Here is what I find truly frightening. I am finding that athiests in the US and here in Can. are are actually attacking R. Dawkins for his efforts to get US children educated properly. Saying that he is arrogant and indochtrinating children. It seems to matter not that by the age of 15 US kids are near the lowest in 1st world countries in scientific knowledge... This in a country with a constitution tailor made to circumvent this type of travesty. THANK YOU MR. DAWKINS SIR!
A national day of prayer gives a false impression that this country is christian and it promotes a single religion. It is unconstitutional. It really is that simple. If christians want to pray, they can do it on their own time, and not make a national day of it.
@laoi Just to play devil's advocate, is the National Day of Prayer necessarily intended to promote Christianity? Or can't it be for anyone who wants to use the day to pray with others?
Most religious freaks have a prayer day, its Sunday of every week( or every night of every day for the really delusional ones) This country DOES NOT need a "national prayer day". It will solve NOTHING. Religious people just cant let it be can they? Pray in your church, pray in your home, pray quietly without opening your mouth. You have NO need to pray in public nor in an assembled group Your silly unproven rituals had NO place in reality. You'll get the same results praying to a pencil.
#1. Liberal Viewer what religion is the national day of prayer establishing? In order to violate the establishment clause it has to establish a national religion, what religion is it establishing?
#2. Liberal Viewer you failed to point out that Madison himself issued days of fasting and prayer with hymns to go along with them as POTUS. So did Washington and Adams. I thought that was very relevant to the conversation and yet you failed to mention it.
There should not be a law to make a National day of Prayer. If people want to make a National day of prayer thats what freedom of religion is all about. Don't force it, but let it be. Where are these judges when things like the Patriot act and NDAA are being made to law? They only use the constitution when it suits them.
I find it amusing that so many who call themselves "intellectuals" will so readily use their phantom establishment clause against religious expression, spouting "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" while completely forgetting the caveat that comes after it. If y'all are so well-versed, you can quote what that caveat is.
And THEN you can explain to me how a national day of prayer is considered a "law" passed by Congress.
To reply to the woman in the video who is replying to O'Reilly about the easter day hunt.. Yes, the government should remove that day. It doesn't matter how "good" or how "loving" the day seems to be, if it has something to do with a religion, it cannot be allowed. Simple as that. For the people who are always paying attention to the levels of government (Big or Small Gov), establishing official days of Generic religious terms or ideas definitely fits the "Bigger Government" section.
In answer to LV's first question: I don't think regular viewers of Fox News' top rated prime time news program would be able to comprehend an in-depth discussion of the separation clause, and that's probably because they're regular viewers of Fox News' top rated prime time news program.
So the answer is no, because it would be a waste of time, and time is money in corporate media.
I love hearing about American Politics, it's so much more interesting than our British. Here it's quite boring, only talking about Jobs, the Economy. But in America, they're having discussions we did nearly a hundred years ago. It's like a History lesson, and it's fun to watch.
Excellent video and proper interpretation of the Constitution.Unlike that idiot over at HowTheWorldWorks, you don't have to edit out portions of your videos to make your point.
thanks for posting these videos, it's great to see someone bring light to many of this issues and topics to most people don't take the time to consider or research. Anyway keep up the great vids!
thanks for posting these videos, it's great to see someone bring light to many of this issues and topics to most people don't take the time to consider or research. Any keep up the great vids!
Bill O-Reilly is such a vacuous moron, it's amazing to me that even right wing fundamentalists can possibly take him seriously. How he has managed to hold the position he has for so long, is utterly beyond me, even at Fox news. He is a complete clod. Every person that listens to his show for 5 minutes comes away a little bit stupider.
I don't understand the obsession with the founding fathers of the USA. If they were pro-christian government, then they were wrong. They way americans argue about the founding fathers it sounds like all sides think that whatever the FFs were thinking, they were right
@cnesrule96 Sure anyone can pray on whatever day they want, but government can't be promoting it. The individuals themselves can have a national day of prayer that private institutions promote. But the line is drawn when government comes in.
Well, banning the national day of prayer is unconstitutional. The same laws that give people the right not to pray, gives them the right to pray. I say, have the day, who cares? If they try to force atheist to pray, then we can slam them.
@canesrule96 Prayer is unequivocally a religious practice. A "national day of prayer" is a national holiday wherein people are encouraged to pray, a religious activity.
Clearly this establishes a government practice of religion.
How can banning such a thing be unconstitutional?
This is not a prayer ban, it bans an endorsement of prayer by government.
You are free to celebrate anything you want, or to pray anytime you want, but the government must not take sides in matters of religion.
@TheSmackerlacker I don't see the big deal. If the president or govenor is religious and he or she wishes to lead a group of people in prayer...let them do it. It's not like it means that we're gonna start teaching creation in science. Sometimes seperation of church and state is more of a tool of enforcing power rather than providing equality for believers and non-believers.
@canesrule96 Separation of Church and State exist primarily to protect the free practice of religion, not to hurt it. By endorsing religious activity, the state is putting itself in a position where it logically must take a stance on religion, which may seem good, until you ask the question "Which religion?".
For the state to take part in religious practice is to validate it, giving it a special status and a valid place in politics, which it must not be allowed to have.
@canesrule96 Actually, they shouldn't call it a national day of prayer. Not all religion involves praying, so in fact national day of prayer have a subtle endorsement of religions that do pray.
The second point is that there should not be a national day of prayer when the Constitution clearly says the government cannot endorse it. If they want to do a national day of pray privately sure, but it is not the government's place to acknowledge it.
@canesrule96 Yes the person has the right to pray or not, but that isn't promoting "Prayer" at a government level. It's an individual level. Should we default to religious/spiritual terms when we are asked whether or not government should have said related to it? Like "In God we Trust".
@canesrule96 banning the national day of prayer and not allowing the US government to endorse a national day of prayer are two completely different things.
I think Eostre was a pagan festival long before it was a religious festival. Also I don't see the easter bunny nailed to the cross with that jesus fellow so how is that anything to do with religion.
honestly I don't see the big deal, it's no different than say black history month or veterans or really evem father's day, it's just a day dedicated to a certain group of people, but I guess its really just the fact that it would be national holiday is what makes it an issue.
As George Washington said: " WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and......."
If these Busy Body Freedom From Religion Foundation Ass Holes don't want a NATIONAL PRAYER DAY, PLEASE DO US ALL A FAVOR AND LEAVE THE COUNTRY! WE DON'T NEED YOU HERE!
IN GOD WE TRUST! KEEP IT ALIVE BROTHERS ACROSS AMERICA!
@zapkvr In all fairness, You could easily say that it's the Dog Eat Dog human race that God so lovingly gave free will that is the very fall of mankind. Just look at the valid proof! and are you positively sure you want to talk about who's really been asleep at the wheel? Look in the mirror and see what God created, and what you've done with yourself these past years of your life, then ask yourself, do you care if you live or die? Evil exists everywhere, even in false religions. PLEASE FIND IT!
A federal appeals court has ruled that the National Day of Prayer is legitimate, ordering that a lawsuit claiming the event is unconstitutional be dismissed.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation had filed the suit and U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb had ruled the federal government's observation of prayer unconstitutional, in spite of numerous U.S. Supreme Court rulings protecting religious invocations.
That ruling was taken to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago where, as Liberty Institute attorney Jeff Mateer explains, the panel ruled Thursday that the atheist organization does not have legal standing to bring a challenge to the President's proclamation declaring a National Day of Prayer.
"What the 7th Circuit [also] held was that in order for a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit challenging a law, they have to have sustained a real legal injury," says Mateer. "They must have been harmed in some way." And the Foundation, he adds, was found to not be suffering.
Mateer also says the decision goes beyond the National Day of Prayer and the presidential proclamation. "What this decision means is that communities throughout our country that have National Day of Prayer ceremonies -- that those are perfectly constitutional, that they can proceed," says the attorney.
Liberty Institue says it "applaud[s] the Seventh Circuit's dismissal of this desperate attempt to erase our country's rich history of calling for prayer," labeling it another indication of attempts to "censor religious expression in the public arena."
