National Day of Prayer always an unconstitutional custom

Lets do this, people feel so helpless to find a way to bring change into the hearts of our Government Officials. And Supreme Court Judges. As we move forward into a new area and the Laws against God and Country is still in effect, what shall we do ? What can we say ? Let Me share with you the W.O.R.D.....{ Worship Of Religion Day }, a decree...
The separation of Church and State by Law,was for a purpose, and as it would seem its purpose has been violated. You see, people do not need to have permission for a day of prayer, or a moment of silence at school. The simple fact is Man is not in position to make Law against God. The United States Of America was built by men and women of faith. Every where we look from the dollar bill to the Flag to the Constitution, you will find God, and the WORD.
When you take the Constitution, The Declaration Of Independence, and The Bill Of Rights. First you must admire the simplicity of the Trinity of Laws Of Protection, as they work as One, and at the same time they maintain their independence. These Law / Guide Lines are in place for a good reason, and it is forbidden by Law to amend the above Laws to the misrepresentation of intent because those who do not have Faith.
As these Government Officials go to Church on Sunday, do they pray to a God they do not believe in ?
On page 20 at our site, line 10, you will see my in site, my belief. I ask you to unite with us and you do not need my permission to post with FASC Concepts, just do it and spread the WORD. I can not do this alone.
10.We Bring forward the Trevor McKinney ACT into law , that this childs death has marked this Country for the lack of in site by laws created laws against God.
Trevor McKinney was killed at school, a child killed by another child. Both so young that it allows you to see the vacuum created within schools, by a Law that states No Moment of Silence for a prayer at school.
I have watched for over 40 years our children die, become lost to the drug world, and our Country torn apart by Laws from those of no faith.
FASC Concepts in and for Pay it Forward covers the web see why we have become the largest web site in the United States, and we give our thank to the thousands of people who post by us, as one voice. on google , yahoo, and aol www.fascmovement.mysite.com

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MRBRADWII |
POSTED MAY 5, 2010 10:37 PM

IRT:
“But what if it's to the wrong god? The wrong Idol worshipped? The wrong form used? Should we all stand around and pray at each other anyway? Just so we're noticed feeling all brotherly?”

ANS:
If it is the wrong God, God would not be vindictive if one prayed to the God and through no fault of his own did not know the real God. Consequently, Jesus gave the blind man, who knew him not, his sight, and the Jews, finding he could see claimed he was lying about his blindness.

John 9: 34cf.
“And they [Jews] cast him out [of the Temple]. Jesus heard that they had cast him out. And when he had found him, he said to him: Dost thou believe in the Son of God? He answered, and said: Who is he, Lord that I may believe in him? 37 And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down, he adored him. 39 And Jesus said: For judgment I am come into this world: that they who see not may see; and they who see may become blind.”

The point being, here was a man who did not know Jesus and apparently didn’t ask to see. He did not know who was the true God but God showed His mercy on him because God knew in the heart of this man there was good.

IRT:
If you want to work to save every separate genetic identity from oblivion, that is your right. But surely you cannot justify the spiritual socialism of government-sponsored prayer.

ANS:
Socialism is a political theory advocating state ownership of industry. God, who created all men, has a somewhat ownership on all men since He created all men. However, God gave man a choice to be foolish or wise. That is man’s prerogative.

However, God did give the command to His disciples to go forth and teach all nations, that none may lay to the claim that they do not know Him. Thus, those who reject his teachers, reject Him. He said to them, shake off the dust of their presence and let them wallow in their own pride and stiffkneckness.

Hence, the mandate is to present the truth that all may know the truth. However, “You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.”

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MRBRADWII |
POSTED MAY 5, 2010 10:37 PM

IRT:
“Leaving aside the technical aspects of this statement, do you not find it incongruous that the same government that you believe sanctions murder, now also wants to lead us all in prayer?”

ANS:
The Secularists sanction murder; the chaplains have sponsored the "Prayer Breakfast," which is requested by a majority of Congress and the Senate. The government as a whole does not sanction God or prayer in the Court who has abandoned the Natural Law in "Roe," banned the Bible and Scripture from the Public Square, and in "Lawrence v. Texas," ruled that Traditional Morality served no legal purpose to the State, so stated by Judge Crabb in her assault on Christianity.

If I am not mistaken, it was Obama a Socialist Communist who had Graham’s invitation withdrawn. according to Graham. Nor, do I believe the Army acts without Obama’s permission.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/05/graham-v-obama-preachers-kid-knocks-president-over-islam-stan/

“The younger evangelist [Graham] told the conservative media outlet "Newsmax" that while Obama may not have been directly responsible for the Pentagon snub, White House aides surely gave the go-ahead to un-invite him.”

IRT:
“Or is perhaps an Obamian prayer more offensive than a Bushian prayer? Or is anything that fosters prayer in general a good thing?”

ANS:
To whom would a prayer of an atheist (Obama) be to? At the Prayer Breakfast, I don’t believe Bush was there giving a pray. Prayers to God are only offensive if they are intentionally meant to be.

Prayer is talking to God. Since He is our Creator and asked man to pray and pay homage to him in the First and Second Commandments, I believe it would be very propitious to do so, and certainly not harmful unless meant to be or unwittingly caused to be offensive because of one's presumption or priggery. It is said, there are no atheists in fox-holes during a war. I am sure many pray with urgency and God listens.

[...]
Furthermore, the Court impugned the Moral NL by legalizing Murder, since the “conceived” is a human being with the same genetic code an adult has.
[...]
Posted by TTWSYF...
______

Leaving aside the technical aspects of this statement, do you not find it incongruous that the same government that you believe sanctions murder, now also wants to lead us all in prayer?

Or is perhaps an Obamian prayer more offensive than a Bushian prayer? Or is anything that fosters prayer in general a good thing?

But what if it's to the wrong god? The wrong Idol worshipped? The wrong form used? Should we all stand around and pray at each other anyway? Just so we're noticed feeling all brotherly?

If you want to work to save every separate genetic identity from oblivion, that is your right. But surely you cannot justify the spiritual socialism of government-sponsored prayer.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MRBRADWII
‘A BYTE OF TRUTH’

IRT:
"Suppose any of this contained a byte of truth that could possibly set us free. Do you suppose that applying the deadening hand of government to direct a nationwide engagement of spiritual practice is the right way to go about honoring the NML?"

ANS:
Not a byte but all is true. For instance, the Court, stymied by the IV Amendment which guarantees that a “person be secure in its own person," the Court redefined Human Nature and declared in Blackmun's Trimester Theory that an unborn, a human person is no longer human but a "thing" becoming human.

The Court created three nonexistent beings, a “conceived thing,” a "1/3 human-2/3 thing," and a "2/3 human-1/3 thing."

Moreover the Court implicitly and unwittingly, and in effect unconsciously, concluded that a woman was never with child because it took a Congressional statute to prevent Partial-Birth-Abortion.

The Court without authority arrogated the authority of the Natural Law (NL), the sole providence of God, and redefined man.

Furthermore, the Court impugned the Moral NL by legalizing Murder, since the “conceived” is a human being with the same genetic code an adult has.

This is a scientific fact from the Chairman of Mao Clinic, Hymie Gordon, and Dr. Jerome Lejeune, “The Father of Modern Genetics." notwithstanding a multitude confering famous geneticist of our time.

"There is no question about when human life begins. The widely used medical textbook 'The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998,' states at page 2 that The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous .... This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being ....' At page 18 this theme is repeated: "Human development begins at fertilization."

Judge Michael J. Noonan ruled, "…based upon the undisputed medical testimony by arguably the foremost authority in genetics in the world, 'I found that human life begins at conception; and that Roe vs. Wade permits a legal execution of that human being.' (MUNICIPAL COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION - MORRIS COUNTY CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. C1771, ET SEQ. STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. ALEXANDER LOCE, et als. DEFENDANTS APRIL 29, 1991)

[...]
The Court doesn’t define the NL that is the domain of God. A Government not restrained by the NML is an invitation for the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse, Famine, Pestilence, War, and Death. Two have visited America, Pestilence (AIDS) and Death (Abortion).

Posted by TTWSYF
_____

Suppose any of this contained a byte of truth that could possibly set us free. Do you suppose that applying the deadening hand of government to direct a nationwide engagement of spiritual practice is the right way to go about honoring the NML?

This is a government effort to attach a public grab bar an essentially private and personal practice.

What shall we pray for? Why, perhaps that the winds will mitigate the oil spill, and perhaps it is a sign from god that we should not drill. God obviously wants us to have subsidized green jobs, doesn't he? Or whatever the hell else the bonehead in chief wants to further his agenda. Did you hear is speech honoring the coal miners?

This will not stand, the court cannot overturn the lower court ruling because it is an AFFRONT to the practice of religion, yours especially, TTWSYF, and is a clear trampling of the constitution for the rest of us heathens.

Again:

And the Ultimate Prayer Day??

The National Hoodooing the Voodoo!!! Or is it the National Voodooing the Hoodoo!!!

SUSAN,

On the other hand, maybe call it Respect the Constitution Day?

SUSAN,

Could you, perhaps, recommend to the Freedom from Religion Folks, a national Anti-Establishment Day?

Farnaz

The comments here only prove that Ms. Jacoby's opinions are point-on. There should be no national day of prayer because we all have such diverse beliefs, including a significant part of the population that believes (1) the so-called great monotheistic religions are neither great nor monotheistic, (2) atheists have it exactly right (3) to criticize someone' religion, even harshly, is a right that we all have, and (4) that religious people should not be surprised at hearing harsh criticism given beliefs, such as, having conversations in their heads with an invisible being that refuses to make its presence plain.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
ENTANGLEMENT?

IRT:
“What is so striking about this episode is its revelation of the danger that entanglement with government poses to the religious as well as to the nonreligious.”

ANS:
The greatest threat is for Government not to recognize God and His laws and make themselves God. No sane person can doubt that atheistic materialistic countries are the epitome of social truculence.

IRT:
How can religion be free if of necessity it must conform to government policy?

ANS:
Government should not interfere with the rituals of any religion. However, Government must recognize the Natural Moral Laws of which Christianity is its guardian. No government should deny the authenticity of the “Ten Commandments,” that are the basis of the NML. Nor can Government be anthropocentric. It must be, by necessity, theocentric.

Consequently, the Founding Fathers (FF) recognized that government does not determine the natural rights of man, God does; governments only recognize them and guarantee them. To reject the authority of God is an invitation for a totalitarian government, where man determines who has rights and what they are.

Moreover, all Civil Laws, to be licit, must be based on human nature that is endowed by God, its author, and was recognized by the FF.

The Court, in “Roe”,” violated the NML, and in “Lawrence v. Texas" astonishingly and falsely claimed the NML was subjective, is not a legitimate basis for Civil Law, and serves no legitimate purpose to the State, of which Crabb mindlessly parroted.

The Court, eschewing the restraints of the NML, determined its own morality contrary to the NML. There is no right to immorality, but immorality became an inalienable right, and some 52 million unborn have been legally murdered. To do this, the Court circumvented the IV Amendment and redefined “person” violating the Natural Law (NL).

The Court doesn’t define the NL that is the domain of God. A Government not restrained by the NML is an invitation for the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse, Famine, Pestilence, War, and Death. Two have visited America, Pestilence (AIDS) and Death (Abortion).

Why is religion so important to government? Government depends on society; society is founded on the Family. The Secularist are redefining Marriage, the foundation of the family, to include Gay Marriage.

1. The Catholic view: "Differences Between Sex and Love"

"Love is primarily in the will, not in the emotions or the glands. The will is like the voice; the emotions are like the echo. The pleasure associated with love, or what is today called "sex," is the frosting on the cake; its purpose is to make us love the cake, not ignore it.

"The greatest illusion of lovers is to believe that the intensity of their sexual attraction is the guarantee of the perpetuity of their love. It is because of this failure to distinguish between the glandular and spiritual--or between sex which we have in common with animals, and love which we have in common with God--that marriages are so full of deception.

"What some people love is not a person, but the experience of being in love. The first is irreplaceable; the second is not. As soon as the glands cease to react with their pristine force, couples who identified emotionalism and love claim they no longer love one another. If such is the case they never loved the other person in the first place; they only loved being loved, which is the highest form of egotism.

"Marriage founded on sex passion alone lasts only as long as the animal passion lasts. Within two years the animal attraction for the other may die, and when it does, law comes to its rescue to justify the divorce with the meaningless words "incompatibility," or "mental torture."

"Animals never have recourse to law courts, because they have no will to love; but man, having reason, feels the need of justifying his irrational behavior when he does wrong.

"There are two reasons for the primacy of sex over love in a decadent civilization. One is the decline of reason. As humans give up reason, they resort to their imaginations. That is why motion pictures and picture magazines enjoy such popularity.

As thinking fades, unrestrained desires come to the fore. Since physical and erotic desires are among the easiest to dwell upon, because they require no effort and because they are powerfully aided by bodily passions, sex begins to be all-important.

It is by no historical accident that an age of anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, such as our own, is also an age of carnal license.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MIUBOT116 |
“WHAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO”

IRT:
“The key is that GOVERNMENT should not be able to promote any religion, not that government can promote "religiously correct" religions, or "Judeo-Christian" religions, or just the "nice" ones, or whatever.”

ANS:
No, government should not be promoting any religion, but neither should government be suppressing religion or be anti-religious either. Moreover, government should not be amoral. Thomas Jefferson is reputed to have said, “If not the Church who do we seek for our moral guidance?” To answer Jefferson’s question, the Court decided it was the arbiter of what is moral and what isn’t.

Consequently, the Court decided that it also was the arbiter of the Natural Law (NL). Thus, it concluded that an unborn child could be murdered, irrespective of the fact that the greatest Embryologist, Microbiologist, and Eugenic scientists proved the conceived is human.

Moreover, the Court needed to get around the IV Amendment that guarantees "a person be secured in their person." The Court redefined “person” and excluded the unborn. Regardless of the Court, governments are not permitted to lie unless they’re Democrats. We the people are the arbiters of the NL, and the Natural Moral Law (NML), not the Courts.

Though government may not promote a religion, that doesn’t exempt them from recognizing the NL and the NML, no matter if the Court’s decision claims the NML serves no legitimate purpose to the State, a startling and moronic pronouncement in itself.

Despite the Court's absurd and presumptuous arrogate of power, all Civil Laws must be based on the NML and the NL. In addition, the Court banned, from the Public Square, the “Ten Commandments,” the basis of all morality.

IRT:
“Franklin Graham is fully free to espouse his own views, whatever bigotry they may contain. Other Americans are equally free to listen to and agree with those views. The government should not be promoting ANY religious views, period.”

ANS:
The bigotry is to scandalize Graham and religion because one is incapable of understanding either. Religion defines God and without God, man is the arbiter of the NML, and your inalienable rights, as China and Russia believe they are.

Thanks, Susan, for ringing that first amendment bell loud & clear.

To those early posters: you are totally missing the point. Offensive speech is and should be protected when it is the speech of US citizens. That's our right as Americans, to spout off any old BS (pick your flavor) that you happen to believe. There is no constitutional right to not be offended (at least not yet).

The key is that GOVERNMENT should not be able to promote any religion, not that government can promote "religiously correct" religions, or "Judeo-Christian" religions, or just the "nice" ones, or whatever.

Franklin Graham is fully free to espouse his own views, whatever bigotry they may contain. Other Americans are equally free to listen to and agree with those views. The government should not be promoting ANY religious views, period.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“NONSECTARIAN BUFFONERY?”

“…Graham’s calling Islam "evil" is a salutary reminder of the hollowness of the claim that events like the National Day of Prayer do not violate the First Amendment...”

ANS:
"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs in return is the garden of Paradise: they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him us truth…" (Koran, Sura 9:111)

Under this interpretation of the Koranic verse, Islam is a suicide/death cult and Mohammed taught that death is good and glorious.”

"'The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death,' explained Afghani al Qaeda operative Maulana Inyadullah.

“Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: 'We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid.'"

“Iran leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, 'It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl, to be prepared to sacrifice his life to serve the interests of his nation and religion.'

“To the Muslim religionist death is victorious. They believe they will be united with 72 virgins in some ‘Paradise’ after being blown up to please their god—Allah.

Jacoby reminds me of the corner who tells their boxer beaten nearly half to death is that his opponent hasn't touched him yet. The fighter says, “Keep an eye on that referee, will ya.” Jacoby, denies the reality of Muslim violence to demean religion and bolster her atheism.

Are Israelis who think Muslims are violent psychoneurotic. Maybe novelist Taslima Nasrin is paranoid after Muslims assaulted him and threatened his life, or Salmon Rushdie is a schizo to believe Komeini was serious when he issued a "fatwā" requiring Rushdie's execution.

Do the people of Afghanistan think the Taliban are angels of peace? Moreover, I wonder why the King of Jordan threw the peace-loving bin Laden out of Jordan, or why the bigoted Iraqis hung the saintly Saddam and company. Saddam and his thugs only raped and murdered some 300,000 Iraqis in the name of Allah.

National deranged Hate Fairy Day?

Let's "share" an Atheist Appreciation Day

with our fellow citizens on National Prayer Day each year if Obama and Congress
won't proclaim one for us.

Could be REAL interesting.
------------------------------------
I suggested the very thing quite awhile ago and in the interest of pluralism, I think that Obama would have to support if or explain why if we made sufficient noise.

THIS would be a good time to make noise, SUSAN JACOBY. You might bring the matter up with Freedom from Religion and other atheist groups with which you are affiliated.

It would also make a good topic for your next essay.

Again, freedom from religion is as basic a human right as the freedom to observe it.

ANOTHER TOPIC for SUSAN: Can we be good WITH religion?

And the Ultimate Prayer Day??

The National Hoodooing the Voodoo!!! Or is it the National Voodooing the Hoodoo!!!

Wonderful job, Ms. Jacoby, as usual.

I suggest the those who don't agree with Judge Crabb's ruling read it at http://ffrf.org/uploads/legal/SummaryJudgementGeitner.PDF and follow that with a good editorial that reviews the founders' intentions at http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/article_a7b2592b-d735-5886-a997-703770877dc4.html

Let's "share" an Atheist Appreciation Day

with our fellow citizens on National Prayer Day each year if Obama and Congress
won't proclaim one for us.

Could be REAL interesting.

Athena4,

"National Odin day?"

Kewl! I'm there!

Well, except for that hanging upside down in a tree for three days, and putting out one of your eyes. :D
______________________
The tree business--well, yes, there is that....

You Rock Girl!

"National Odin day?"

Kewl! I'm there!

Well, except for that hanging upside down in a tree for three days, and putting out one of your eyes. :D

It is written, “With man nothing is possible, with God, all things are possible."
-----------------------------------------
If this is part of the premise for having a National Day of Prayer, then we need to get rid of it as soon as possible.

As Richard Dawkins points out in his section, Franklin Graham has not been excluded because of all the idiotic crap he spews, but for the most sensible thing he ever said.

THE ROLE OF THE ATHEISTS:

It is written, “With man nothing is possible, with God, all things are possible."

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the hero of the Enlightenment Period is a pellucid exemplar of how man goes wrong depending on himself and living the façade that we live in an anthropocentric world and not a theocentric one.

It doesn’t take much brains to figure out what happens when there is no God. Notwithstanding the contemporary nations of today, the Soviet Union, China, N. Korea, the Sudan and the Congo, we can see in the late 18th Century the fruits of atheism in the French Revolution where the vestiges of Rousseau had enlightened the “Reign of Terror.”

“The late 18th-century movement known as the "Age of Sensibility", featuring an increasing focus on subjectivity and introspection that has characterized the modern age. A cult grew up around Rousseau after his death, and particularly the radicalized versions of Rousseau's ideas that were adopted by Robespierre and Saint-Just during the "Reign of Terror," caused him to become identified with the most extreme aspects of the French Revolution. The revolutionaries were also inspired by Rousseau to introduce Deism as the new official civil religion of France, scandalizing traditionalists.

“According to Rousseau, by joining together into civil society through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. This is because submission to the authority of the general will of the people as a whole guarantees individuals against being subordinated to the wills of others and also ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the authors of the law.”

“The Reign of Terror” not only killed all the aristocracy but it turned upon itself and the revolutionaries started killing each other. Even Mr. Guillotine suffered the fate of the guillotine.

Opponents of the Revolution and defenders of religion, most influentially the Irish essayist Edmund Burke, therefore placed the blame for the excesses of the French Revolution directly on the revolutionaries' misplaced (as he considered it) adulation of Rousseau
The fanatic Jacques Hébert, who had introduced the worship of a goddess of Reason, was arrested and executed in Mar., 1794, along with other so-called ultrarevolutionaries. The next month Danton and his followers, the "Indulgents," who advocated relaxation of emergency measures, were executed.

To counter Hébertist influence, Robespierre proclaimed (June, 1794) the cult of the Supreme Being. France's military successes lessened the need for strong domestic measures, but Robespierre called for new purges. Fearing that the Terror would be turned against them, members of the Convention arrested Robespierre on July 27, 1794, and had him guillotined; a majority of Commune members were also executed."

Bravo Susan! Again you succintly say what needs to be said. Stay Loud!

'Sounds like a National day of Prayer no matter how we look at it. Some people believe and pray to God. Other people would have us hope and work toward socialism--and more and more medicine for everyone. Sounds like a comedy, but it totally escapes our comedians.'
__________

Some folks pray for headache relief - I find that aspirin works better. Surely everyone should have socialized aspirin.

There is much humor to be found in all kinds of religious superstition ... endless grist for the comedy mill.

A clearly unconstitutional National Day of Prayer is a huge joke, isn't it??

Part one.

A National day of Prayer in the United States?

There are some who argue for a National day of Prayer in the United States. There are others who dislike such a notion. One argument against a National day of Prayer runs along the lines that there are many religions, so which one really is satisfied by the National day of Prayer? Or to put it differently, and with greater elaboration, there are many Gods, so which God prayed to, and if many different and conflicting Gods, should we not just dispense with religion altogether?

Part two.

Apparently to some people the fact that a God named Zeus once existed--was believed in--and now Jesus Christ is believed in means we should dispense with the concept of God altogether because the God Zeus conflicts with the God Jesus Christ. Apparently to some people conflicting notions of God must be interpreted logically to mean there is no God. But of course if we were to follow their logic we would say we should just dispense with a theory of evolution in science because Lamarck's theory conflicts with Darwin's.

The fact is conflicting notions of God do not necessarily mean the concept of God is absurd, merely that people argue about God, much as they argue about truth in science. In fact truth in science is founded on religious questions as to the nature of God. But some people prefer to impose their own preferences on things and declare that conflicting notions about God can mean only one thing: that there is no God. The truth is these people should be told that conflicting notions about God also demonstrates that no matter the conflicting notions God is believed in here, there and everywhere.

Part three.

So, to turn to another objection to the National day of Prayer. Some people declare the belief in God akin to being psychologically affected by a placebo--as if not only are the people who do not believe in God in possession of greater medical truth (true medicine and not placebo) but that they are stronger than the religious for not needing any placebo…The non-religious in possession of true medicine and not placebo and stronger than the religious? First we should question why true medicine--supposing such clearly distinguishable from the "placebo" belief in God--goes hand in hand with psychological strength and is not in fact a creation by man out of even greater weakness than believing in God.

The atheists insofar as they are left wing and in promotion of socialized medicine psychologically stronger than the religious who believe in the "placebo" God? The atheists insofar as they are left wing and in belief in socialized medicine are not with a greater delusion than the religious for in fact biological history demonstrates that man has come down to what he is today by genetic differentiation rather than medicine (medicine is an extremely recent development--animals have none at all except accidentally in the sense of ingestion of certain plants and so on) and should continue to genetically differentiate himself rather than seek medical security?

Part four.

An argument can clearly be made that the atheists insofar as they are left wing and in belief in socialized medicine are psychologically weaker than the religious. Biological history not only demonstrates that man has come down to today without any medicine to speak of, for again medicine is extremely recent, he has come down to today by a very narrow line of descent, that the vast majority of humans that have ever existed have left no genetic trace. So would it not be a better, and of course stronger, idea for the non-religious and presumedly scientific to determine which people among us are the soundest, least in need of medicine and with the best genetics and have these people propagate the human line and summarily dismiss those less fit to propagate the line?

Just listen to the outcry that would occur among the non-religious if such were proposed! Why they would probably declare we should have a National day of Prayer after all! Anything but actualize science, make the simple observation that man has never really needed medicine to become what he is today, he has merely needed to be genetically fit! If science is truly observed, not only is religion a placebo, medicine itself is a degeneration of man--and socialism as well insofar as it acts as if all people are genetically equal! To truly be without the placebo religion one would have to truly enter science and observe, once again, that man is what he is through genetic differentiation, mutation, not medicine, and that the future of man depends on further genetic differentiation, not medicine. Or if medicine, the medicine of genetically altering the human race.

Part five.

But perhaps we should just descend to tinier arguments against a National day of Prayer, say things like "our forefathers did not intend for religion to have anything to do with government". That might make the most sense. In fact so be it. Religion is not supposed to have any say in public life, government and so on. In fact dispense with religion altogether. But now what? Now what do we mean by government? We have eliminated religion. Now what government? Do the non-religious among us have the answer to that question? You mean socialism? Not just a replacement of the placebo religion by true medicine but true medicine for everyone? Man the medicalized creature when he has become man by precisely no medicine and his hope is that he may be genetically altered further and not need any medicine? Or are we to hope for more and more medicine rather than a genetic alteration of the human race?

Sounds like a National day of Prayer no matter how we look at it. Some people believe and pray to God. Other people would have us hope and work toward socialism--and more and more medicine for everyone. Sounds like a comedy, but it totally escapes our comedians.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
“Judge Barbara B. Crabb was completely right when she declared that the sole purpose of a 1952 law establishing a national day of prayer …"is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular purpose.”

ANS:
On our money is the words “In God We Trust.” If not God than whom should we trust? In our military there are chaplains; in Congress the Congress is started in a prayer. Jefferson remarked, that if not the Church then who should we seek for counsel us in rules of ethics, our morality and values?

Certainly it’s not the Court who has legalized murder of the unborn, who claimed traditional morality served no purpose to the State, as the mindless Judge Crabb declared. To the contrary, all Civil law is based on traditional moral law.

In displaying images of the current speaker’s rostrum in the House chamber, the phrase “In God We Trust” is omitted from its location engraved in marble above the speaker’s head. Inlaid at the National Archives' entrance is a bronze medallion of the Ten Commandments, surrounded by four winged figures representing Legislation, Justice, History, and War and Defense, a testament to the Archives' architects' bold witness to the centrality of biblical truth to the American experience.

Should we remove the Declaration of Independence that cites we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights? Maybe we should demolish the Washington Monument that praises God, a.k.a. “Laus Deo”

Do we do away with the Crosses in Arlington Cemetery? The Atheists have already tried to prevent the mention of God during the military burial service of a mother’s son who died defending this country.

In 1851, when the new House and Senate wings of the Capitol were begun, Webster gave a speech that was deposited in the cornerstone. Its final words are these: And all here assembled, whether belonging to public life or to private life, with hearts devotedly thankful to Almighty God for the preservation of the liberty and happiness of the country, unite in sincere and fervent prayers that this deposit, and the walls and arches, the domes and towers, the columns and the entablatures, now to be erected over it, may endure forever.

Do we not have a right to our heritage?

The National Day of Prayer has apparently causing more controversy. The Reverend Franklin Graham, son of legendary televangelist, Billy Graham was apparently invited and then uninvited to the Pentagon to celebrate this unconstitutional event.

While many atheists are opposed to the National Day of Prayer, I think it is actually a good idea. We do have to be clear about one thing, which god we as a nation ought to be called to pray too.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://tinyurl.com/2wmhrdf

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

Globalone said: "The single greatest argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter"

How about you as the head of a Christian theocracy. Sounds like what you;re lobbying for here.

National Duck Day

A wandering family of ducks gets an escort home

A mother duck and her 13 babies wandered away from the ponds Monday at the National Museum of the American Indian and headed west along Independence Avenue under the watchful eyes of museum employees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/04/26/GA2010042603800.html

National orange tulip appreciation day?

National clouds day?

National river day?

National gratitude to James Joyce day?

National poetry writing day?

National paddle ball day?

National work out day?

National Odin day?

For those Americans who have personal relationships with the foregoing.

Why do we have to be harrassed by this insanity yet again?

How about a national burrito day, during which those of us who have a relation with burritos can eat them outside, perhaps, while holding Mexican and American flags?

How about a national daydreaming day, during which we all gather outside and fantasize?

A national watercolorists' day?

A national french fries day?

Pray wherever you want, but respect MY RIGHT to privacy. I don't want to see or hear about it. I don't know you, do I, National Prayer Dayers?

Graham was only half right. Religion, all religion, is evil.

"So put down your rosaries and prayer beads and stop worshiping cows and bowing to Mecca five times a day. Instead work hard at your job, take care of aging parents, volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to charities and the poor and continue to follow the commandments of your religion or any good rules of living as gracious and good human beings"

--------------------

Here's a clue Yeal. The religious people you speak of are already doing the things you mention. It's not an either/or arrangement. They are working hard, providing for their family, AND giving back to their community. This, of course, is in addition to studying God's Word.

As a secularist, should I assume, since you have no church commitments at night or on weekends, that you return home from work each day and park your fat butt on the couch and watch American Idol and Survivor all night long?

The single greatest argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter,

Imagine proposing a national day of prayer sponsored by the federal government to the founding fathers?

I think they would just shake their heads in frustration and say "You so don't get what we're going for here."

I meant to say "neutral in matters of religion." Oops.

How about a nice secular national day of wishful thinking?
A national day of hope?
A national day of thinking good thoughts?
A national day of placebo ingestion?

Just some thoughts.

"National Day of Prayer is absolutely consitutional (sic) given that the framers understood favoring "one relgion (sic) over another" spoke of Catholics, Baptists and Episcolalians (sic) and not Buddists, (sic) Muslims and Hindus. This debate has gotten skewed by the steady drumbeat of those opposed to Christianity and the Constitution by the indoctrination of our culture through the closing of our children's minds through our so-called education system.

"We Christians are to blame for letting it go so far and most of us find ourselves on our knees now asking for God's mercy. Please join us Ms. Jacoby before your Muslim friends move in and fit you with a Berka."
Posted by wakeup3

Wakeup3, I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. The idea that Constitutional guarantees regarding religious freedom only apply to Christians has been dismissed by every constitutional scholar who ever seriously looked at the issue. There are many statements from Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and many more to back this up. The Treaty of Tripoli is one of the most well-known official documents, but there are others. The simple fact is the Founders wanted a government that was neutral on religion. True we didn't always live up to that ideal, but that was the goal.

If you are seriously interested in learning about real US history, I would suggest going to http://hnn.us/, a site run by and for professional historians. If you aren't seriously interested, I would suggest not trying to comment on history. I know that sounds snarky, but I get tired of people tossing lies around as historical fact. The fact that they honestly believe those lies is, in my opinion, no defense. Education is available, and never easier. If someone chooses to remain ignorant, they can't expect to have their opinions given much weight.

As to your 'join us or put on a burka' sentiment, it makes no sense. The whole idea that if one isn't cheering for to Christian rule the only alternative is Muslim rule is not logical. There are many alternatives. For instance, how about the one we have in this country, a secular government that is natural in matters of religion? It really does work.

Some of you folks are missing the point. Those of us who object to government sponsored prayer activities can choose not to attend those events, but our tax dollars are still used to fund them.

I really don't understand the motivation to have the government sponsor one set of beliefs. If you want to pray, please do. Nothing prevents you from praying as publicly as you want. The government just can't endorse your prayer.

Mrs. Jacoby,

I wanted to thank you for the information on Dorothy Haight but the column changed before I could get to it.. I wonder if it would be possible to have a feature on here where more women and other people or minorities shut out from official history could be featured and given some acknowledgement.

One of those that I'd put up for consideration is Matilda Joslyn Gage, the firey suffragist who was the third founder of the National Women Suffrage Association along with Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. She was a prolific author, abolitionist, assisted freed slaves as part of the Underground Railroad, and activist for Native American causes.

Erased from history because she was a Theosophist. I think our children are poorly served by ignoring such important contributions to our nation's history.

As for the topic at hand, it's pretty obvious to me that those who are most upset about the 'national day of prayer' are those who insist on shoving their god down other's throats by having a public day of prayer.. never mind that most of those folks forget that they're supposed to pray in their closets, if their book is any indication.

And our government is, always has been and will continue to be secular. Thank the Founders.

Truth is not bigotry:

According to Mohammed, peaceful muslims aren't muslims at all. Every muslim should be involved in jihad to further world domination:

Qur'an 48:11 "The desert Arabs who lagged behind [in fighting] will say to you (Muhammad): 'We were engaged in (looking after) our flocks and our families.' We have prepared for them a Blazing Fire!"
Qur'an 48:17 "There is no blame for the blind, nor is it a sin for the lame, nor on one ill if he joins not in the fighting. But he who retreats, (Allah) will punish him with a painful doom."
Qur'an 4:77 "Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands from fighting, perform the prayer and pay the zakat. But when orders for fighting were issued, a party of them feared men as they ought to have feared Allah. They say: 'Our Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made war compulsory?'"
Qur'an 4:78 "Wherever you are, death will find you, even if you are in towers built up strong and high! If some good befalls, they say, 'This is from Allah;' but if evil, they say, 'This is from you (Muhammad).' Say: 'All things are from Allah.' So what is wrong with these people, that they fail to understand these simple words?"
Qur'an 4:88 "What is the matter with you that you are divided about the Hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (causing their disbelief). Would you guide those whom Allah has thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah has thrown aside and led astray, never shall they find the Way."
Qur'an 4:89 "They wish that you would reject Faith, as they have, and thus be on the same footing: Do not be friends with them until they leave their homes in Allah's Cause. But [and this is a hell of a but...] if they turn back from Islam, becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them."

We live in a country governed by the lowest common denominator.

A radical minority are offended by American literature, so our state sponsored schools ban Twain's "Adventures of Huckleberry Fin" and Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" and call it good.

A second radical minority is offended by our history, so we demonize Christopher Columbus, removing him from the lesson plan and introduce the idea that Abraham Lincoln gay in order to appease a beleaguered minority. And we call this good too.

A third radical minority is terribly, terribly offended that so many Americans have a relationship with God and want to express it. So in the spirit of "fairness" this minority tells us we can pray as much as we want so long as the sight and sound and smell of our prayers does not leave our darkened basements.

How can we be a nation of The People, and by The People and for The People if so many of The People are for God and yet our government is not?

I am continually amazed by individuals who are offended by the content of particular radio stations. I understand the airwaves are public property but that's why the radio comes with a dial. If you don't like the station, change the channel...

Likewise, if you don't like the Pentagon's National Day of Prayer event, stay home that particular day and let those of us who would benefit from such an event gather to pray in peace.

God (if one exists) could have started the Big Bang. He/She/It may have also granted the gifts of Free Will and Future to all the thinking beings in the Universe. This being the case, God is not able to alter life and requests/prayers will not be answered. Statistically, your request might come true but it is simply the result of the variabiliy/randomness of Nature.

So put down your rosaries and prayer beads and stop worshiping cows and bowing to Mecca five times a day. Instead work hard at your job, take care of aging parents, volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to charities and the poor and continue to follow the commandments of your religion or any good rules of living as gracious and good human beings. And lets all hope there indeed is a place called Heaven!!!

WAKEUP3
National Day of Prayer is absolutely consitutional given that the framers understood favoring "one relgion over another" spoke of Catholics, Baptists and Episcolalians and not Buddists, Muslims and Hindus.
-------------------------------------------
Yes, they were parochialists who couldn't imagine our nation surviving if not led exclusively by men of British origin. Franklin was worried about an influx of ethnic Germans, of all people.

National Day of Prayer is absolutely consitutional given that the framers understood favoring "one relgion over another" spoke of Catholics, Baptists and Episcolalians and not Buddists, Muslims and Hindus. This debate has gotten skewed by the steady drumbeat of those opposed to Christianity and the Constitution by the indoctrination of our culture through the closing of our children's minds through our so-called education system.

We Christians are to blame for letting it go so far and most of us find ourselves on our knees now asking for God's mercy. Please join us Ms. Jacoby before your Muslim friends move in and fit you with a Berka.

Franklin Graham didn't just "speak his mind about Islam." He repeated stereotypes and libels against Muslim communities. This is pure religious bigotry. He is either ignorant or is playing to anti-Muslim populism. Even his own father, Billy Graham, rejected his prejudiced statements about Islam.