|
|
Post by dj on Apr 15, 2010 13:52:28 GMT -5
This is chilling ... In 1952 President Truman established one day a year as a "National Day of Prayer." True True Part completely wrong, and part completely mischaracterized: 1. This refers to a speech Obama made in 2006 before he was a candidate. 2. His actual statement was: "Given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."Taking quotes out of context is a classic trick in mass emails. It is a form of abject dishonesty. Any reasonable person who sees the whole quote sees Obama meant we are indeed a Christian Nation, and also a Nation of all other faiths as well. Not quite. George Bush is the only president in 58 years of the National Day of Prayer who regularly had ceremonies at the White House. He held eight consecutive years of ecumenical services at the White House on the National Day of Prayer. However, before him, only Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan had any ceremonies of any kind in the White House, and they only had one each in their combined 12 years in office. Obama didn't "cancel" anything. He simply did not have a ceremony at the White House just like the vast majority of years going back to 1952. He DID issue a proclamation for the Day, like every president since Truman, and he will again this year. The claim that this would have been the "21st annual" ceremony at the White House, obviously, is in error. The "21st" probably refers to the years since Reagan fixed the National Day of Prayer on the first Thursday in May, in 1988. Even when this email came out last year, however, the count is wrong. If there was a ceremony every year in the White House since then, this year would have been the 23rd. 2009 would have been the 22nd. The email continues by saying Obama "cancelled" the ceremony False. There was no comment or announcement by the president or his staff or anyone in the entire U.S. Government indicating anything about "offending" anyone. Two errors: It was not a "National Day of Prayer", it was a celebration called "Islam on Capitol Hill" and was sponsored by a private organization and had nothing to do with the U.S. government. It was also not "beside the White House." It was on the West Lawn of the Capitol building at the National Mall (right where the 9/12 rally was held). Clearly anyone can fall prey to mass email misinformation. |
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Apr 15, 2010 14:12:42 GMT -5
Rather than getting into more eyebleed posts - I will post a link that counters what you state and contests your comments. www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=23909#R2Points include defining "Christian Nation" BO's comments, etc You will find again, you are rebuffed and soundly so. I will not respond as this is a petty post and I know you have a need for getting in the last word. |
|
|
|
Post by dj on Apr 15, 2010 14:49:00 GMT -5
Rather than getting into more eyebleed posts - I will post a link that counters what you state and contests your comments. www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=23909#R2Points include defining "Christian Nation" BO's comments, etc You will find again, you are rebuffed and soundly so. I will not respond as this is a petty post and I know you have a need for getting in the last word. You are very amusing. That link to wallbuilders, while quite interesting, does not even address one single statement I made in my comment. If you would like to be more specifically about how it soundly rebuffs me, feel free. I am not holding my breath, of course, because you've never been one to actually address a specific statement and argue why it is accurate or not. While I see on the wallbuilders site there is a mention of a speech Obama made which addresses our status as a "Christian Nation", this is NOT the speech referred to in the statement I addressed above: Note that in the above "eyebleed", your urban legend email mentions a speech from 2006 which includes the words "no longer a Christian Nation" (and then I include the rest of the quote which shows how it was chopped up to mean something else). On the wallbuilders site however, they say "on a recent presidential trip to Turkey announced to the world that Americans 'do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.'" *The rest of the wallbuilders page is not relevant to this discussion so for now I will refrain from correcting its other mistakes  What is funny about the quote from Turkey, of course, is that it does the same thing as the quote in the other mass email. It uses a small snippet of words out of context to once again, dishonestly, portray Obama's words as meaning something they did not. Neat trick! Here's what he actually said: I mean, I know it is so much easier for people to only swallow small out-of-context soundbites in order to characterize another persons positions inaccurately and unfairly, but golly if only those people could summon the strength necessary to make it through a whole paragraph or two of text, they would not fall prey to the ridiculous misstatements that wind up in mass email urban legend lies. Back to the first comment above which you failed to even address let alone "rebuff". It is cute to keep claiming I want the last word. Cuter still that you simply say "you've been rebuffed" or "you are inaccurate - period" in order to argue an entire set of statements, and then fold your arms across your chest as if you've just slain a dragon. The great thing in a discussion forum is there is no such thing as a "last word". The whole discussion from the first word to the last remains in context to be read over again or deconstructed and debated far into the future. Facts can be checked. See, I don't need the last word if all the previous words stand without fear of perusal. My statements are all there. The reason I call this a great thing is that I am content in knowing that what I've typed and posted here is relevant, accurate, and so far, unassailed. You don't have to be convinced about what I say. You can call it all "eyebleed" and wave it away with your contrived nonchallance and air of superiority. But others can read it. They can check the sources and find the quotes and facts and figures which I bring to the discussion. I'm sorry to say, you're not giving them much with "you are inaccurate - period" or providing a link to a site which addresses the "christian nation" issue but doesn't say a dang thing about my entire "eyebleed." But anyway, keep those goofy urban legend emails coming, I have a lot of fun with them. |