Does this "Liberal Viewer" get paid for all the research he does on Fox news? If so, who pays him? How much? If not, what an obsessed fool he is. Compulsive. Obsessive. Irrational. INSANE>
Shouldn't the REPUBLICANS/CONSERVATIVES be fighting to remove government-sanctioned prayer / religion? Wasn't it Jefferson who wanted separation of Church and State? Shouldn't O'Reilly/Beck be against the National Day of Prayer? Are they only for it because a liberal judge is against it?
Why do we have In God We Trust on our currency or the lyrics, "... under God", in our pledge of allience? Shouldn't that be separated? What about those who are Hindu and believe in multiple gods? What happened to our freedom of religion?
@SnivelyTheGlamful Sorry if you are offended by religious belief. Our founding fathers, many of whom were very religious people, were not offended by religion at all. Are you easily offended, or do you have to go out of your way to be offended?
@FriggingLemmings I think that mentioning the Christian God in our pledge of alligence, as well as having In God We Trust on our currency, is highly against the belief in freedom of religion. I support all religions, and I find it unfair that the Christian religion is so shown in some of America's works. We should either have all religions shown or none at all; the Christian religion is not the only one that should be known.
@SnivelyTheGlamful Salaam alaikum. That being said, consider the fact that most Americans disagree with you concerning the Christian God. The Christian God, by the way, is the same God that Islam knows as Allah, and Jews know as Yahweh.
I see by your words that you would deign rewrite history too. Mozletov
@FriggingLemmings So, by what I'm understanding, you think we should have the Christian God (Allah, Yahweh, whatever) as a staple of our country? What about freedom of religion? That can't be denied.
It's pretty clear that the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution was made to ensure that the U.S. was to be a secular country, with emphasis on Freedom OF Religion, NOT Freedom from Religion. Meaning people can choose to be a part of any religion they wish, as long as they obey the law of the Constitution and keep religion out of the general public and keep to their respective places of worship. People need to reread the Constitution and learn the rules.
@xso61673 No, freedom of and freedom from are stressed. Freedom from religion doesn't mean you are going to be denied religion, but rather you'll be protected from being forced to have the beliefs of another religion imposed upon you. The issue seems to be that when people hear "freedom from religion" they seem to think it means that the US will block religion from doing anything.
It is made fairly clear that the government is supposed to be entirely dis attached from religion all entirly.
WHAT? NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER? That sounds like theocracy to me, wait maybe even Fascism “When Facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” - Sinclair Lewis.
If the National Day of Prayer, "Under God," and "In God We Trust" were legally removed, it wouldn't prevent anyone from praying or "trusting" their god on their own free time. You can still be "Under God" or his influence without an unconstitutional law forcing you to do so. Feel free to waste your time in any way you want, it's your life, just don't try to ruin my day with it.
The freedom of choice we have in this country also allows you to make bad choices as well.
In my layman's opinion, the phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of religion" is worded to illustrate that the existence of the church is like referring to any retail store as a business establishment. Had it been worded as, "THE establishment of religion," it may have been taken as the initial forming of the religion.
Therefore, the Constitution specifically prohibits a law acknowledging an EXISTING religion, making the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.
If God is all-powerful why does he need conservatives and christians to always step in to force religion on others. If we "atheists and liberals" can force God out of a country then he/she does not sound all powerful to me.
@MrAsaphelps Conservatives and Christians force religion on others because they have no faith in there own God. My guess is that reading doesn't in any way involve a tax cut for rich people so they see no reason to read and thus do not read the bible, leading them to believe the only purpous of the bible is to be thrown at gays in blind hate.(note - "conservatives and christians doesnt mean all of them, just the loud un-objective self righteous ones blinded by fear and proud of ignorance.)
So it's legal to have Christmas nationally recognized, but we can't give religions another holiday? Why not? Unless they're saying EVERYONE has to participate in it, but I don't see anybody saying that would be the case.
This is an example of the attack on religion that takes place from all facets of the Secular establishment. Rationalists argue about semantics and definitions of terms but use ambiguous phrases such as "EVERYTHING LIKE", a clear example of ambiguous speech, to back up the reasonableness of their position. If the Church is prohibited from interfering in Government, shouldn't that be the same for Government. Isn't that what secualrism means? National prayer day isn't obligatory.
thing is, last time i checked , sunday, the "holy" day some many christians forgoe, was in essence a national prayer day, especially since outside the private sector u cant be forces to work on that day, but hey, thats just me
Doesn't putting Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck on TV at the same time short out the time-space continuum and create a vacuum of ignorance and stupidity?
@MeBeMat If your going to post something like this, you need to do it right. I am talking about the 'vacuum' comment. Supermassive Black Hole is more accurate. =P
The matter of fact is Liberalism is a religion or philosophy. And I do believe Libs not only see the Constitution as outdated, but create their own words and tweak it to their advantage.
An establishment is enforcing it and I can name you many examples of how Liberals are violating many Amendments. If the right wing are dangerous, then the Left are saviors? Don't make sense. I see many leftist policies that are in fact an establishment.
@sinister6972 The fact of the matter is that you are either being completely dishonest, or are a total moron. "Liberalism" isn't a religion by any definition of the word religion. The real fact of the matter is that Liberalism is viewed as more secular than Conservative (it is) and to try to convince them that what they do is "religious" might make them stop. It's similar to, "you know the fact that you are discussing god means he has to exist". Can you guys get any dumber?
@sinister6972 Except.. watch the video again, read the quote from James Madison who drafted it about the intent of the clause. It means no government endorsement of any religious position, including atheism. The government must remain strictly neutral.
@archapmangcmg Atheism is NOT a religion, it is a lack of a religion...equals NO RELIGION involved. You make it sound like everyone needs a religion even if the definition of said word is a LACK of a religion.
I said atheism is a religious position, which is true, it's the "no thanks" of the religious menu. Having a position on religion doesn't equal having a religion.
It says "Establishment of Religion" not "Establishment of a Religion". Bill O'Reilly is one of the most idiotic people in the world. Prayer requires Religion, and therefore cannot be endorsed by the government.
Someone does something Bill-O doesn't like. Bill-O calls them liberal and un-american. Bill-O need stem cell research. Bill-O's one neuron LONELY ! (Primitive language intended.)
What's the big deal? It is merely a designation. No one is forcing you to pray. Exactly WHICH particular religious establishment does this designation respect? It's obvious the 1st was intended for the government not to respect or endorse any PARTICULAR religion, while at the same time affording individuals the freedom to be of any religion they choose. This is not the government endorsing an establishment of religion, as no religion is mentioned. Even true atheists should not mind this.
No, you don't really need one, but do you really need a fathers day, or a mothers day, or valentines day, or thanksgiving, or a Christmas day? Again, if you do not wish to participate, no one is holding a gun to your head. The Jews do their thing, the Muslims do their thing, it doesn't bother me in the least. So, no, it's not a big deal.Live and let live. As long as no physical harm is done, who gives a shit?
While this is all fair enough, it doesn't change the fact that a "National Prayer Day" sponsered by the government, and I assume enforced the same way as saying the Pledge of Allegience, is a violation of the 1st ammendment. If that law can be violated, what other laws protecting our rights can be violated? They've already violated our right to privacy with the Patriot Act.
@DarkAngel0125 I don't think you read the same First Amendment that I did. I seem to recall it stating "or the FREE EXERCISE thereof" The First Amendment precludes the government from establishing a national religion, or preventing any individual's free exercise of religion. How is a 'national day of prayer' doing EITHER of these things? If they had said a national day of Catholic prayer, or Jewish prayer, or Muslim prayer, then that would be different. Unless "prayer" itself is a religion.
@msrebel54 in relation to the establishment clause. the governement( court) uses 3 question to establish whether or not a statue or practice establishes religion. the 1st one being does the challenged statue have a secular purpose. the national day prayer does not.. is does not matter who vague the statue is about what kind of prayer or which religion. the statue does not have a secular purpose . therefore is NOT constitutional.
