Atheist group sues Bush, governor over National Day of Prayer

[abulfares]

Oh right, because it's symbolism that's fine. Shall I go find a book that tells me what I can and can't symbolise through killing stuff? Maybe I could, like, just not kill stuff? Or are you saying this didn't occur, and the idea of a sacrifice itself is just symbolism?

Also, personal attacks don't work, and aren't allowed. Just because someone is critical of a certain belief structure certainly doesn't imply ignorance.

Sacrificing goats (for example) does not mean killing goats left and right senselessly. the action is done on individual level, so no one would buy a goat, sacrifice it, then leave it to rotten!!! there are rules about dividing the meat and such. some will go to the individual to eat and the rest is given to the poor who cannot afford meat. and no, of course u r not expected to engage in this activity if u don't believe in it in the first place.

the whole idea behind this action is based on symbolizing the love towards Ismael (Ishmael) when he was saved. (this is according to different scriptures that r few thousands years apart).

I apologize for the personal attack. there is a difference between being critical of something and mockery. It just seems that its alright for atheists to bash religions, but all hell breaks loose if a religious person bashed atheists. this happens on this forum all the time. nonetheless, it does not mean its alright for me to attack u. sorry again.

back on topic, I don't think this National Day of Prayer should have came from the President himself, but its not worth suing either.

Edited October 5, 2008 by abulfares

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

This suit is frivolous and will never see the inside of a courtroom.

[Ayepecks]

It would then be a national day of goat eating (just like Christmas is, in a way, a national day of turkey eating). I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as the goat did not die in pain, and it had good living conditions, and it's not reasoned for based on any one religion. It is natural to eat meat. People can offer it to a god if they want, as implied by the word "sacrifice", but the state shouldn't be telling them to do that, obviously.

And yes, as I keep saying, I have a problem with state endorsed prayer. I am atheist - are you expecting me to not have a problem with religion being endorsed by the state? How about if I had a religion that didn't involve prayer, or specifically said you shouldn't. What then should I make of the government endorsing prayer?

(PS. I don't want to push us off topic, but the conversation is carrying us in all sorts of directions)

Back on topic...

But therein lies the dispute. The government is not restricting your belief (or lack thereof) or forcing you to believe anything. It's just saying that, on this day, there is going to be a collective effort to pray for those who wish to do it. I don't really see how that's forcing anything or respecting any sort of established religion of any kind.

Absolutely, I believe religion should have no part in a government. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and I'm strongly in agreement with you there. But this law doesn't respect any religion. If you're in a religion that doesn't involve prayer, it doesn't even request that you pray.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Back on topic...

But therein lies the dispute. The government is not restricting your belief (or lack thereof) or forcing you to believe anything. It's just saying that, on this day, there is going to be a collective effort to pray for those who wish to do it. I don't really see how that's forcing anything or respecting any sort of established religion of any kind.

Absolutely, I believe religion should have no part in a government. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and I'm strongly in agreement with you there. But this law doesn't respect any religion. If you're in a religion that doesn't involve prayer, it doesn't even request that you pray.

Yes, they are not saying you HAVE to. That is a big difference.

[Kirkburn]

Back on topic...

But therein lies the dispute. The government is not restricting your belief (or lack thereof) or forcing you to believe anything. It's just saying that, on this day, there is going to be a collective effort to pray for those who wish to do it. I don't really see how that's forcing anything or respecting any sort of established religion of any kind.

Absolutely, I believe religion should have no part in a government. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and I'm strongly in agreement with you there. But this law doesn't respect any religion. If you're in a religion that doesn't involve prayer, it doesn't even request that you pray.

I'm glad we're agreeing on some points :)

I'll summarize the issue I see here - by creating a national day of prayer, it's endorsing the idea of prayer as something real and tangible. Prayer is something inherently religious - this is when we trip up.

If it was a national day of meditation or thinking about others - that's okay. That doesn't have a religious basis. Prayer does, and it's a problem because the state should not be endorsing religion - indeed, it's actually endorsing against the teaching of a theoretical religion that says not to pray (I don't know of them, but I also have not looked), and those who don't.