|
|
|
Post by nikki on Apr 16, 2010 0:22:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dj on Apr 16, 2010 1:16:47 GMT -5
Interestingly, the judge only said she was ruling as unconstitutional the 1988 law fixing the National Day of Prayer on the first Thursday in May. She stated that her decision does not affect presidential proclamations of a national day of prayer. That means, no matter how this turns out after appeals, etc, the president still has, and always will have, the freedom to proclaim a National Day of Prayer every year just as every president has done since 1952. He also can simply choose the first Thursday in May. |
|
|
|
Post by nikki on Apr 16, 2010 2:19:30 GMT -5
Interestingly, the judge only said she was ruling as unconstitutional the 1988 law fixing the National Day of Prayer on the first Thursday in May. She stated that her decision does not affect presidential proclamations of a national day of prayer. That means, no matter how this turns out after appeals, etc, the president still has, and always will have, the freedom to proclaim a National Day of Prayer every year just as every president has done since 1952. He also can simply choose the first Thursday in May. Hmmm. Interesting response, DJ. |
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Apr 25, 2010 14:54:15 GMT -5
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22398The Founding Fathers: Their True View On Religion's Role In GovernmentThe Separation of rch and State Myth By Daniel T. Zanoza Saturday, April 24, 2010 - Daniel T. Zanoza and Julia Mary Zanoza “If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, I would never have placed my signature to it.” —George Washington There is an ever-growing debate in America over the relationship between government and religion. In recent times, Constitutional law, or at least the modern-day interpretation thereof, has moved from one of accommodation concerning religion to a position many call hostile to the expression of personal faith in the public square. From their writings, it’s clear the Founding Fathers had strong views on the subject. And though not politically correct, they were prolific in writing about God and nation. After all, 27 out of the 57 men who signed the Declaration of Independence and U. S. Constitution had the modern day equivalent of seminary degrees (extensive studies of Greek, Hebrew and Biblical text). They did not intend for America to be a theocracy, but they certainly believed the nation’s laws should be tied to natural laws God created. John Adams, America’s second President said, “It is religion and morality, alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.” The Constitution’s framers used the Judeo-Christian ethic as a foundation for this new government. In creating America, they were beginning a unique experiment whereby everyone would be able to practice their religion freely, privately and publicly. Just as important, they also meant for Judeo-Christian principles to under-gird our laws. In another speech, Adams said, “Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free government, but all social felicity under all governments and in all combinations of human society.” Many Americans don’t realize how adamant the Framers were on these points. Current history books in public schools also neglect to describe how these men thoroughly and diligently studied hundreds of years of civilizations that had come and gone in order to lay down these solid principles. Much of the debate over this issue stems from the misuse of the phrase “separation of rch and state.” If asked, most Americans would attribute these words to the U. S. Constitution. In reality, the term does not appear in the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence or any formal United States document. The phrase was extracted from a letter written by then-President Thomas Jefferson in 1802. He was responding to correspondence from the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association. A quote from the Danbury letter reads, “ It is not to be wondered at therefore, that those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow man, (or) should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.” Jefferson meant to calm their fears by quoting the First Amendment of the Constitution. He wrote them back, saying, “ Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God ... that the legislative powers of government ... should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between rch and state.” Jefferson himself took this opportunity to borrow from the well-noted Baptist minister, Roger Williams, who said, “...the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the rch and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall.” It’s evident the primary intent of the phrase “wall of separation” was to protect the garden of the rch from invasion by the state. ( However, it must be pointed out that Thomas Jefferson did not sign the Constitution, was not present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and was out of the country during the discussion over religious freedom within the First Amendment.) <SNIP> More in the article - it is an interesting read.
|
|
|
|
Post by dj on Apr 25, 2010 22:46:46 GMT -5
"It’s evident the primary intent of the phrase “wall of separation” was to protect the garden of the rch from invasion by the state."