@msrebel54 part 2: as far as the other 2 questions in the lemon test and establishment clause. to pass the test the answer to all 3 questions must be yes. and as i stated before 1. is no. this is why the national day of prayer did not survive judicial review and constitutional scrutiny. look up lemon v kurtman. which is where the lemon test is derived.
@pbhs07 Ok, so prayer is religious. I get it. It's not an "established religion" like the Bill for Rights requires, but it's not 'secular' none the less. You forgot about the 'free exercise thereof'. Do you REALLY think this is what the founders meant? Or do you think the First has been weasel worded to almost the same degree as the Second?
@msrebel54 my personal opinion is that the founders wanted little religion in governemnt as possible. they had just left a theocracy and did not want to the US turn into one. i think that this video James Madison quote illustrates that. some ppl see this as an personal attack on their rights ad free exercise. but the government is not stopping you from praying. we are just not using a government time and resources to do so.
@pbhs07 I see it as the government shall not dictate, nor interfere with religious exercise. (barring of course the harming of another person/persons). Since 95% of the country is of one religion or another, the designation of a national day of prayer, is no more ominous than the designation of father's day, or veterans day. Same sex couples could protest father's day, say it's "unconstitutional", those who don't believe in war could protest veteran's day...blah blah blah
@msrebel54 i think you should read the ruling for yourself. it in no way interferes with anyone's exercise of religion. the ruling does not stop you or anyone else from praying. you do not need the government to pray. again referring to the lemon test, all the other holidays you mentioned like veteran's or father's have a secular purpose. national day of prayer does not.
@msrebel54 part 2: i tried to put the link, but it didn't work just put in "freedom from religion v obama"
a quote from justice sandra day o connor " Government practices that purport to celebrate or acknowledge events with religious significance must be subjected to careful judicial scrutiny." lynch v donnelly.
national day prayer did not make through scrutiny. no one needs the government to pray - no one
@pbhs07 You're exactly right. No one needs the government to pray. But if the government says, "all those who believe in prayer, here's your day, those who don't, ignore it", then what harm has that done? A "national atheist day" wouldn't get as much flack! This is not the government establishing religion. No one is getting arrested for not praying. It is simply the government recognizing the FACT that a majority of the US is religious to one degree or another. It is not ENDORSING religion.
It's "Freedom OF Religion" not freedom FROM religion. Show me anywhere in the First Amendment where the words "separation of church and state" appear.That was TJ's letter to the Danbury Baptists, which by the way was espousing that the government not interfere with the CHURCH! So totally misunderstood that people actually think it's a part of the 1st. If people were only so passionate about the 2nd as they are the 1st ,there would be a lot less crime.
@msrebel54 frreedom from religion is the name of the organization. "what harm has that done?" well it violates the establishment clause -" Establishment Clause "Congress shall make NO LAW RESPECTING an establishment of religion". all parts of the constitution should be upheld not just some. prayer IS an establishment of religion. we know this, it did not pass the lemon test -- therefore unconditional. " A "national atheist day" wouldn't get as much flack!"
Respond to this video...part 2 atheism is not a religion. so under the Establishment clause it would pass. IF the group of atheist were trying to stop a group of religious ppl from doing something in their PRIVATE lives -- then it would not pass. ( freedom of religion comes in ) " which by the way was espousing that the government not interfere with the CHURCH! - i personally disagree. but how has the government stopped you from prayer or anything else religious? with this case
"atheism is not a religion. so under the Establishment clause it would pass."
I respectfully disagree. Atheism may not be a religion, but according to the First, , the government can no more tell you that you may NOT be religious, than tell you that you should be. You cannot include atheism in with "secular", you just cannot. Atheism is the antithesis of religion, and NEITHER is allowed by the First. If the government remains proper. To support atheism would be to endorse no religion.
@pbhs07 [continuing] "To support atheism would be to endorse no religion."We both know that is not what the First says. "Or the free exercise thereof". Now, if there were a declaration of "national atheist day", I don't think that would be unconstitutional, and wouldn't bother me at all. It's not illegal, it's not hurtful, it's your day, do what you want. Or do nothing since that's what atheists believe in. Day of prayer? Atheist? Really doesn't matter does it? AS LONG AS NO HARM IS DONE.
@msrebel54 thank YOU for being civil. you did not answer my last question"but how has the government stopped you from prayer or anything else religious? with this case " in response to your other point. i think you are mistaking atheist with anti-theist or some ppl call it militant atheist. these too are not mutually inclusive. the government has not told you in anyway with this case not to be religious.
@pbhs07 In answer, no one has stopped me personally, not that I pray a lot, although perhaps I should. However, I have read of people getting arrested in public for praying in public. I know of no law, nor Constitutional dictate that would prevent a person not representing the government from doing so, as long as they did not cause a disruption to the public. Just bowing one's head and saying a prayer in not unconstitutional, even in public. An individual is not the government.
@msrebel54 I am an athiest, but that would be ridiculous for someone to be arrested for praying in public. Just because I do not believe in a god, or praying or religion at all, doesn't mean people should be aloud to practice their own religion. I'm not the type of athiest who thinks religious followers are stupid, I just dont agree with their beliefs.
@ajf1060 You just said they shouldn't be allowed to practise their beliefs. I would make sure to specify which beliefs and whether or not they're harmful before saying that.
part 2: the government should remain neutral not endorsing or prohibiting. the case does not prohibt in anyone in anyway. "You cannot include atheism in with "secular", you just cannot." well yes and no. some atheist are secularist while others do believe in super natural things like ghost but just not in the concept of gods/god. "Atheism is the antithesis of religion" again not necessarily true. there are a lot of mellow atheist. who could care less about what theist do.
i stand by this statement "atheism is not a religion. so under the Establishment clause it would pass." what you spoke of in response was about prohibiting and prohibition falls under Free Exercise clause not the Establishment clause
@pbhs07 Well, as long as you're about upholding the Constitution, how about let's uphold the rest of the Bill of Rights? The 2nd, the 4th, the 6th, the 9th and 10th. In fact, every one of the Bill of Rights have been violated like a virgin at sacrifice, with the possible exception of the third. And how about let's limit the federal government to the enumerated powers the Constitution limits them to? If we're going to follow it then LET'S follow it. Otherwise, throw off the chains and start anew.
@pbhs07 I watched the video again, and now I'm even more convinced that the founders wrote the First Amendment with preventing a theocracy in mind. Which is a straightforward thing, but now we've morphed it into all this. It seems we're just not CAPABLE of knowing how to treat each other.
part 2: i find it fascinating that some christians get all in an uproar about this issue when their holy text says to pray in private. matthew 6:6. but just like the Constitution the bible is open to interpretation. but i do not think this is an example of weasel wording. the Judge made rather a clear reasoning as to her ruling.l.will it hold up to appeal? i personally doubt it.
In my layman's opinion, the phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of religion" is worded to illustrate that the existence of the church is like referring to any retail store as a business establishment. Had it been worded as, "THE establishment of religion," it might have been taken as the initial forming of the religion.
Therefore, the Constitution specifically prohibits a law acknowledging an EXISTING religion, making the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.
@Impalamark64 AS well as teaching Creationism in public schools, the ten commandments on public property, such as courthouses, and tax breaks for religions. All of that seems mighty unconstitutional to me.
It's interesting that the Founding Fathers of the United States were more politically and socially aware than now. You would think that as scientific knowledge increases, religious myth would decrease in proportion. Most of the craziness in religious politics has occurred relatively recently, such as modifying the Pledge of Allegiance, "In God We Trust" on currency, and the National Prayer Day. These items are on the fringes of legality, and were not part of the original ideas of the time.
@Impalamark64 Well said."Under God" was not in the ORIGINAL Pledge of Allegiance. It was added in 1954. Further, it wasn't until 1956 that "In God We Trust" was adopted as our "official" motto and slowly added to our money. Funny what a little research can actually do.