The same goes with sacrificing - it has an inherently religious background. That is the problem ... I wouldn't complain about a day of goat eating (with no religious connotations) on those grounds.

(And again, I'm not commenting on the actual legality of this battle - it's way beyond many of us to comment on such issues mired in law).

abulfares, it would be better to look at it not as "bashing", but as "being critical of". You can be critical of atheism, as we can of religion - both sides can and should put up a fight. However, religion is a much larger target, and it's rarely anything personal. It is an unfortunate effect of what religion is, that attacking religion attacks its participants - but it's not malevolent targetting.

Btw, for those interested in how the American Revolution started, I recommend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution#Origins ... religion was part of it, despite protestations here, but certainly not all of it.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Kirkburn

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Btw, for those interested in how the American Revolution started, I recommend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution#Origins ... religion was part of it, despite protestations here, but certainly not all of it.

Thanks, I knew it was not all of the reasons, just a small part of it.

[remix17]

bashing people's beliefs left and right shows how ignorant and clueless u r about those beliefs.

And having those beliefs shows how ignorant and clueless u r about reality.

[Michael1406]

@PricklyPoo: Those other religions don't have the miracles to back up their faith that I have seen every week at my church. Healings of friends. My best friend was lactose intolerant for the longest time. He would throw up with just the smallest ammount of milk in anything he would eat. We prayed for him at church. They next day he ate a tub of ice cream without a problem and has never had a problem since.

So a couple people prayed and then even though he was lactose intolerant he decided to eat a tub of ice cream? Religious or not, that's a bit stupid in my book.

[SMELTN]

Back on topic...

But therein lies the dispute. The government is not restricting your belief (or lack thereof) or forcing you to believe anything. It's just saying that, on this day, there is going to be a collective effort to pray for those who wish to do it. I don't really see how that's forcing anything or respecting any sort of established religion of any kind.

Absolutely, I believe religion should have no part in a government. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and I'm strongly in agreement with you there. But this law doesn't respect any religion. If you're in a religion that doesn't involve prayer, it doesn't even request that you pray.

+1

[Kirkburn]

And having those beliefs shows how ignorant and clueless u r about reality.

Please don't do that.

smeltn, I refer you to my post just a short way above - https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=589918886

[remix17]

Please don't do that.

What? Telling the truth?

[Kirkburn]

What? Telling the truth?

It's bordering on a personal attack, he already apologised to me, and it does little for one's image or the discussion.

I'm not trying to be a mod or anything, I just don't want a sensible discussion to descend into backbiting.

[remix17]

It's bordering on a personal attack, he already apologised to me, and it does little for one's image or the discussion.

I'm not trying to be a mod or anything, I just don't want a sensible discussion to descend into backbiting.

No you see I am sick of being told that just because I don't believe something then it automatically means I am ignorant about it. That's equivalent to saying "I am right. Period". It's not a personal attack. It's a statement of fact. I don't pretend. I say it like it is. Religious beliefs are childish and have no basis in reality and the fact that our government is openly endorsing their practice is a disgrace to both this country and human intellect in general.

[Kirkburn]

No you see I am sick of being told that just because I don't believe something then it automatically means I am ignorant about it. That's equivalent to saying "I am right. Period". It's not a personal attack. It's a statement of fact. I don't pretend. I say it like it is. Religious beliefs are childish and have no basis in reality and the fact that our government is openly endorsing their practice is a disgrace to both this country and human intellect in general.

That's what you should say then - twisting another persons ill-advised comment won't convince them :)

(for what it's worth, I agree)

[Cormier6083]

Couldn't we just call it a "National Day of Silence"

:unsure: just an idea.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Couldn't we just call it a "National Day of Silence"

:unsure: just an idea.

There you go, that would make everyone happy. (Y)

[Cormier6083]

There you go, that would make everyone happy. (Y)

My sarcasm meter is broken. :cry:

[remix17]

My sarcasm meter is broken. :cry:

:rofl:

[Alan Zeino]

If you're in a religion that doesn't involve prayer, it doesn't even request that you pray.

Then why endorse the day at all? If it's so weakly promoted, it needn't require Bush's cell less approval.

[Ayepecks]

Then why endorse the day at all? If it's so weakly promoted, it needn't require Bush's cell less approval.

Don't ask me. As I already said, I don't see a purpose for any "figurehead" law that only reaffirms an ability already granted by a law... but I don't see why any atheist group needs to sue over it. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it, personally. It doesn't request anything.

@ remix17: For such a childish belief, it sure does have a lot of followers. Now that doesn't make it correct, but would you care telling why your belief is any more valid and why a belief in any sort of God is childish? I could sit here and spew stuff about how you're just trying to fight authority or make yourself seem smart as is evident by your last statement, but that doesn't make my statements valid.

[GreenMartian]

Well it's Labour Day here today, I dont hear the unemployed complaining at all...

The only complaints I heard is from my tummy, the shops are closed on public holidays and I need food.

[gigapixels Veteran]

Back on topic...

But therein lies the dispute. The government is not restricting your belief (or lack thereof) or forcing you to believe anything. It's just saying that, on this day, there is going to be a collective effort to pray for those who wish to do it. I don't really see how that's forcing anything or respecting any sort of established religion of any kind.

Absolutely, I believe religion should have no part in a government. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and I'm strongly in agreement with you there. But this law doesn't respect any religion. If you're in a religion that doesn't involve prayer, it doesn't even request that you pray.

It may not state a specific religion, but not every religion believes in God, so therefore they are at the very least endorsing religions that do. And it's not a far leap to assume which one exactly that they are speaking of.

A "National Day of Silence" would be much more appropriate.

I'm not somebody that gets up in arms about this, and frankly I don't really care about this issue either, but I'm simply stating what I believe is correct.

They are endorsing a specific set of religions by mentioning God in the language for the "National Day of Prayer." That is something they should not be doing. The government has no business to endorse any religion over another. It does not matter if they're not forcing you to do so, as simply showing a preference of one over another is completely against the separation of Church and State.

[Darksoft]

I believe Jesus is the son of God....Bush doing this is a good thing not bad...if you don't believe im sorry for you....and i will pray for you....with Bush.

If you don't believe in something you'll far for anything....

and for those who believe in that were monkeys...fling poo :yes:

Let the flaming begin

Since you were responding to me:

You believe in jesus? I don't give a f***. I never said I had a problem with people believing in whatever god they want to believe. Congratulations, I hope you are right and you go to heaven. I couldn't care less.

Bush doing this thing = something bad for the reasons that have been explained in this thread already. You want to look the other way? whatever, it's your right too.

Pray for me? please don't. When I have problems, i solve them. How? I work hard to do that. I don't need you or anybody else to pray for me, specially GWB. I mean, if that dude seriously could talk to god, you think he would have been one of the worst president in history? Give a me a break and read a book or something.

Last for not least, We didn't come from monkeys. Science doesn't claimed that. You would know if you had some sort of knowledge in your head.

Have a nice day.

[remix17]

@ remix17: For such a childish belief, it sure does have a lot of followers. Now that doesn't make it correct, but would you care telling why your belief is any more valid and why a belief in any sort of God is childish? I could sit here and spew stuff about how you're just trying to fight authority or make yourself seem smart as is evident by your last statement, but that doesn't make my statements valid.

Again, I don't have beliefs.

[Ayepecks]

Again, I don't have beliefs.

Oh please, get off that. You believe there is no God. It's a belief because it can't be proven one way or another. You hold a BELIEF that there is no God. You say it's fact. That's fine. But there are plenty of religious nuts that will claim they're stating the fact, too. What makes you right and them wrong? And, please, don't get into some paradoxical "I'm right because I am right."

@ giga: I don't know if one can reasonable say it does violate the separation of church and state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment...First_Amendment