quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How bothered are atheists by Thanksgiving?
I only know a few people who consider Thanksgiving a religious holiday. To almost everyone I know, it's an excuse to get together with family and friends and eat a lot. Christmas is likewise so secularized that it is only a religious holiday if you make it one.
A Day of Prayer is only religious. There is no secular version of praying. If they wanted to change it to a National Day of Reflection, or Quiet Contemplation, that would be fine by me.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's quite a bit of difference between what Thanksgiving was ~150 years ago, and what a National Day of Prayer is now (or was very recently). The different contexts involve warrant different treatment. Gerald Ford's 1975 Thanksgiving proclamation did not include any mention of God, for example.
There are also secular rituals involved in Thanksgiving that anyone can engage in. The type of food prepared, for example, has zero religious basis, and serves as an avenue of inclusion for the non-religious. Praying does not feature anything analogous, that I'm aware of.
ETA: or at least, I feel confidant that there'd be a significant religious objection if the trappings of prayer were stripped of its religious meaning.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? If you can't see the difference between a National Day of Prayer and Mother's Day, there really isn't any point in my discussing this with you.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm arguing because - and remember that I am possibly your most sympathetic religious audience - it feels kind of petty. It isn't organized school prayer (which I am against) where there is a stigma or pressure surrounding non-participation. It doesn't involve the use of public funds (which I am also against). No one is asking atheists to pay for this. It feels like you want to deny comfort to those who find comfort in prayer. And that just seems mean-spirited and smug.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It feels like you want to deny comfort to those who find comfort in prayer.
I want the national government to stop treating the sane minority like a bunch of crazies that can be safely ignored; to stop assuming that superstition is the default mode and is ok; and to stop clearly displaying an opinion in an area where it is bound by the Constitution not to have an opinion. "Respecting an establishment" includes favouring generalised religion over no religion, and a national day of prayer clearly does that, as well as favouring praying religions over non-praying ones.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm fine with a church-established "National Day of Prayer.". I just don't want a government sponsored one.
I don't begrudge people comfort in prayer, even if I think they would be much better off if they found it elsewhere.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tangential to the main discussion, but you should. "That which can be destroyed by truth, should be". Prayer does nothing; consequently any comfort derived from it is false, or at most is of the sort that can just as well be had from managing to internalise the phrase "Nothing to be done about this, I should work on something else".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. The placebo effect, "fake" as it may be, is real. In some cases powerfully real. And the fact is, a significant chunk of the population is simply not cut out for deriving comfort from intellectual pursuits in the way that I (and presumably you) do. I take comfort in the fact that I will die and not live forever. To a lot of people out there, that is hella counter-intuitive, and no amount of education is going to completely change that.
I do agree that it is dangerous to let people rely extensively on superstition, and given that, on one level, all of it is equally "not-real" it can be very hard to draw a line. But I think that if government stays out of religion, and if we make a concentrated effort to make sure everyone gets an excellent education, the "dangerous" level of superstition will dwindle.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prayer does nothing tangible, but it does offer some people comfort. If they are unable to find that comfort elsewhere, and if the act of that prayer is otherwise neutral, I don't have a problem with it, any more than I go around telling children that Santa Clause is their parents.
I'm fine with the good parts of Organized Religion. It's the bad parts I object to. It would be great if we got the good parts without the baggage of unnecessary authority figures, supersition, inbuilt xenophobia, and so forth, but some people don't seem to be able to easily separate the two.
In some cases, such as the National Day of Prayer, this goes too far into the negative, so we should oppose it. In other areas, such as people personally praying to deal with emotional distress, the downside is pretty small compared to the personal benefit they receive, so I'd put it pretty far down the list of things I should care about.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I would not feel significant pressure to reject my Christianity just because the government declared a National Day of Magic.
Why not?
Because part of life in modern free society is learning how to be yourself while constantly being told by other people how you should be. I see advertisements everyday telling me how I should act, what I should buy, etc. I see people everyday who have expectations about how I should behave. I hear messages all the time from many directions telling me what I should believe, many of which come from sources whose opinion I care a lot more about than the government's. No person in our society can grow up without learning to maintain their own identity against a sea of expectations from the rest of the world. The pressure created by a government proclamation about a National Day of Magic is essentially like a tiny drop of water in that sea.
quote:Nobody would be making Christians practice magic if there were a nationally sanctioned Day of Magic, but you wouldn't hear the end of it about how the government was trying to corrupt the youth of the country or encourage anti-Christian sentiments from many Christian groups.
Just trying to offer the Christians some way to empathize, since many don't seem to get what the "big deal" is with this.
But if Christians were to think such a day is a "big deal" they'd be wrong. Just like those who made a big deal about the evils of Harry Potter books were wrong.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Prayer does nothing tangible, but it does offer some people comfort. If they are unable to find that comfort elsewhere, and if the act of that prayer is otherwise neutral, I don't have a problem with it, any more than I go around telling children that Santa Clause is their parents.
Of course you have a problem with it, or at least it certainly sounds like you do. At least KoM is copping to it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: But if Christians were to think such a day is a "big deal" they'd be wrong. Just like those who made a big deal about the evils of Harry Potter books were wrong.
This. In fact, my reaction to this is very similar to my reaction to those Christians who get all het up about Harry Potter.
Also, I think that the ideas of what prayer is that have been expressed here, are very different from what I think prayer is.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We just need to add a "National Day of Magic" where everyone is encouraged to cast beneficial magic spells for the betterment of America.
Christians would all be cool with that, right?
It really doesn't matter if Christians are or aren't cool with it. What matters is: it wouldn't violate our freedom of religion in any way.
Magic, like prayer, is a concept shared across many religious groups and recognizing it would not imply an establishment of any national religion. And I would not feel significant pressure to reject my Christianity just because the government declared a National Day of Magic.
On a similar note, some Christians already are not cool with Halloween, which does include references to demons, ghosts, etc. But if they were to sue some government agency under the First Amendment for doing something to recognize Halloween, I'd hope the legal system would reject that lawsuit firmly.
I think that you are getting to the crux of the issue. Endorsing a national holiday doesn't violate anybody's constitutional rights, and making a big deal out of it just distracts from the fact that many of our rights are being illegitimately taken from us in some way or another.
And Strider, I think actively fighting to remove National day of prayer is a move in the direction of an officially atheist stance, not towards no stance at all. Why not have a national day of prayer, and a national day of atheism too?
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because once you start down that road, you'll never stop. What about those religions that require an animal sacrifice for their rites? Are we to have national days of animal sacrifice, ritual drug use, and religious-ecstatic dancing?
ETA: Although, with that said, if there were any actual, realistic possibility of having a national day of atheism, your argument might nonetheless have some merit. Since that's not going to happen before my storm troopers invade the White House and pronounce the Revolution, I'm rather unimpressed. The theists get a national day of prayer, and the pro quo is vague net-forum rhetoric about the possible future implementation of a national day for atheists too? Gee, thanks.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When your storm troopers come, KoM, all I ask is one thing and one thing only. No wait two things. Make sure all their blasters are set to that stun effect that they use on Leia, because the aren't going to hit anybody any other way. Second, I want to ride on an AT AT. Bad.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have an official Wright Brothers Day. You could claim Religious Freedom Day (Jan 16) or maybe Bill of Rights Day (Dec 15). Character Counts has a whole week. Surely you can get something passed in Congress.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kmb, I understand of course that your beliefs are explicitly and deliberately decoupled from reality and that you think this is as it should be. Nonetheless, it is with some incredulity I ask whether you are really asserting that a "National Atheism Day" could get passed by this or any other Congress. Are you really that privilege-blind? Or is this one of those things where it doesn't matter what can actually get passed, because we can all choose to believe that in fact it's already on the books?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well you know KoM. That's because not that many people want it passed. It would be fine in my book if it did, but I'm obviously not going to go lobby for it. 80% of the country identifies itself as some kind of religious. It's not like your under represented. Your vocal minority is what got National day of Prayer off the books. I'd say pat yourself on the back. It's not like anyone just has a right to a have a day for their beliefs. If enough people want it it gets done. That's the way it should be. I guess you'll just have to start popularizing Atheism if you want to have a nationally recognized day. By the way, attacking a national day of prayer isn't going to serve your cause. Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I"m sorry, KoM. My last post wasn't intended to be taken seriously. I do think that you could possibly get something like National Reason Day or something like that passed. But I think that your aim here is less to have "a day" for atheists than it is to keep other people from having "a day" for prayer.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If enough people want it it gets done. That's the way it should be.
That's the way it is, but no means is it the way it should be. Many pretty horrible things were popular at one time or another.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Because once you start down that road, you'll never stop. What about those religions that require an animal sacrifice for their rites? Are we to have national days of animal sacrifice, ritual drug use, and religious-ecstatic dancing?
This is no more valid than when anti-gay marriage activists claim that the legalization of gay marriage will lead to the legalization of incest, bestiality etc.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is no more valid than when anti-gay marriage activists claim that the legalization of gay marriage will lead to the legalization of incest, bestiality etc.
They are both slippery slope arguments, but one is definitely more wrong than the other. There's a clear dividing line between same sex marriage and those other things, whereas there is no clear boundary to special beliefs or practices various groups of people might want to recognize with a National Day. One could even note that we already have so many such days that people largely ignore them; we've already gone down that path. (Unlike officially recognizing non-consensual sexual relationships with specific civil benefits, which is not at all demonstrably likely.)
That being said, the likely continued proliferation of silly days not a good reason not to have a National Atheism Day. The actual good reason for not doing so is that it would constitute government endorsement of rejecting all theistic religions, and that's an infringement on 1st amendment rights. Even I don't want that, even though I think our government should be a lot more strictly secular than it is now.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not like anyone just has a right to a have a day for their beliefs. If enough people want it it gets done. That's the way it should be.
No actually, it isn't; the US Constitution was written explicitly to say what sort of things the majority was not allowed to legislate, and state support of religion is one of those things. Now I don't say that the Constitution is written in the stars and the mountains as the only way things can be done, but when a law is on the books I like to see it enforced, especially when it protects me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I"m sorry, KoM. My last post wasn't intended to be taken seriously. I do think that you could possibly get something like National Reason Day or something like that passed. But I think that your aim here is less to have "a day" for atheists than it is to keep other people from having "a day" for prayer.
You can have 365 days for prayer, or 366 every fourth year. What you cannot have is explicit government support for it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is my argument against a "National Day of Prayer."
Already Christian groups argue that we are a Christian country based on the "Under God" line in the pledge of allegiance and the "In God we Trust" printed on our money.
What more ammunition will they have when they say, "Sure we are a Christian country. We even have one day set aside each year for Prayer. You atheists and non-believers aren't truly American."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not like anyone just has a right to a have a day for their beliefs. If enough people want it it gets done. That's the way it should be.
No actually, it isn't; the US Constitution was written explicitly to say what sort of things the majority was not allowed to legislate, and state support of religion is one of those things. Now I don't say that the Constitution is written in the stars and the mountains as the only way things can be done, but when a law is on the books I like to see it enforced, especially when it protects me.
You know what, having a national day of prayer or not in no way protects you from anything. I'm not saying that minorities don't need protection from a tyrannical majority, but that isn't what is happening here. In fact it is the opposite. As is sometimes the case when a vocal minority imposes it's will on a silent majority, be it a religious group or a secular one. I can understand why somebody would be hellbent on taking religion out of public life. They are scared of the power religion can hold over people, especially if it stands in the way of power they want.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Yes it does, ever hear of the slippery slope?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by String: I'm not saying that minorities don't need protection from a tyrannical majority, but that isn't what is happening here. In fact it is the opposite. As is sometimes the case when a vocal minority imposes it's will on a silent majority, be it a religious group or a secular one.
Heh, yeah we've all heard this one before. It's part of the victim complex you've clearly established around your religious beliefs, that makes you think that not being allowed to exercise political power in the advancement of those beliefs is not just protecting a minority, but actually subjugating you to its will.
This breaks down in several ways. First of all, the 1st amendment protects religious observers as much as atheists. It also clearly wouldn't allow a national "god is dead" day. It says that congress is NOT INVOLVED in this debate, at all.
You seem to think the default position should be whatever the minority wants. Frankly that's why your kind is afraid of immigration, afraid of change, afraid of young people and new ideas- you think anything that isn't directly under your control, at the heart of an overwhelming majority, is a danger to you. The constitution was put there specifically to make sure that we *could* live at peace with each other despite our society changing over time. Why would you want to undermine such a great thing? Something that helps you, every day?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Frankly that's why your kind is afraid of immigration, afraid of change, afraid of young people and new ideas- you think anything that isn't directly under your control, at the heart of an overwhelming majority, is a danger to you.
What "kind" are we talking about here?
quote:It says that congress is NOT INVOLVED in this debate, at all.
It says that congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion and it says congress can't force people to practice a given religion or any religion at all. It doesn't say congress is not involved in the debate; it doesn't say congress shall make no laws respecting religion whatsoever.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel almost obligated to participate, but we don't have a National Day of Prayer. We do have God in the national anthem though. Half full, half empty, I guess.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It doesn't say congress is not involved in the debate; it doesn't say congress shall make no laws respecting religion whatsoever.
It does, in fact, say that congress is not involved in the debate. You don't understand the issue. Laws made by congress can effect establishments of religion, but they are not to "regard" establishments of religion. A national day of prayer is a law endorsing religious practice directly. That's a no no. It's a simple issue, really, and religious people should be as concerned about it as atheists. Government sponsorship of religion is a bad thing for everyone, not just the losers.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In what way is Obama's declaration considered law?
I suppose there can be an argument made about using federal funds to print up National Day of Prayer posters...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by String: They are scared of the power religion can hold over people, especially if it stands in the way of power they want.
I am afraid of the power religion can hold over people. Have you seen some of the religious leaders that people are allowing to hold this power?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, the Wikipedia entry on the subject points at this law:
quote:36 U.S.C. § 119 : US Code - Section 119: National Day of Prayer
The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/36/I/A/1/119
Edit to add: I think thats the law that the judge is ruling on based on
quote:...Defendants identify no other instance in which Congress has endorsed a particular religious practice in a statute. The thanksgiving proclamations are distinct from § 119 in at least three important ways.... Although the law does not always point in the same direction on matters related to the establishment clause, my review of that law requires a conclusion that 36 U.S.C. § 119 is unconstitutional... The President too remains free to discuss his own views on prayer. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 723 (Stevens, J., dissenting). The only issue decided in this case is that the federal government may not endorse prayer in a statute as it has in § 119.
posted
Which raises the question of whether Congress has the power to bind proclamations of future Presidents in this manner. What happens when I am elected and refuse to do so? I wonder if anyone has raised a challenge on these grounds, perhaps to a similar law?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men: From the judicial ruling, it looks like that was done right at the start. Jefferson, Madison, and Andrew Jackson refused successfully.
quote:Finally, even if I were to consider as relevant the actions of early Presidents, that tradition does not point in one direction. Although George Washington may have supported thanksgiving proclamations, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did not. “President Jefferson . . . steadfastly refused to issue Thanksgiving proclamations of any kind, in part because he thought they violated the Religion Clauses.” Lee, 505 U.S. at 623 (Souter, J., concurring). Jefferson explained that “[e]very religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for [prayers] and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it . . . [C]ivil powers alone have been given to the [federal government], and no authority to direct the religious exercises of [its] constituents.” 11 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 429
quote:Madison objected to thanksgiving proclamations because they “seem to imply and certainly nourish a national religion,” 3 The Papers of James Madison 560 (1962), quoted in Davis, supra, at 90 (emphasis in original), and, more specifically, they tend “to narrow the recommendation to the standard of the predominant sect.” Madison's Detached Memoranda, quoted in Lee, 505 U.S. at 617 (Souter, J., concurring). Although Madison “gave in to demands to proclaim days of thanksgiving” during the War of 1812, Davis, supra, at 90, he later regretted it, McCreary, 545 U.S. at 879 n. 25, which simply shows how difficult it can be as an elected official to resist popular opinion, even if it violates one’s own principles.
A few years later, Andrew Jackson followed Jefferson’s example and refused to issue thanksgiving prayer proclamations.
quote:It's a simple issue, really, and religious people should be as concerned about it as atheists. Government sponsorship of religion is a bad thing for everyone, not just the losers.
What is the downside to the government endorsing/celebrating religion in general, given that the government doesn't favor any specific religion and that the government doesn't force or pressure anyone to practice religion or believe in a religion? Why would that, given those limitations, be a bad thing for everyone?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a simple issue, really, and religious people should be as concerned about it as atheists. Government sponsorship of religion is a bad thing for everyone, not just the losers.
What is the downside to the government endorsing/celebrating religion in general, given that the government doesn't favor any specific religion and that the government doesn't force or pressure anyone to practice religion or believe in a religion? Why would that, given those limitations, be a bad thing for everyone?
Firstly, because religion in general is a bad thing. Secondly, because bad or not, the Constitution gives atheists protection from this sort of thing.
You are suffering from a really classic case of privilege blindness; you simply do not see the advantages that you have because you are nuts. If someone were to argue against affirmative action on the grounds that women and minorities should compete on a level playing field, you would be the first to point out that in fact it's not level in the default state, and that white men tend to think their natural advantages are a law of nature which everyone gets. Now you are the one with the privilege, and boom, suddenly "there's no harm in it."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think this would be a productive discussion if you could enumerate how you think a National Day of Prayer, as practiced currently, gives privileges to believers to the exclusion of non-believers.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
The privilege is that the national government, with all its power, recognises 'having faith' as the default state, the one on which no comment is needed, and then provides infrastructure to support that state. It is a very powerful affirmation of craziness. It says that those who do not pray are outsiders, not full citizens.
Further edit: This article explains it from the POV of a mainstream Christian.
[ April 23, 2010, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
