Atheist group sues Bush, governor over National Day of Prayer

[tiagosilva29]

in the UK its pretty much like this (...)

Are you sure? What about Sharia?

[theyarecomingforyou]

Isn't every day a day of prayer? Do you really need a designated day for praying? The last time I checked, nobody's prayer rights were denied on a daily basis. We don't need a National Day of Breathing Air, do we?

Exactly. This is designed to further subject non-believers to religion, which, ironically, will only result hostility and resentment. America was founded on religious freedom - that is very different to using the state to promote religion. This is a dangerous move and should be resisted, even by those with religious beliefs.

Religion has been hijacked to attack atheism. Personal belief seems no longer to be as important as putting down the beliefs of others, recently with atheism. However, it's hardly a precedent - religion has been doing this for millennia and atheism is being targeted just as other religions have previously. It's the same with evolution; where once it was taught happily alongside religion it is now being seen as an either/or scenario, which only stifles legitimate debate to the detriment of all.

Are you sure? What about Sharia?

Sharia law is not recognised by the state.

[Ayepecks]

There's more than one type of God - for example, there's the personal Abrahamic "skygod", and there's the non-personal deity who oversees the Universe. It is very very likely the latter was being referred to.

Never understood why doing such a thing is a problem anyway. Some people seem to worship these several hundred year old documents, as if life cannot possibly have changed since then, and require different things.

The problem is the idea of the Government endorsing religion. If it's only referring to prayer in the absolute most general sense, and cannot be specific to any one religion then personally I'd be fairly okay with that. However, it still irks me that it's suggesting that there is something to pray to - no thanks. I don't need the Government telling me that.

Given that last response of mine, I'm going to make that a little clearer. Religious people require that there be a God, so everything fits into that world-view. You don't see a problem with prayer, because you see something to pray to. You also see less of a problem with other religions praying, because you still feel they have something to pray to - even if they're supposedly directing it the wrong way.

What is very hard to get across is that atheists don't need to pray - it's just irrelevant. They still care about other people, live their lives in much the same way, think much the same - but don't need to appeal to some higher power to do so. That the government is seemingly endorsing it via these actions is a problem. It is not a problem with Christianity or any specific religion. It's not a personal attack.

Given the history of America, I somehow doubt that. I think "God" refers to an individual's own personal belief in a supreme being, but not any one particular religion.

Furthermore, your post really irritates me. Not because I disagree with your opinions or because of anything like that, but because you don't have a basis for the history of the United States. The Declaration of Independence should NEVER be amended. It is a historical document. Why on earth would you want to amend it?!

And, for the umpteenth time, this is not an endorsement of religion! You say "if it's only referring to prayer in the absolute most general sense, and cannot be specific to any one religion then personally I'd be fairly okay with that," and that is exactly what it is saying! I gave you all the exact wording of the law. It has nothing to do with any one religion or any religion at all.

So you wouldn't have a problem with a "National Day of Goat Sacrificing?" You don't have to participate...

No, I would not. If it said I may do that, I wouldn't have any problem with it at all. I don't think many Americans would participate, but as long as it doesn't break any laws, why should I have a problem with it? :blink:

No, the nation was founded on the belief that you shouldn't be imprisoned from your debts, that you should have representation in the government for your taxes, and that you shouldn't be forced to follow another individual's tenets of faith. There's a difference between reading and comprehending. :) Yes. "Under God" needs to be removed from government documents it's in. (The DoI isn't one of them.)

When I was in elementary school in Georgia, you got sent to the principal's office if you didn't want to prey (sic) with everyone else.

Oh really? Here I thought people came to America to escape religious persecution to freely involve themselves in their own religion... hence why "God" is in the Declaration of Independence. Gee, silly me!

[PricklyPoo]

America wasn't originally established with the intentions of having the freedom to worship any god. It was the freedom to worship the Christian god - how you pleased....even that was rather limited depending on where you lived.

Of course later on when people started coming to America with religions other than Christianity, the expectations of who everyone should worship became less strict.

It just annoys me when people think America was founded on the freedom to worship any god. That wasn't the founding fathers' intentions.

But really, who cares what America was founded on....Slavery, the lack of womens' rights to vote.

You guys want to bring that back too?

Brief history lesson: The Declaration of Independence isn't exactly the basis for this country and it's government, that was the Constitution.

[Kirkburn]

Given the history of America, I somehow doubt that. I think "God" refers to an individual's own personal belief in a supreme being, but not any one particular religion.