@Impalamark64 Well see that's not entirely the case. There are far less Theists now (% wise) than there where then. The difference is like an animal being cornered, more knowledge comes forth that threatens it and backs it into a corner where it becomes more hostile. So it's not so much that political and social awareness has dwindled, more that the religious side has become more desperate to hold onto what it has.
@DarkBunnyLord Agreed. I see the desperation in the comments every day. The very existence of religion relies on keeping knowledge at bay. As people become fed up with the brainwashing and having their wallets sacked, they'll begin to see reality. When the balance shifts beyond a critical mass, we'll see a positive change in the form of fewer silly laws such as this, and a corresponding improvement in our lifestyle.
@DarkBunnyLord Agreed. I see the desperation in the comments every day. The very existence of religion relies on keeping knowledge at bay. As people become fed up with the brainwashing and having their wallets sacked, they'll begin to see reality. When the balance shifts beyond a critical mass, we'll see a positive change in the form of fewer silly laws such as this, and a corresponding improvement in our lifestyle.
@Impalamark64 All in the republican agenda. Sway the people to violent acts if their faith is not baby-sat, and also manipulate the people into stronger belief by putting small religious propaganda into our daily lives, you, who are already a christian of some fanatic repute, will find that power is always in your hand.
Putting "In God We Trust" on money is basically like Sadam Hussein's face on the iraqi money. Propaganda...
@Pinkaugust You obviously didn't read a single word of my comment.
How dare you assume I'm a Christian. I have a long history of leaving comments denouncing religion in all forms. "you, who are already a christian of some fanatic repute," what the heck are you talking about? I've been a non-believer all of my life.
I suggest you reread my comment word for word, and review some of my other comments on this subject.
@Impalamark64 Oh, sorry, you misread. I didn't mean that at all, I was writing from the perspective of a power-hungry person. As in "if you do this, you get that". I was never accusing you of anything, quite the opposite, I was agreeing with you! :)
@FriggingLemmings What else is there beyond the myth? I don't see any veracity, whatsoever. It looks like you're dragging up the tired, old, concept that non-believers have to justify your faith and belief. Again, for those of you who aren't paying attention: The burden of proof is on you. These claims require evidence. Time and time again, science finds information that contradicts the claims of the Bible.
My opinion, based on evidence, is that blind faith has no credibility.
@strattfordcrass A theocratic regime is "a system of government in which priests rule in the name of a God or a god." While religious believers may think that they have control over us, their grip is weakening. They're visibly worried about it, as evidenced by the rise in the number of us who see their dogma as the bullshit that it is.
Luckily, we have plain wording in the Constitution disproving this, as well as documentation that the founding fathers were secular.
I bet you if they made a National Secular Day they would flip shit and say it's unconstitutional.
Curassus 1 month ago
Billo Willey's A JOKE!!!
TheUberAtheist 1 month ago
Here is what I find truly frightening. I am finding that athiests in the US and here in Can. are are actually attacking R. Dawkins for his efforts to get US children educated properly. Saying that he is arrogant and indochtrinating children. It seems to matter not that by the age of 15 US kids are near the lowest in 1st world countries in scientific knowledge... This in a country with a constitution tailor made to circumvent this type of travesty. THANK YOU MR. DAWKINS SIR!
MrFreezeframe666 1 month ago
Run, easter bunny, RUN!
18booma 1 month ago
A national day of prayer gives a false impression that this country is christian and it promotes a single religion. It is unconstitutional. It really is that simple. If christians want to pray, they can do it on their own time, and not make a national day of it.
laoi 1 month ago 2
@laoi Just to play devil's advocate, is the National Day of Prayer necessarily intended to promote Christianity? Or can't it be for anyone who wants to use the day to pray with others?
Ant42Lee 1 month ago in playlist Fox News Bias Involving Bill O'Reilly
Most religious freaks have a prayer day, its Sunday of every week( or every night of every day for the really delusional ones) This country DOES NOT need a "national prayer day". It will solve NOTHING. Religious people just cant let it be can they? Pray in your church, pray in your home, pray quietly without opening your mouth. You have NO need to pray in public nor in an assembled group Your silly unproven rituals had NO place in reality. You'll get the same results praying to a pencil.
dojoma630 1 month ago
@LiberalViewer
#1. Liberal Viewer what religion is the national day of prayer establishing? In order to violate the establishment clause it has to establish a national religion, what religion is it establishing?
#2. Liberal Viewer you failed to point out that Madison himself issued days of fasting and prayer with hymns to go along with them as POTUS. So did Washington and Adams. I thought that was very relevant to the conversation and yet you failed to mention it.
bRizzle2009100 1 month ago
There should not be a law to make a National day of Prayer. If people want to make a National day of prayer thats what freedom of religion is all about. Don't force it, but let it be. Where are these judges when things like the Patriot act and NDAA are being made to law? They only use the constitution when it suits them.
cmillerpa33 2 months ago
I find it amusing that so many who call themselves "intellectuals" will so readily use their phantom establishment clause against religious expression, spouting "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" while completely forgetting the caveat that comes after it. If y'all are so well-versed, you can quote what that caveat is.
And THEN you can explain to me how a national day of prayer is considered a "law" passed by Congress.
(P.S. Don't bother. I know you can't.)
QuartuvLarry 2 months ago
@QuartuvLarry Oh. And (heheh!) Madison's memo isn't established law.
Ain't that a bitch?
QuartuvLarry 2 months ago
To reply to the woman in the video who is replying to O'Reilly about the easter day hunt.. Yes, the government should remove that day. It doesn't matter how "good" or how "loving" the day seems to be, if it has something to do with a religion, it cannot be allowed. Simple as that. For the people who are always paying attention to the levels of government (Big or Small Gov), establishing official days of Generic religious terms or ideas definitely fits the "Bigger Government" section.
FearedBliss 2 months ago
That chick was pretty hot and bill is the real "pinhead"
Lak3sh0w24 2 months ago
bill O'riely is the worst kind of stupid, hes the kind of stupid that pretends to be smart and condescends those who are actually informed
comradebashu 4 months ago
In answer to LV's first question: I don't think regular viewers of Fox News' top rated prime time news program would be able to comprehend an in-depth discussion of the separation clause, and that's probably because they're regular viewers of Fox News' top rated prime time news program.
So the answer is no, because it would be a waste of time, and time is money in corporate media.
zEropoint68 4 months ago
I love hearing about American Politics, it's so much more interesting than our British. Here it's quite boring, only talking about Jobs, the Economy. But in America, they're having discussions we did nearly a hundred years ago. It's like a History lesson, and it's fun to watch.
Eleglas 5 months ago
Go to church Bill if you need god so bad because you lie so much.
sonofatiger 5 months ago
That chick is funny. The vacuous look on her face made me laugh out loud. Her empty, mindless smile is the embodiment of stereotypes about blonds.
TheSmackerlacker 6 months ago
Excellent video and proper interpretation of the Constitution.Unlike that idiot over at HowTheWorldWorks, you don't have to edit out portions of your videos to make your point.
modonaut 6 months ago
thanks for posting these videos, it's great to see someone bring light to many of this issues and topics to most people don't take the time to consider or research. Anyway keep up the great vids!
kileyaston 6 months ago
thanks for posting these videos, it's great to see someone bring light to many of this issues and topics to most people don't take the time to consider or research. Any keep up the great vids!
kileyaston 6 months ago
Bill O-Reilly is such a vacuous moron, it's amazing to me that even right wing fundamentalists can possibly take him seriously. How he has managed to hold the position he has for so long, is utterly beyond me, even at Fox news. He is a complete clod. Every person that listens to his show for 5 minutes comes away a little bit stupider.
rydinearth 7 months ago
wow. Sooooo many loosers and brainwashed idiots in this room.
MrclintE007 7 months ago
I don't understand the obsession with the founding fathers of the USA. If they were pro-christian government, then they were wrong. They way americans argue about the founding fathers it sounds like all sides think that whatever the FFs were thinking, they were right
Niwram 7 months ago
Dumbest things of the week? Your show Bill.
MackanK94 7 months ago
Establishment does not mean "building" you conservative twat Bill.
JustREALrap 8 months ago
That blonde lady is sexy as hell . . .
MileoMajor 8 months ago
@cnesrule96 Sure anyone can pray on whatever day they want, but government can't be promoting it. The individuals themselves can have a national day of prayer that private institutions promote. But the line is drawn when government comes in.
SejinDivine 8 months ago
Well, banning the national day of prayer is unconstitutional. The same laws that give people the right not to pray, gives them the right to pray. I say, have the day, who cares? If they try to force atheist to pray, then we can slam them.
canesrule96 8 months ago 9
@canesrule96 Prayer is unequivocally a religious practice. A "national day of prayer" is a national holiday wherein people are encouraged to pray, a religious activity.
Clearly this establishes a government practice of religion.
How can banning such a thing be unconstitutional?
This is not a prayer ban, it bans an endorsement of prayer by government.
You are free to celebrate anything you want, or to pray anytime you want, but the government must not take sides in matters of religion.
TheSmackerlacker 6 months ago
@TheSmackerlacker I don't see the big deal. If the president or govenor is religious and he or she wishes to lead a group of people in prayer...let them do it. It's not like it means that we're gonna start teaching creation in science. Sometimes seperation of church and state is more of a tool of enforcing power rather than providing equality for believers and non-believers.
canesrule96 6 months ago
@canesrule96 Separation of Church and State exist primarily to protect the free practice of religion, not to hurt it. By endorsing religious activity, the state is putting itself in a position where it logically must take a stance on religion, which may seem good, until you ask the question "Which religion?".
For the state to take part in religious practice is to validate it, giving it a special status and a valid place in politics, which it must not be allowed to have.
TheSmackerlacker 6 months ago
@canesrule96 Actually, they shouldn't call it a national day of prayer. Not all religion involves praying, so in fact national day of prayer have a subtle endorsement of religions that do pray.
The second point is that there should not be a national day of prayer when the Constitution clearly says the government cannot endorse it. If they want to do a national day of pray privately sure, but it is not the government's place to acknowledge it.
They blur the line too much...
Neosaigo 4 months ago 2
@canesrule96 Yes the person has the right to pray or not, but that isn't promoting "Prayer" at a government level. It's an individual level. Should we default to religious/spiritual terms when we are asked whether or not government should have said related to it? Like "In God we Trust".
FearedBliss 2 months ago
@FearedBliss I know...
canesrule96 2 months ago
@canesrule96 banning the national day of prayer and not allowing the US government to endorse a national day of prayer are two completely different things.
osaka35 2 months ago
@canesrule96 How is it unconstitutional to end a government "national day of prayer"?
JustAnotherHumanist 2 months ago
@canesrule96 I would love to see someone pray to Satan on that day.
Tokajein 2 months ago
I think Eostre was a pagan festival long before it was a religious festival. Also I don't see the easter bunny nailed to the cross with that jesus fellow so how is that anything to do with religion.
zapkvr 8 months ago
@zapkvr You're right Easter was originally a Wiccan holiday to celebrate the summer solstice and the arrival of harvest.
TheHeyitsthatguy 8 months ago
@TheHeyitsthatguy Except that in Australia it falls in Autumn so it's arse about. Everything is dying offf, bit like Jesus really.
zapkvr 8 months ago
honestly I don't see the big deal, it's no different than say black history month or veterans or really evem father's day, it's just a day dedicated to a certain group of people, but I guess its really just the fact that it would be national holiday is what makes it an issue.
†††††
bevi4 8 months ago
The Fox Network shouldn't be permitted to refer to any of their products as 'News'
They peddle heavily biased and DISHONEST propaganda opinions only
sydcarten 8 months ago 2
I think I would pray on fox news' meaning of NEWS
uben56 9 months ago
I cant wait for these people to all die out
RichardTeh3rd 9 months ago 21
sex droid alert.
wontonmaster666 9 months ago
These comments...so...ignorant
AndOfTheDeath 9 months ago
Comment removed
AndOfTheDeath 9 months ago
You think that Fux News cares about any of those facts displayed. No. HELL NO. Why? Because that would require REAL journalism.
EmeraldOodie 10 months ago
that female news anchor looks like the dumbest person to exist (other than O'Reily and Beck of course)
DepletedUranium1 10 months ago
What the fuck has the easter bunny got to do with religion?
bermudaguy1 10 months ago 2
As George Washington said: " WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and......."
If these Busy Body Freedom From Religion Foundation Ass Holes don't want a NATIONAL PRAYER DAY, PLEASE DO US ALL A FAVOR AND LEAVE THE COUNTRY! WE DON'T NEED YOU HERE!
IN GOD WE TRUST! KEEP IT ALIVE BROTHERS ACROSS AMERICA!
Acecool444 10 months ago
The Freedom From Religion Foundation needs a good ass kicking by God!
Acecool444 10 months ago
@Acecool444 Well God had better get fucking busy. He's been asleep at the wheeel for about six thousand years.
zapkvr 8 months ago
@zapkvr In all fairness, You could easily say that it's the Dog Eat Dog human race that God so lovingly gave free will that is the very fall of mankind. Just look at the valid proof! and are you positively sure you want to talk about who's really been asleep at the wheel? Look in the mirror and see what God created, and what you've done with yourself these past years of your life, then ask yourself, do you care if you live or die? Evil exists everywhere, even in false religions. PLEASE FIND IT!
Acecool444 8 months ago
Comment removed
Acecool444 8 months ago
liberals keep putting forth this dipshit view as if early schools didn't mention any religion.. this was instituted in the 50s.
Newspeakgeneration 10 months ago
@Newspeakgeneration keep your views to your self
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 8 months ago
National Day of prayer is harmless. Period.
A federal appeals court has ruled that the National Day of Prayer is legitimate, ordering that a lawsuit claiming the event is unconstitutional be dismissed.
mrtadreamer 10 months ago
The Freedom From Religion Foundation had filed the suit and U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb had ruled the federal government's observation of prayer unconstitutional, in spite of numerous U.S. Supreme Court rulings protecting religious invocations.
mrtadreamer 10 months ago
That ruling was taken to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago where, as Liberty Institute attorney Jeff Mateer explains, the panel ruled Thursday that the atheist organization does not have legal standing to bring a challenge to the President's proclamation declaring a National Day of Prayer.
mrtadreamer 10 months ago
"What the 7th Circuit [also] held was that in order for a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit challenging a law, they have to have sustained a real legal injury," says Mateer. "They must have been harmed in some way." And the Foundation, he adds, was found to not be suffering.
mrtadreamer 10 months ago
Mateer also says the decision goes beyond the National Day of Prayer and the presidential proclamation. "What this decision means is that communities throughout our country that have National Day of Prayer ceremonies -- that those are perfectly constitutional, that they can proceed," says the attorney.
mrtadreamer 10 months ago
Liberty Institue says it "applaud[s] the Seventh Circuit's dismissal of this desperate attempt to erase our country's rich history of calling for prayer," labeling it another indication of attempts to "censor religious expression in the public arena."
This year's solemn event is May 5.
mrtadreamer 10 months ago
The dumbest things of the week should be the name of the network, not just the name of the segment.
BraniusBalki 10 months ago
so national day of prayer is constitutional but gay marriage isn't?
demolitionxlover23 10 months ago
Should medicine runs for profit? Why not if religion do it for sooooo long?
strattfordcrass 10 months ago
Does this "Liberal Viewer" get paid for all the research he does on Fox news? If so, who pays him? How much? If not, what an obsessed fool he is. Compulsive. Obsessive. Irrational. INSANE>
FriggingLemmings 10 months ago
Shouldn't the REPUBLICANS/CONSERVATIVES be fighting to remove government-sanctioned prayer / religion? Wasn't it Jefferson who wanted separation of Church and State? Shouldn't O'Reilly/Beck be against the National Day of Prayer? Are they only for it because a liberal judge is against it?
jvdthwip 11 months ago
Lemon Test:
The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
Bill should do some research before insulting people for disagreeing with him on a topic he knows nothing about.
jaimesthesaint 11 months ago
Who's the skirt? She has a dazzling smile. I'd like to see what her titts look like. Ratings would skyrocket.
cobalt100 11 months ago
Why do we have In God We Trust on our currency or the lyrics, "... under God", in our pledge of allience? Shouldn't that be separated? What about those who are Hindu and believe in multiple gods? What happened to our freedom of religion?
SnivelyTheGlamful 11 months ago
@SnivelyTheGlamful Sorry if you are offended by religious belief. Our founding fathers, many of whom were very religious people, were not offended by religion at all. Are you easily offended, or do you have to go out of your way to be offended?
FriggingLemmings 10 months ago
@FriggingLemmings I think that mentioning the Christian God in our pledge of alligence, as well as having In God We Trust on our currency, is highly against the belief in freedom of religion. I support all religions, and I find it unfair that the Christian religion is so shown in some of America's works. We should either have all religions shown or none at all; the Christian religion is not the only one that should be known.
SnivelyTheGlamful 10 months ago
@SnivelyTheGlamful Salaam alaikum. That being said, consider the fact that most Americans disagree with you concerning the Christian God. The Christian God, by the way, is the same God that Islam knows as Allah, and Jews know as Yahweh.
I see by your words that you would deign rewrite history too. Mozletov
FriggingLemmings 10 months ago
@FriggingLemmings So, by what I'm understanding, you think we should have the Christian God (Allah, Yahweh, whatever) as a staple of our country? What about freedom of religion? That can't be denied.
SnivelyTheGlamful 10 months ago
is black history month constitutional?
OneQuestion99 11 months ago
@AlessioDAlessandro
Christianity makes everyone stupid.
I would know as my entire family actually laughs when they hear people believe they used to be monkeys.
...Fuck.
BumbleBeest9000 11 months ago
Lesbians love what? I love freedom of speach! Rock on America!
DJacqu8351 11 months ago
Makes you wonder if Fox news is Anti American.
HollamProductions 11 months ago
It's pretty clear that the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution was made to ensure that the U.S. was to be a secular country, with emphasis on Freedom OF Religion, NOT Freedom from Religion. Meaning people can choose to be a part of any religion they wish, as long as they obey the law of the Constitution and keep religion out of the general public and keep to their respective places of worship. People need to reread the Constitution and learn the rules.
xso61673 11 months ago
@xso61673 No, freedom of and freedom from are stressed. Freedom from religion doesn't mean you are going to be denied religion, but rather you'll be protected from being forced to have the beliefs of another religion imposed upon you. The issue seems to be that when people hear "freedom from religion" they seem to think it means that the US will block religion from doing anything.
It is made fairly clear that the government is supposed to be entirely dis attached from religion all entirly.
DarkBunnyLord 11 months ago
WHAT? NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER? That sounds like theocracy to me, wait maybe even Fascism “When Facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” - Sinclair Lewis.
whiteriotalex 11 months ago
If the National Day of Prayer, "Under God," and "In God We Trust" were legally removed, it wouldn't prevent anyone from praying or "trusting" their god on their own free time. You can still be "Under God" or his influence without an unconstitutional law forcing you to do so. Feel free to waste your time in any way you want, it's your life, just don't try to ruin my day with it.
The freedom of choice we have in this country also allows you to make bad choices as well.
Impalamark64 1 year ago
In my layman's opinion, the phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of religion" is worded to illustrate that the existence of the church is like referring to any retail store as a business establishment. Had it been worded as, "THE establishment of religion," it may have been taken as the initial forming of the religion.
Therefore, the Constitution specifically prohibits a law acknowledging an EXISTING religion, making the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.
Impalamark64 1 year ago
If God is all-powerful why does he need conservatives and christians to always step in to force religion on others. If we "atheists and liberals" can force God out of a country then he/she does not sound all powerful to me.
MrAsaphelps 1 year ago 55
@MrAsaphelps Conservatives and Christians force religion on others because they have no faith in there own God. My guess is that reading doesn't in any way involve a tax cut for rich people so they see no reason to read and thus do not read the bible, leading them to believe the only purpous of the bible is to be thrown at gays in blind hate.(note - "conservatives and christians doesnt mean all of them, just the loud un-objective self righteous ones blinded by fear and proud of ignorance.)
1macaibeau 8 months ago 2
So it's legal to have Christmas nationally recognized, but we can't give religions another holiday? Why not? Unless they're saying EVERYONE has to participate in it, but I don't see anybody saying that would be the case.
Numbuh7 1 year ago
This is an example of the attack on religion that takes place from all facets of the Secular establishment. Rationalists argue about semantics and definitions of terms but use ambiguous phrases such as "EVERYTHING LIKE", a clear example of ambiguous speech, to back up the reasonableness of their position. If the Church is prohibited from interfering in Government, shouldn't that be the same for Government. Isn't that what secualrism means? National prayer day isn't obligatory.
chiendeguerre 1 year ago
@chiendeguerre
Religion is a belief without proof or reason.
I no of nothing non-religious in which prayer could be used. Got an exaple? ;)
Many laws are quite ambiguous, they often have to be.
NormanAngle 11 months ago
I don't understand...why does it matter if it's constitutional or not?
TLIisawesome 1 year ago
*sniffle* Thank you liberalviewer for the beautiful work it is you do. :)
Mduenisch 1 year ago
stunning revelation. Bill O'Reilly can actually read. or was somebody prompting from behind the camera?
nayanmalig 1 year ago
thing is, last time i checked , sunday, the "holy" day some many christians forgoe, was in essence a national prayer day, especially since outside the private sector u cant be forces to work on that day, but hey, thats just me
vikingdrizzit 1 year ago
@ thepurpleclown shame on you we should be thankful every day no matter what.
FaviolaAlcala 1 year ago
I love how that all his examples of religion are Christian variations...
WallehA 1 year ago 3
"..out of the marketplace"?
faithisfiction 1 year ago
Why do care about the constitution when it comes to relgion, but not care about the constitution when it comes to big government???
I smell inconsitency...
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
Doesn't putting Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck on TV at the same time short out the time-space continuum and create a vacuum of ignorance and stupidity?
MeBeMat 1 year ago 119
@MeBeMat No... if Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin were there as well THEN there would be the said vacuum.
ForceRecon198 1 year ago
@MeBeMat If your going to post something like this, you need to do it right. I am talking about the 'vacuum' comment. Supermassive Black Hole is more accurate. =P
xinecallaw 1 year ago
@MeBeMat I KNEW there was something wrong and immensely frightening about the space-time continuum lately....
wildsmiley 8 months ago
The matter of fact is Liberalism is a religion or philosophy. And I do believe Libs not only see the Constitution as outdated, but create their own words and tweak it to their advantage.
An establishment is enforcing it and I can name you many examples of how Liberals are violating many Amendments. If the right wing are dangerous, then the Left are saviors? Don't make sense. I see many leftist policies that are in fact an establishment.
sinister6972 1 year ago
@sinister6972 The fact of the matter is that you are either being completely dishonest, or are a total moron. "Liberalism" isn't a religion by any definition of the word religion. The real fact of the matter is that Liberalism is viewed as more secular than Conservative (it is) and to try to convince them that what they do is "religious" might make them stop. It's similar to, "you know the fact that you are discussing god means he has to exist". Can you guys get any dumber?
thelordmemnoch 1 year ago
@sinister6972 Except.. watch the video again, read the quote from James Madison who drafted it about the intent of the clause. It means no government endorsement of any religious position, including atheism. The government must remain strictly neutral.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Atheism is NOT a religion, it is a lack of a religion...equals NO RELIGION involved. You make it sound like everyone needs a religion even if the definition of said word is a LACK of a religion.
ajf1060 1 year ago
@ajf1060 Dude, NO. Just no.
I said atheism is a religious position, which is true, it's the "no thanks" of the religious menu. Having a position on religion doesn't equal having a religion.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
It says "Establishment of Religion" not "Establishment of a Religion". Bill O'Reilly is one of the most idiotic people in the world. Prayer requires Religion, and therefore cannot be endorsed by the government.
Ye4hBuddy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The root of all evil!
Bendz0 1 year ago
It's impossible to find in depth discussion on fox news.
Vogeybear 1 year ago
How bout forcing people to buy health insurance? Is that constitutional?
superman93994 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@superman93994
How bout forcing people to buy CAR insurance? Is that constitutional?
pbhs07 1 year ago
Someone does something Bill-O doesn't like. Bill-O calls them liberal and un-american. Bill-O need stem cell research. Bill-O's one neuron LONELY ! (Primitive language intended.)
hejcoze 1 year ago
How about a national day of blasphemy?
kitepilot 1 year ago
What's the big deal? It is merely a designation. No one is forcing you to pray. Exactly WHICH particular religious establishment does this designation respect? It's obvious the 1st was intended for the government not to respect or endorse any PARTICULAR religion, while at the same time affording individuals the freedom to be of any religion they choose. This is not the government endorsing an establishment of religion, as no religion is mentioned. Even true atheists should not mind this.
msrebel54 1 year ago
@msrebel54 if it's not a big deal, then why even have a day of prayer? do you really need one? please...
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown
No, you don't really need one, but do you really need a fathers day, or a mothers day, or valentines day, or thanksgiving, or a Christmas day? Again, if you do not wish to participate, no one is holding a gun to your head. The Jews do their thing, the Muslims do their thing, it doesn't bother me in the least. So, no, it's not a big deal.Live and let live. As long as no physical harm is done, who gives a shit?
msrebel54 1 year ago
@msrebel54
While this is all fair enough, it doesn't change the fact that a "National Prayer Day" sponsered by the government, and I assume enforced the same way as saying the Pledge of Allegience, is a violation of the 1st ammendment. If that law can be violated, what other laws protecting our rights can be violated? They've already violated our right to privacy with the Patriot Act.
DarkAngel0125 1 year ago
@DarkAngel0125 I don't think you read the same First Amendment that I did. I seem to recall it stating "or the FREE EXERCISE thereof" The First Amendment precludes the government from establishing a national religion, or preventing any individual's free exercise of religion. How is a 'national day of prayer' doing EITHER of these things? If they had said a national day of Catholic prayer, or Jewish prayer, or Muslim prayer, then that would be different. Unless "prayer" itself is a religion.
msrebel54 1 year ago
@msrebel54 in relation to the establishment clause. the governement( court) uses 3 question to establish whether or not a statue or practice establishes religion. the 1st one being does the challenged statue have a secular purpose. the national day prayer does not.. is does not matter who vague the statue is about what kind of prayer or which religion. the statue does not have a secular purpose . therefore is NOT constitutional.
pbhs07 1 year ago
@msrebel54 part 2: as far as the other 2 questions in the lemon test and establishment clause. to pass the test the answer to all 3 questions must be yes. and as i stated before 1. is no. this is why the national day of prayer did not survive judicial review and constitutional scrutiny. look up lemon v kurtman. which is where the lemon test is derived.
pbhs07 1 year ago
@pbhs07 Ok, so prayer is religious. I get it. It's not an "established religion" like the Bill for Rights requires, but it's not 'secular' none the less. You forgot about the 'free exercise thereof'. Do you REALLY think this is what the founders meant? Or do you think the First has been weasel worded to almost the same degree as the Second?
msrebel54 1 year ago
@msrebel54 my personal opinion is that the founders wanted little religion in governemnt as possible. they had just left a theocracy and did not want to the US turn into one. i think that this video James Madison quote illustrates that. some ppl see this as an personal attack on their rights ad free exercise. but the government is not stopping you from praying. we are just not using a government time and resources to do so.
pbhs07 1 year ago
@pbhs07 I see it as the government shall not dictate, nor interfere with religious exercise. (barring of course the harming of another person/persons). Since 95% of the country is of one religion or another, the designation of a national day of prayer, is no more ominous than the designation of father's day, or veterans day. Same sex couples could protest father's day, say it's "unconstitutional", those who don't believe in war could protest veteran's day...blah blah blah
msrebel54 1 year ago
@msrebel54 i think you should read the ruling for yourself. it in no way interferes with anyone's exercise of religion. the ruling does not stop you or anyone else from praying. you do not need the government to pray. again referring to the lemon test, all the other holidays you mentioned like veteran's or father's have a secular purpose. national day of prayer does not.
pbhs07 1 year ago
@msrebel54 part 2: i tried to put the link, but it didn't work just put in "freedom from religion v obama"
a quote from justice sandra day o connor " Government practices that purport to celebrate or acknowledge events with religious significance must be subjected to careful judicial scrutiny." lynch v donnelly.
national day prayer did not make through scrutiny. no one needs the government to pray - no one
pbhs07 1 year ago
@pbhs07 You're exactly right. No one needs the government to pray. But if the government says, "all those who believe in prayer, here's your day, those who don't, ignore it", then what harm has that done? A "national atheist day" wouldn't get as much flack! This is not the government establishing religion. No one is getting arrested for not praying. It is simply the government recognizing the FACT that a majority of the US is religious to one degree or another. It is not ENDORSING religion.
msrebel54 1 year ago
@pbhs07 "freedom from religion v obama"
It's "Freedom OF Religion" not freedom FROM religion. Show me anywhere in the First Amendment where the words "separation of church and state" appear.That was TJ's letter to the Danbury Baptists, which by the way was espousing that the government not interfere with the CHURCH! So totally misunderstood that people actually think it's a part of the 1st. If people were only so passionate about the 2nd as they are the 1st ,there would be a lot less crime.
msrebel54 1 year ago
@msrebel54 frreedom from religion is the name of the organization. "what harm has that done?" well it violates the establishment clause -" Establishment Clause "Congress shall make NO LAW RESPECTING an establishment of religion". all parts of the constitution should be upheld not just some. prayer IS an establishment of religion. we know this, it did not pass the lemon test -- therefore unconditional. " A "national atheist day" wouldn't get as much flack!"
pbhs07 1 year ago
Respond to this video...part 2 atheism is not a religion. so under the Establishment clause it would pass. IF the group of atheist were trying to stop a group of religious ppl from doing something in their PRIVATE lives -- then it would not pass. ( freedom of religion comes in ) " which by the way was espousing that the government not interfere with the CHURCH! - i personally disagree. but how has the government stopped you from prayer or anything else religious? with this case
pbhs07 1 year ago
@pbhs07
"atheism is not a religion. so under the Establishment clause it would pass."
I respectfully disagree. Atheism may not be a religion, but according to the First, , the government can no more tell you that you may NOT be religious, than tell you that you should be. You cannot include atheism in with "secular", you just cannot. Atheism is the antithesis of religion, and NEITHER is allowed by the First. If the government remains proper. To support atheism would be to endorse no religion.
msrebel54 1 year ago
@pbhs07 [continuing] "To support atheism would be to endorse no religion."We both know that is not what the First says. "Or the free exercise thereof". Now, if there were a declaration of "national atheist day", I don't think that would be unconstitutional, and wouldn't bother me at all. It's not illegal, it's not hurtful, it's your day, do what you want. Or do nothing since that's what atheists believe in. Day of prayer? Atheist? Really doesn't matter does it? AS LONG AS NO HARM IS DONE.
msrebel54 1 year ago
@pbhs07 I'll have to give it to you. You've kept it civil, which is more than most do. For that, i thank you.
msrebel54 1 year ago
@msrebel54 thank YOU for being civil. you did not answer my last question"but how has the government stopped you from prayer or anything else religious? with this case " in response to your other point. i think you are mistaking atheist with anti-theist or some ppl call it militant atheist. these too are not mutually inclusive. the government has not told you in anyway with this case not to be religious.
pbhs07 1 year ago
@pbhs07 In answer, no one has stopped me personally, not that I pray a lot, although perhaps I should. However, I have read of people getting arrested in public for praying in public. I know of no law, nor Constitutional dictate that would prevent a person not representing the government from doing so, as long as they did not cause a disruption to the public. Just bowing one's head and saying a prayer in not unconstitutional, even in public. An individual is not the government.
msrebel54 1 year ago
@msrebel54 I am an athiest, but that would be ridiculous for someone to be arrested for praying in public. Just because I do not believe in a god, or praying or religion at all, doesn't mean people should be aloud to practice their own religion. I'm not the type of athiest who thinks religious followers are stupid, I just dont agree with their beliefs.
ajf1060 1 year ago
@ajf1060 You just said they shouldn't be allowed to practise their beliefs. I would make sure to specify which beliefs and whether or not they're harmful before saying that.
Mduenisch 1 year ago
part 2: the government should remain neutral not endorsing or prohibiting. the case does not prohibt in anyone in anyway. "You cannot include atheism in with "secular", you just cannot." well yes and no. some atheist are secularist while others do believe in super natural things like ghost but just not in the concept of gods/god. "Atheism is the antithesis of religion" again not necessarily true. there are a lot of mellow atheist. who could care less about what theist do.
pbhs07 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i stand by this statement "atheism is not a religion. so under the Establishment clause it would pass." what you spoke of in response was about prohibiting and prohibition falls under Free Exercise clause not the Establishment clause
pbhs07 1 year ago
AS LONG AS NO HARM IS DONE. -- it's not about harm, it is about upholding the constitution. national day of prayer did not pass judicial scrutiny.
pbhs07 1 year ago
@pbhs07 Well, as long as you're about upholding the Constitution, how about let's uphold the rest of the Bill of Rights? The 2nd, the 4th, the 6th, the 9th and 10th. In fact, every one of the Bill of Rights have been violated like a virgin at sacrifice, with the possible exception of the third. And how about let's limit the federal government to the enumerated powers the Constitution limits them to? If we're going to follow it then LET'S follow it. Otherwise, throw off the chains and start anew.
msrebel54 1 year ago
@pbhs07 I watched the video again, and now I'm even more convinced that the founders wrote the First Amendment with preventing a theocracy in mind. Which is a straightforward thing, but now we've morphed it into all this. It seems we're just not CAPABLE of knowing how to treat each other.
msrebel54 1 year ago
part 2: i find it fascinating that some christians get all in an uproar about this issue when their holy text says to pray in private. matthew 6:6. but just like the Constitution the bible is open to interpretation. but i do not think this is an example of weasel wording. the Judge made rather a clear reasoning as to her ruling.l.will it hold up to appeal? i personally doubt it.
pbhs07 1 year ago
@pbhs07 * is not an example of weasel wording sorry:(
pbhs07 1 year ago
In my layman's opinion, the phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of religion" is worded to illustrate that the existence of the church is like referring to any retail store as a business establishment. Had it been worded as, "THE establishment of religion," it might have been taken as the initial forming of the religion.
Therefore, the Constitution specifically prohibits a law acknowledging an EXISTING religion, making the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.
Impalamark64 1 year ago
@Impalamark64 AS well as teaching Creationism in public schools, the ten commandments on public property, such as courthouses, and tax breaks for religions. All of that seems mighty unconstitutional to me.
lazerbeam134 1 year ago
It's interesting that the Founding Fathers of the United States were more politically and socially aware than now. You would think that as scientific knowledge increases, religious myth would decrease in proportion. Most of the craziness in religious politics has occurred relatively recently, such as modifying the Pledge of Allegiance, "In God We Trust" on currency, and the National Prayer Day. These items are on the fringes of legality, and were not part of the original ideas of the time.
Impalamark64 1 year ago 32
@Impalamark64 They have except on Fox News.
y2zgt 1 year ago
@Impalamark64 Well said."Under God" was not in the ORIGINAL Pledge of Allegiance. It was added in 1954. Further, it wasn't until 1956 that "In God We Trust" was adopted as our "official" motto and slowly added to our money. Funny what a little research can actually do.
Cheers!
Secundinius 1 year ago
@Impalamark64
It's what you get when you make a Republican Warlord, who was raised as a Jehovah's Witness a President.
NormanAngle 11 months ago
@Impalamark64 Well see that's not entirely the case. There are far less Theists now (% wise) than there where then. The difference is like an animal being cornered, more knowledge comes forth that threatens it and backs it into a corner where it becomes more hostile. So it's not so much that political and social awareness has dwindled, more that the religious side has become more desperate to hold onto what it has.
DarkBunnyLord 11 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord Agreed. I see the desperation in the comments every day. The very existence of religion relies on keeping knowledge at bay. As people become fed up with the brainwashing and having their wallets sacked, they'll begin to see reality. When the balance shifts beyond a critical mass, we'll see a positive change in the form of fewer silly laws such as this, and a corresponding improvement in our lifestyle.
Impalamark64 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkBunnyLord Agreed. I see the desperation in the comments every day. The very existence of religion relies on keeping knowledge at bay. As people become fed up with the brainwashing and having their wallets sacked, they'll begin to see reality. When the balance shifts beyond a critical mass, we'll see a positive change in the form of fewer silly laws such as this, and a corresponding improvement in our lifestyle.
Impalamark64 11 months ago
@Impalamark64 All in the republican agenda. Sway the people to violent acts if their faith is not baby-sat, and also manipulate the people into stronger belief by putting small religious propaganda into our daily lives, you, who are already a christian of some fanatic repute, will find that power is always in your hand.
Putting "In God We Trust" on money is basically like Sadam Hussein's face on the iraqi money. Propaganda...
Pinkaugust 11 months ago
@Pinkaugust You obviously didn't read a single word of my comment.
How dare you assume I'm a Christian. I have a long history of leaving comments denouncing religion in all forms. "you, who are already a christian of some fanatic repute," what the heck are you talking about? I've been a non-believer all of my life.
I suggest you reread my comment word for word, and review some of my other comments on this subject.
Impalamark64 11 months ago
@Impalamark64 Oh, sorry, you misread. I didn't mean that at all, I was writing from the perspective of a power-hungry person. As in "if you do this, you get that". I was never accusing you of anything, quite the opposite, I was agreeing with you! :)
Sorry about this little misunderstanding.
Pinkaugust 11 months ago
@Impalamark64 Sorry, you misread my meaning. I was never accusing you of anything, I was in fact agreeing with you.
I wrote a reply before, but it didn't seem to stick, so I'm rewriting.
I was writing from the point of view of a power-hungry person, as in "if you do this, you get that." so I never called you a religious republican.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Please read my post again with this in mind and you'll see my meaning. :)
Pinkaugust 11 months ago
@Pinkaugust Thanks for the support. We need to band together to help rational thought and scientific study overtake superstitious dogma.
Impalamark64 11 months ago
@Impalamark64 Religion - beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by
FriggingLemmings 10 months ago
@Impalamark64 You are only speaking of religious myth I see .. Do you have any opinions on religious veracity?
FriggingLemmings 10 months ago
@FriggingLemmings What else is there beyond the myth? I don't see any veracity, whatsoever. It looks like you're dragging up the tired, old, concept that non-believers have to justify your faith and belief. Again, for those of you who aren't paying attention: The burden of proof is on you. These claims require evidence. Time and time again, science finds information that contradicts the claims of the Bible.
My opinion, based on evidence, is that blind faith has no credibility.
Impalamark64 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"My opinion, based on evidence, is that blind faith has no credibility."you say.
Who, pray tell, should give a rat's ass about your opinion?
FriggingLemmings 10 months ago
@Impalamark64: You live in a theocratic regime. When the faith is challenged, the greatest country became this 48' Palestine
strattfordcrass 10 months ago
@strattfordcrass A theocratic regime is "a system of government in which priests rule in the name of a God or a god." While religious believers may think that they have control over us, their grip is weakening. They're visibly worried about it, as evidenced by the rise in the number of us who see their dogma as the bullshit that it is.
Luckily, we have plain wording in the Constitution disproving this, as well as documentation that the founding fathers were secular.
Impalamark64 10 months ago