Day of prayer is unconstitutional

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
That's right, prayer in fact bypasses Church and State and is direct communion with God. No one can be forced to pray, but no one can be prevented from doing so either.

Prohibiting the government from sponsoring a day of prayer, as we've seen them sponsor 'Pride Day' events and other abominations, is absurd. In fact it fits into the political agenda of the Church of Atheism.. which is becoming de facto, a branch of the U.S. State.
 
Last edited:

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
That's right, prayer in fact bypasses Church and State and is direct communion with God. No one can be forced to pray, but no one can be prevented from doing so either.

So having a government sponsored day of prayer is irrelevant then...those who pray will pray when they want, not because the government says they should on any one day.

Those don't pray will do as they would on any other day.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
That's right, prayer in fact bypasses Church and State and is direct communion with God. No one can be forced to pray, but no one can be prevented from doing so either.
Then it can be quietly with no particular schedule, right, so as not to influence others by your praying?

Prohibiting the government from sponsoring a day of prayer, as we've seen them sponsor 'Pride Day' events and other abominations, is absurd. In fact it fits into the political agenda of the Church of Atheism.. which is becoming de facto, a branch of the U.S. State.
Then it can sponsor the Islamic call to prayer, the Shinto burning of incense, etc., too.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
"Sure, and unemployment is a job and bald is a hair style."

Sure, generation after generation of welfare recipients DO consider unemployment a job.

Also, lot of clever people make money serving vain bald people, making tupees, wigs and hair transplants.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
The First Admendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
Atheist (yes, it IS a religion)

It sure is......

I would even go so far as to say it is "An organized religion"

With a membership, Secret password and all.
If they have Bingo on Wednesday night...... Im in



American Atheists | Welcome
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
As a Rastafarian am I then permitted to smoke a joint before work? Or do I have to wait until I get home?

If you can braid your hair and go years without undoing it and washing it, then I guess you deserve your joint to protect you from the world you have growing in there. May Bob Marley rest in peace.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Who was that lady that applied to the U.S. Supreme Court that said "One Nation Under God" was unconstitutional?
Could be this guy.
Michael Arthur Newdow (born June 24, 1953) is an American attorney and emergency medicine physician. He is best known for his efforts to have recitations of the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in the United States declared unconstitutional because of its inclusion of the phrase "under God". He also filed and lost a lawsuit to stop the invocation prayer at President Bush's second inauguration[1][2][3] and, most recently, he filed a lawsuit to prevent references to God and religion from being part of President Obama's inauguration.
Newdow is an atheist and an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church.[4] In 1997, he started an organization called FACTS (First Amendment Church of True Science), which advocates strong separation of church and state in public institutions.[5]

I guess being a atheist is being part of a organized religion.
 

theconqueror

Time Out
Feb 1, 2010
784
2
18
San Diego, California
Could be this guy.
Michael Arthur Newdow (born June 24, 1953) is an American attorney and emergency medicine physician. He is best known for his efforts to have recitations of the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in the United States declared unconstitutional because of its inclusion of the phrase "under God". He also filed and lost a lawsuit to stop the invocation prayer at President Bush's second inauguration[1][2][3] and, most recently, he filed a lawsuit to prevent references to God and religion from being part of President Obama's inauguration.
Newdow is an atheist and an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church.[4] In 1997, he started an organization called FACTS (First Amendment Church of True Science), which advocates strong separation of church and state in public institutions.[5]

I guess being a atheist is being part of a organized religion.

nope. I think she was from somewhere like Washington.. I'll check.
 

theconqueror

Time Out
Feb 1, 2010
784
2
18
San Diego, California
Ahh who cares.. There are so many people sueing over the Pledge of Allegiance in the U.S. being unconstitutional.. Who do they think they are anyway? A theocracy form of government?

Reaction was quick and largely negative to a federal appeals court decision Wednesday declaring that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in California ruled that saying the Pledge is unconstitutional because the "under God" portion added by Congress in 1954 improperly endorses religion. The 2-1 ruling stunned politicians and outraged religious groups. "This decision is directly contrary to two centuries of American tradition," Attorney General John Ashcroft said. "The Justice Department believes in the right of Americans to pledge allegiance to their flag and is evaluating the appropriate response."
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
As are all political parties by your definition.
Politics is religion to those who take it seriously. You even have those who are fanatical about it and those who are not so enthusiastic. The same goes for a lot of sports. Religion has always been about politics; organization and control of thought. The Catholic Church had it's own army at one time and even waged war. The Swiss Guard are one of the most efficient military units around.

If you look at it from a detached perspective, it is really difficult to tell them apart. Both have their propagana machines, laws and enforcement, taxation (tithing), hierarchies and edifices. In the States, you even refer to your prez as the supreme commander. Is that much different than a supreme being? Even the language of politics smacks of religion.
 
Last edited: