral values, people create their own, in which case you get what's happening in England today where they're stating that the old and sick have a *duty* to die to save resources for the young and healthy. Or like Nazi Germany where they slaughtered those who were infirm, or didn't toe the party line.

Rejecting the Judeo-Christian moral system dooms any society to failure and decadence.

[tpanther]

Why do you insist on continuing to post cut-up, jumbled, and therefore misleading, representations of my posts?

I have no idea why you're so defensive, nor do I care, but I've very consistently pasted your very words, nothing jumbled or misleading about it! Unless one of course sees your message this way in the first place!

You've been asked several times, and not just by me, to give examples of atheistic societies either moral or successful as you have asserted and yet the only two instances I can see you've listed are China and France. No thinking (and yes moral) person could see either country in either light. China shows financial success with no freedoms and consistently poor human rights. France is plagued with terror within it's borders due to secular humanism allowing it's subsequent moral vacuum to be filled with militant Islam.

Are you hoping that people who haven’t read my actual posts (or who just don’t remember them) will see what you posted and think I actually wrote those words in that order?

I pasted your words! and I don't know what order has to do with anything, they're either moral societies or they are not!...indeed your words ARE still there for all to see! Therefore I don't NEED to hope for anything.

It’s dishonest and manipulative posting, and it shows an unwillingness to treat me and this forum with respect.

Please try to be more respectful and . . . yes, moral . . . tpanther. We all would appreciate it.

SPARE me the feigned indignation and projections! If you can't coherently make your argument, then I would suggest not making it in the first place.

It's best for the both of us to just move on.

[MrB]

Our Constitution is good for the governance of a good and religious people, it is inadequate for any other - John Adams.

Adams is stating the truism that freedom must come with a set of COMMON internal controls on behavior. Situational ethics cannot provide this framework or society. Only a “good and moral people” can live in such freedom.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! I look forward to your further replies when you have the opportunity.

That has nothing to do with whether or not we interpret the first amendment’s establishment clause as applying to atheism.

That is the point. Our interpretations of the Constitution do not have the force of law. The interpretations of the Supreme Court do.

And at this point, atheism is a "religion" under the Establishment Clause according to "controlling legal precedent."

But we’re getting pretty far off-topic, I think. The issue here is about this lawsuit against the National Prayer Day, right?

Indeed, but if you read through the links provided up-thread it is obvious the atheists' suit has little to no chance of success.

[Alamo-Girl]

I’m not sure why you used the past tense there. Is that no longer an objective of the movement?

As far as I know, the objective is still on the table - but being a movement, many other factors enter into the "calculus." In this case, publicly funded education has moved to the front burner, methodology of scientific investigations to the back burner.

[Alamo-Girl]

There is nothing unconstitutional about the President proclaiming a national day of prayer.

Indeed. And as you, many atheists skip right over the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.

[JasonInPoland]

If you look at the history of this discussion, you will see that I brought up France and China specifically as an answer to the following question, asked by metmom:

“Failure of *some* atheistic nations? Which atheistic nations have not failed?”

I did not provide those as examples of morally upright communities. Yet, by rearranging my words as you have, you make it look like I did. That is dishonest, irresponsible, and immoral.

I have not made any pronouncements about France and China’s morality or lack thereof.

Your continuing failure to misunderstand and misrepresent this fact, which I have explained more than once now, forces me to conclude that there is no point in trying to engage you in a constructive discussion here.

[JasonInPoland]

I am not ignoring any part of the Constitution here, metmom.

I am not trying to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

There is a difference between a government which allows for the free exercise of religion and a government which actively supports the exercise of religion. It is the latter that I oppose, not the former.

You are free to pray any day you want. It is none of my business, and it’s none of the government’s business, either.

[JasonInPoland]

“So just how do you consider China and France *successful?”

My point is not that they are particularly successful, or successful to any particular degree, but only that they have not yet failed. They are surviving, flawed and troubled as they are. And they hopefully will improve.

[JasonInPoland]

I did not say you or anyone else was incapable of rational thought. What I said is that I call myself an atheist because I place a particular value on rational thought. Specifically, I highly value rational thought as a tool which can help us understand who we are and what life is about. Religion requires that one put a lesser value on rationality. I did not say that I am an atheist because I am rational. And I did not say that religious people are irrational. But, I would say that religious devotion does require a certain allegiance to irrationality. This is not to say that the religious devout are not rational, of course. It only means they have a unique fondness for irrationality which expresses itself in particular ways.

[JasonInPoland]

“We have religious freedom, but we are essentially a Judeo-Christian nation.”

Can you elaborate on this point?

Are you saying that America’s political system is essentially Judeo-Christian? Or that our legal system reflects a Judeo-Christian ethic? Or that our culture is essentially Judeo-Christian?

I think you are wrong to suggest that atheists don’t recognize the huge role Judeo-Christian philosophy (and, perhaps even more so, Christian institutions) have played in the shaping of America.

The well-known atheist, Sam Harris—who I don’t always agree with, mind you—even titled one of his books, “Letter to a Christian Nation.” That suggests he, at least, recognizes the dominant role Christianity plays in America.

But I just wonder what you think defines the essence of our nation, and in what way you think that essence reflects Judeo-Christian philosophy and/or traditions.

[JasonInPoland]

“Our interpretations of the Constitution do not have the force of law. The interpretations of the Supreme Court do.”

Of course. I was using “we” to refer to us as a nation, as a law-creating entity which includes the actions of the Supreme Court.

Again, the point is this: The fact that the Supreme Court interprets atheism as a religion for the purposes of interpreting the first amendment has no impact whatsoever on the laws regulating what counts as science or on the laws keeping evolution in, and Intelligent Design out of, the classroom.

I just don’t see anything here which will further the Intelligent Design movement. Thus, I predict that you will have to find another reason to eat popcorn.

As for the lawsuit regarding the National Prayer Day, I’m not so sure it is doomed to failure. This is not to say that I think it will succeed. If I had to guess, I’d say it will probably fail, actually. But I am hopeful.

[JasonInPoland]

Just to explain my perspective on the legal issues here in a little more detail . . .

There is a three-pronged test to decide if a law runs contrary to the establishment clause. One prong says that the law must serve a secular function. The question then is, what secular function is served by declaring a National Prayer Day?

If the answer is “none,” then the National Prayer Day is unconstitutional.

That is, unless you want to argue that, by declaring a National Prayer Day, President Bush was not enacting a law, but merely decorating our calendars.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Of course. I was using “we” to refer to us as a nation, as a law-creating entity which includes the actions of the Supreme Court.

Under the Constitution, only the Legislative Branch creates law. The Judicial Branch interprets law and their interpretations have the force of law, e.g. Rowe v. Wade.

If laws were created by popular vote, they might as well throw away the Constitution.

Again, the point is this: The fact that the Supreme Court interprets atheism as a religion for the purposes of interpreting the first amendment has no impact whatsoever on the laws regulating what counts as science or on the laws keeping evolution in, and Intelligent Design out of, the classroom.

It depends on the legal theory argued before the court. So far, the one side has successfully argued that I.D. is religious. The I.D. side has not yet argued that naturalism (metaphysical or methodological) is religious.

If anyone picks up that legal theory, IMHO, it will be quite entertaining to watch the court try to keep the government out of the establishment of atheism as the state religion through publicly funded education.

From your other post:

There is a three-pronged test to decide if a law runs contrary to the establishment clause. One prong says that the law must serve a secular function. The question then is, what secular function is served by declaring a National Prayer Day?

It is no more difficult for the court to uphold a National Prayer Day than to uphold Thanksgiving, prayers in Congress, use of Holy writ in Judicial Oaths or printing "In God we Trust" on currency. Indeed, ruling in favor of the atheists on this point would open the door to all of them because atheists are anti-Christ, anti-God and cannot be appeased. They are indeed very "religious" and "evangelical" in their contempt for God, hence the importance of Kaufman.

The "free exercise" clause and legal precedent cannot and I aver, will not, be dismissed by this Supreme Court. They will not favor one belief (including disbelief) over another.

[Publius]

Same here. Atheist. And I have no problem with National Prayer Day. Or "under God" in the pledge.

People like this make atheists look bad.

[JasonInPoland]

Here’s a piece on the National Prayer Day which seems to support my views. It’s by a site called “Religious Tolerance”:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/day_pray3.htm

Here’s another piece that supports my view, and which has supporting quotes from religious leaders as well as such historical figures as Thomas Jefferson:

http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/National_Day_Of_Prayer_FAQ.pdf?docID=153