Exactly - which suggests it's the latter impersonal deity. Abrahamic gods are way more specific, and besides - your own reasoning would mean it suggests all Gods can be correct, which is not what any of them accept. It would be rather odd to put on a document supposedly referring to the Christian faith that the Muslim god is also right, as would it be weird to suggest that everyone's personal God is endorsed by the state.

In any case, advances in science has all but replaced the impersonal deity.

Furthermore, your post really irritates me. Not because I disagree with your opinions or because of anything like that, but because you don't have a basis for the history of the United States. The Declaration of Independence should NEVER be amended. It is a historical document. Why on earth would you want to amend it?!

Fine, talk semantics. Yes, I probably meant the constitution. YOU suggested "Are we going to amend the Declaration of Independence now?", thus my confusion.

I have a problem with the way you act like it's unchangeable fact, and it could never possibly be wrong, or out of date. It was written by men. It is not something to be worshipped - you act like no-one is allowed to be critical of it.

And, for the umpteenth time, this is not an endorsement of religion! You say "if it's only referring to prayer in the absolute most general sense, and cannot be specific to any one religion then personally I'd be fairly okay with that," and that is exactly what it is saying! I gave you all the exact wording of the law. It has nothing to do with any one religion or any religion at all.

Prayer is inherently religious. How can it not be?

I'm very close to the line, hence why my personal feelings are that I'm not hugely bothered by it happening - except that it's still state endorsed religiosity.

No, I would not. If it said I may do that, I wouldn't have any problem with it at all. I don't think many Americans would participate, but as long as it doesn't break any laws, why should I have a problem with it? :blink:

Because it's senselessly killing goats! Have you no concern for non-human sentient lifeforms?

You're supposed to have better morals than atheists, but aren't showing much evidence of it.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Kirkburn

[Ayepecks]

America wasn't originally established with the intentions of having the freedom to worship any god. It was the freedom to worship the Christian god - how you pleased....even that was rather limited depending on where you lived.

Of course later on when people started coming to America with religions other than Christianity, the expectations of who everyone should worship became less strict.

It just annoys me when people think America was founded on the freedom to worship any god. That wasn't the founding fathers' intentions.

But really, who cares what America was founded on....Slavery, the lack of womens' rights to vote.

You guys want to bring that back too?

America wasn't founded on slavery or women's right to vote. That has to be the absolute silliest statement I've heard in my entire life. Slavery wasn't even accounted for in the constitution until well after it was created, and women were not specifically restricted in the constitution as well. It was later fallacies that created those errors.

And America WAS founded on religious freedom. Get your facts straight.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

CLEARLY it's only for Christians. :rolleyes:

I love all these stupid "let's bring back slavery and women's lack of rights" comments. Shows a complete fundamental lack of historical knowledge. The constitution was clearly worded in that all men are created equal... WRITTEN BY A MAN OPPOSED TO SLAVERY. How more obvious can it get? State laws were then later passed allowing slavery, which was never the intent. But because states were far more powerful at that day and age, it was hard to limit.

[Koto]

I believe Jesus is the son of God...

Jesus is the sun god.*

He's actually just a mythical astrotheological-literary hybrid "sun god". He never existed outside of allegorical literature.

Again, please watch Zeitgeist for more information:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197

[Ayepecks]

Exactly - which suggests it's the latter impersonal deity. Abrahamic gods are way more specific, and besides - your own reasoning would mean it suggests all Gods can be correct, which is not what any of them accept. It would be rather odd to put on a document supposedly referring to the Christian faith that the Muslim god is also right, as would it be weird to suggest that everyone's personal God is endorsed by the state.

In any case, advanced in science has all but replaced the impersonal deity.

Fine, talk semantics. Yes, I probably meant the constitution. YOU suggested "Are we going to amend the Declaration of Independence now?", thus my confusion.

I have a problem with the way you act like it's unchangeable fact, and it could never possibly be wrong, or out of date. It was written by men. It is not something to be worshipped - you act like no-one is allowed to be critical of it.

Prayer is inherently religious. How can it not be?

Because it's senselessly killing goats! Have you no concern for non-human sentient lifeforms?

Arguing semantics? How am I arguing semantics? I had no way of knowing you meant the Constitution.

It's funny how you say you would have no problem with the law if it did X, then I say it does X, and yet you still suddenly have a problem with it? I'm sorry, but I don't understand that logic. It meets your specifications, yet you still dislike it?

And I responded to the question. I don't have a problem with that law. Chances are it's not legal, however. But if there's a law saying you MAY do something that's not illegal, why would I have a problem with it at all? I have concern for non-human lifeforms. But that wasn't the question posed, now was it? And we never established that the goats wouldn't be used for eating, so don't get on my back. Do you eat meat? Guess you have no concern for non-human lifeforms. :rolleyes:

[Kirkburn]

Arguing semantics? How am I arguing semantics? I had no way of knowing you meant the Constitution.

If someone was talking about amending something, it's kind of the natural thought process. My apologies for misreading.

It's funny how you say you would have no problem with the law if it did X, then I say it does X, and yet you still suddenly have a problem with it? I'm sorry, but I don't understand that logic. It meets your specifications, yet you still dislike it?

I reread my post and noticed it wasn't clear - I updated it with this line:

"I'm very close to the line, hence why my personal feelings are that I'm not hugely bothered by it happening - except that it's still state endorsed religiosity."

I don't have a problem with people being religious, as long as it's kept to themselves. I know it's a pain to debate with someone like me, since I don't fully come down on one side or the other, but that is how I am, and the world is shades of grey.

And I responded to the question. I don't have a problem with that law. Chances are it's not legal, however. But if there's a law saying you MAY do something that's not illegal, why would I have a problem with it at all? I have concern for non-human lifeforms. But that wasn't the question posed, now was it? And we never established that the goats wouldn't be used for eating, so don't get on my back. Do you eat meat? Guess you have no concern for non-human lifeforms. :rolleyes:

Sacrificing something is very different to killing it for sustenance, something that is part of nature. A sacrifice does not usually involve stopping the animal feeling it, nor it is generally for consumption. (What would you have done if I said I was vegetarian, by the way?)

"if there's a law saying you MAY do something that's not illegal" is not the point. Whether something is legal or illegal does not prescribe the morality of it. Just like those for/against abortion do not take what the law currently says as their stance. They have independent thoughts on the morality of it, just as atheists have independent thought on the morality of state endorsed prayer.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Kirkburn

[remix17]

Because it's senselessly killing goats! Have you no concern for non-human sentient lifeforms?

You're supposed to have better morals than atheists, but aren't showing much evidence of it.

Right, because talking to an imaginary deity is a lot less senseless.

[Kirkburn]

Right, because talking to an imaginary deity is a lot less senseless.

Indeed. (Who on earth listens to a guy that's telling you to kill goats, because it will please him?)

[Ayepecks]

Right, because talking to an imaginary deity is a lot less senseless.

It's funny how if you change words to fit your views/beliefs how much more believable it sounds.

"... because talking to an imaginary deity is a lot less senseless."

...versus...

"... because talking to a supreme being makes much more sense."

Crazy how that works! :laugh:

Edit:

@ Kirkburn: You're having a really hard time comprehending what I'm typing, aren't you? Let me spell it out for you: I never said that I would be sacrificing a goat. I said I wouldn't have a problem with such a law as long as it wasn't illegal and as long as it didn't force people to do it. Why? Because I feel confident in saying that the majority of people wouldn't do such a thing. Is that really a hard concept to grasp?

How is supporting a supposedly legal act bad morals? If people are going to sacrifice a goat, chances are they probably already have that belief. Me not having a problem with a law about being able to sacrifice an animal (which many times does result in meat being eaten) makes me have bad morals? What in the hell are you smoking, man?

Let's break it down again: sacrificing a goat is not illegal. A law passes saying "On Day X you may sacrifice a goat." The people who sacrifice a goat do it regardless of whether or not there is a law. So I'm supposed to have a problem with there being a meaningless law about it? WHY?

Edited October 5, 2008 by Ayepecks

[Kirkburn]

It's funny how if you change words to fit your views/beliefs how much more believable it sounds.

"... because talking to an imaginary deity is a lot less senseless."

...versus...

"... because talking to a supreme being makes much more sense."

Both ways round, it doesn't sound believable to me.

Edit:

@ Kirkburn: You're having a really hard time comprehending what I'm typing, aren't you? Let me spell it out for you: I never said that I would be sacrificing a goat. I said I wouldn't have a problem with such a law as long as it wasn't illegal and as long as it didn't force people to do it. Why? Because I feel confident in saying that the majority of people wouldn't do such a thing. Is that really a hard concept to grasp?

How is supporting a supposedly legal act bad morals? If people are going to sacrifice a goat, chances are they probably already have that belief. Me not having a problem with a law about being able to sacrifice an animal (which many times does result in meat being eaten) makes me have bad morals? What in the hell are you smoking, man?

Let's break it down again: sacrificing a goat is not illegal. A law passes saying "On Day X you may sacrifice a goat." The people who sacrifice a goat do it regardless of whether or not there is a law. So I'm supposed to have a problem with there being a meaningless law about it? WHY?

I don't care who is doing it. If there was a day when everyone was allowed to torture animals, I still wouldn't support it - whether or not anyone I know is involved. I'm fairly sure sacrificing animals is not allowed anyway, without lots of restrictions. (We may have different definitions of what sacrificing entails - I am talking of ritually killing an animal, likely without sedation, for another party - God - without any intent to use said sacrifice for another purpose).

What is legal =/= what is moral. This is my point. I don't care whether something is legal to make my own decisions as to whether it's "good" or not. Both legality and morality changes over time, but you have to hope they match up pretty well - morality is normally ahead of legality, though.

Whether or not this idea is "legal", it doesn't make me want to oppose it more or less. Yes, I have said I am close to the line for my personal feelings over it, and I apologise for sounding muddled, but overall I still think this is a boundary that shouldn't be crossed. If anything, this discussion has pushed me more that way.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Kirkburn

[Minimoose]

If you're going to quote me, please quote the whole thing.

I never claimed it wasn't a religious holiday. I'm really unsure of what you're trying to imply here. Please read the rest of my post and address that, because you're simply ignoring it.

I did quote the whole thing... lol

What I'm saying is that a National Holiday is different to a religious holiday, most religious holidays surviving now are due to tradition (the ones where atheists join in too, but in a non religious way), I dont think a national holiday should be religious. Just my opinion.

[Minimoose]

Neither. This country was founded so that people can practice a religion of their own choosing.

The USA was founded because the British colonies there wanted to be liberated from the British Empire, nothing to do with religion.

"The nation was founded by thirteen colonies of Great Britain located along the Atlantic Seaboard. On July 4, 1776, they issued the Declaration of Indepedence, which proclaimed their independence from Great Britain and their formation of a cooperative union."

[wst50]

I don't care who is doing it. If there was a day when everyone was allowed to torture animals, I still wouldn't support it - whether or not anyone I know is involved.

It was a hypothetical. And you just aren't understanding what Aye is saying.

[abulfares]

Indeed. (Who on earth listens to a guy that's telling you to kill goats, because it will please him?)

ever heard of symbolism? no?

go finish junior high first, then u can come here to make a bit more sense.

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

[Ayepecks]

Both ways round, it doesn't sound believable to me.

I don't care who is doing it. If there was a day when everyone was allowed to torture animals, I still wouldn't support it - whether or not anyone I know is involved. I'm fairly sure sacrificing animals is not allowed anyway, without lots of restrictions. (We may have different definitions of what sacrificing entails - I am talking of ritually killing an animal, likely without sedation, for another party - God - without any intent to use said sacrifice for another purpose).

What is legal =/= what is moral. This is my point. I don't care whether something is legal to make my own decisions as to whether it's "good" or not. Both legality and morality changes over time, but you have to hope they match up pretty well - morality is normally ahead of legality, though.

Whether or not this idea is "legal", it doesn't make me want to oppose it more or less. Yes, I have said I am close to the line for my personal feelings over it, and I apologise for sounding muddled, but overall I still think this is a boundary that shouldn't be crossed. If anything, this discussion has pushed me more that way.

Saying "imaginary" has a bit of a pompous attitude towards it and is a self-believing statement. He puts his own beliefs into statements of fact, where fact cannot be proven one way or another.

You're acting irrational here. The holiday was a pathetic example of someone trying to create a horrible analogy. Furthermore, "torture" and "sacrifice" are completely different. Just because you kill something doesn't mean you torture it -- just look at war. If someone is killed, sure it's horrible, but it doesn't mean they were tortured. Are people killed in a car crash "tortured"? Apparently we do have different definitions of sacrifice, though, so I'll just leave it at that.

And you're right. What is legal is not always moral. But you're disregarding almost everything I've said. Hypothetically, if there was a law created, stating "you may do X", where X is already a legal activity, WHY on earth would ANYONE have a problem with that? My entire point was that moral people wouldn't be doing it to begin with, and anyone who would be sacrificing a goat would do it with or without a law that really doesn't amount to anything -- just like this law.

Get it?

[megamanXplosion]

People, please stop referencing the Declaration of Independence as though it were a founding document of the government of our country. Thomas Jefferson wrote it with the sole intent of announcing separation from the British Empire and to seek the aid of the foreign dignitaries in France and elsewhere. He never intended the document to set forth the principles of the U.S. Government. The Constitution is our founding document. The Declaration of Independence does not, legally speaking, amount to a hill of beans.

[Ayepecks]

People, please stop referencing the Declaration of Independence as though it were a founding document of the government of our country. Thomas Jefferson wrote it with the sole intent of announcing separation from the British Empire and to seek the aid of the foreign dignitaries in France and elsewhere. He never intended the document to set forth the principles of the U.S. Government. The Constitution is our founding document. The Declaration of Independence does not, legally speaking, amount to a hill of beans.

You're taking comments out of context.

The Declaration of Independence is the basis for what beliefs the country was founded on. If you don't believe that, you should read the document and take a course in history. It was an announcement of separation from the British Empire, you're exactly right... but it also set forth the principles of the new country. You may want to go back and read it ;)

Here are some links for you to do just that:

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...of_Independence

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

The USA was founded because the British colonies there wanted to be liberated from the British Empire, nothing to do with religion.

"The nation was founded by thirteen colonies of Great Britain located along the Atlantic Seaboard. On July 4, 1776, they issued the Declaration of Indepedence, which proclaimed their independence from Great Britain and their formation of a cooperative union."

Thanks for telling me how my country was founded. One of the reasons that they broke away from English rule was the lack of being able to practice a religion of their own choosing and not the Church of England. They also didn't like thoose funny little girly looking uniforms that the Red Coats wore. :laugh: J/k

[Kirkburn]

ever heard of symbolism? no?

go finish junior high first, then u can come here to make a bit more sense.

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

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.

Saying "imaginary" has a bit of a pompous attitude towards it and is a self-believing statement. He puts his own beliefs into statements of fact, where fact cannot be proven one way or another.

You're acting irrational here. The holiday was a pathetic example of someone trying to create a horrible analogy. Furthermore, "torture" and "sacrifice" are completely different. Just because you kill something doesn't mean you torture it -- just look at war. If someone is killed, sure it's horrible, but it doesn't mean they were tortured. Are people killed in a car crash "tortured"? Apparently we do have different definitions of sacrifice, though, so I'll just leave it at that.

And you're right. What is legal is not always moral. But you're disregarding almost everything I've said. Hypothetically, if there was a law created, stating "you may do X", where X is already a legal activity, WHY on earth would ANYONE have a problem with that? My entire point was that moral people wouldn't be doing it to begin with, and anyone who would be sacrificing a goat would do it with or without a law that really doesn't amount to anything -- just like this law.

Get it?

Fair point, I agree "imaginary" isn't a good word to choose. I still stand by both being senseless.

Torture and sacrifice aren't that far apart, though one is malevolent on the behalf of the person carrying it out - but it's mostly irrelevant to the person or being involved in that sacrifice if they don't agree with it. Human sacrifices were once performed by people who believed a different religion. Morality advanced and it became other animals that were sacrificed. Morality continues to advance, and most religions don't sacrifice anything sentient any more.

If every thing legal was moral, then why do laws change? Morality is almost always ahead of what is legal. Homosexual relationships were illegal - now they aren't. You can't say they suddenly switched to being morally okay at that point. And vice versa, just because laws say the state can legally kill murderers, and then they outlaw it - doesn't suddenly make it no longer moral at the point they changed the law. The law changed because people campaigned against it, because the moral zeitgeist changed first

I don't decide whether someone can or should do something based on whether there's a law about it, and I hope you don't either.

The reason why I/we focussed on sacrificing a goat is because it's familiar to religion, and because it was brought up.

Thanks for telling me how my country was founded.

Not a good way to start a response. There are over 300 million people in your country - don't take it personally. I don't think anyone can say they know everything about how a country starts (I am not disputing what follows, just don't use that phrase to respond)

Edited October 5, 2008 by Kirkburn

[Ayepecks]

Kirkburn, now you're getting into an entirely different topic.

If you have a problem with the sacrificing of a goat, which as I've already stated many times is later used to eat from, then you have a problem with the practice itself, and not a artificial law stating that you may do that when it's already legal. Again, I ask you: have you ever ate meat? Are you immoral because of it?

But again you're skipping the entire issue at hand here, and your posts tell me you have a problem with prayer in general, if your continued posts are analogous to what the actual issue is.

[Kirkburn]

Kirkburn, now you're getting into an entirely different topic.

If you have a problem with the sacrificing of a goat, which as I've already stated many times is later used to eat from, then you have a problem with the practice itself, and not a artificial law stating that you may do that when it's already legal. Again, I ask you: have you ever ate meat? Are you immoral because of it?

But again you're skipping the entire issue at hand here, and your posts tell me you have a problem with prayer in general, if your continued posts are analogous to what the actual issue is.

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)

[betasp]

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?

What is the problem as long as "the state" does not deny your ability to pray? Separation of Church and state was a court ruling and found no where in the Constitution (like Roe v. Wade). "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" it does not state that they cannot endorse...