True. And it does that by restricting the government from fiddling with religion. Government fiddles with religion by participating in it, for in showing any preference to any one form of religion it is endorsing the tenets of that religion over others. Thus, government should remain civil (secular) and let the garden of religion be tended by its proper gardeners. The government should stick to governing. This is all in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of the constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Apr 25, 2010 23:28:25 GMT -5
It seems that France is taking on some "religious" issues as an insult to the French society and its culture. Others wonder if it is a violation of religious freedom. Is it a violation of religious freedom if they are FORCED to wear such garments due to rules written by religious leaders? That seems to be a violation of women's rights! Belgium delayed their vote for basically the same thing amid the resignation of their Prime Minister. France Moves Closer to Banning the Burqawww.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1983871,00.html?xid=yahoo-feat |
|
|
|
Post by dj on Apr 25, 2010 23:34:49 GMT -5
It seems that France is taking on some "religious" issues as an insult to the French society and its culture. Others wonder if it is a violation of religious freedom. Is it a violation of religious freedom if they are FORCED to wear such garments due to rules written by religious leaders? That seems to be a violation of women's rights! Belgium delayed their vote for basically the same thing amid the resignation of their Prime Minister. France Moves Closer to Banning the Burqawww.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1983871,00.html?xid=yahoo-feat There's only one Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. |
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 25, 2010 23:57:48 GMT -5
It seems that France is taking on some "religious" issues as an insult to the French society and its culture. Others wonder if it is a violation of religious freedom. Is it a violation of religious freedom if they are FORCED to wear such garments due to rules written by religious leaders? That seems to be a violation of women's rights! Belgium delayed their vote for basically the same thing amid the resignation of their Prime Minister. France Moves Closer to Banning the Burqawww.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1983871,00.html?xid=yahoo-feat There's only one Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. Gosh, I have to go with right-wing dufus Sarkozy on this one...Time to strike a blow for women's rights and against fundamentalist religions, and not allow these Muslim male scumbags that kind of power over their women. If they don't like it they can head back to their Islamic sh*thole homeland... |
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Apr 26, 2010 2:30:05 GMT -5
"It’s evident the primary intent of the phrase “wall of separation” was to protect the garden of the rch from invasion by the state." True. And it does that by restricting the government from fiddling with religion. Government fiddles with religion by participating in it, for in showing any preference to any one form of religion it is endorsing the tenets of that religion over others. Thus, government should remain civil (secular) and let the garden of religion be tended by its proper gardeners. The government should stick to governing. This is all in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of the constitution. Once again - that is opinion. It is an opinion that has been repeated so frequently that many seem to think it is part of the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Declaration of Independence. Is it an opinion that has been set in precedent - to a degree yes. Can it be reversed - yes. Why? One reason is that it is one statement taken out of context in a communication with a religious group. The communication occurred after the Bill of Rights/Constitution/Declaration of Independence were completed. The communication was not part of the discourse amongst the framers. |
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Apr 26, 2010 12:50:40 GMT -5
Rasmussen: 64% say judges more anti-religious than founders intended bit.ly/aZ1w80 |
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on May 7, 2010 16:03:12 GMT -5
biggovernment.com/rforbes/2010/05/07/national-day-of-prayer-is-about-american-beginnings-so-what-are-the-courts-saying-about-americas-future/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29&utm_content=TwitterWhat are the Courts Saying about America’s Future?by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) President Obama made the right decision to appeal the ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb, which held that the statute establishing the National Day of Prayer violates the Establishment Clause and is therefore unconstitutional. In so doing, the judge substituted her opinion for 135 calls to prayer by presidents of the United States, the actions of virtually every Congress that has been in existence both before and after the Constitution was written, and the actions of all 50 state legislatures. Her decision is a part of the continuing assault on America’s religious heritage. America’s Judeo-Christian principles are so interwoven in a tapestry of freedom and liberty, that to begin to unravel one is to unravel the other. Our Founding Fathers spoke eloquently not only about their personal belief in God, but also about how our nascent nation was called to a higher purpose by God. Out of respect for that purposeful birth, the first act of the U.S. Congress was to appoint a minister to lead the legislators in prayer. And, in deep and abiding faith, Presidents from George Washington to Barack Obama have called upon God for his protection, mercy, and guidance. These acts are instructive; they show how deep America’s religious roots run. The Declaration could not have been clearer: “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….” The freedoms and liberties that we enjoy are granted by God. They are not man-made, nor government-granted. Man or State may shackle us, may separate us from our freedom; but ultimately, we will reclaim what is rightfully ours. Government’s purpose is to preserve man’s rights and when government treads on those rights, it breaks a sacred covenant. Then, as the Declaration states, it is the people’s “right, it is their duty” to reclaim what God has given. Judge Crabb acknowledged America’s religious heritage; but she dismissed it. She would not even grant that the National Day of Prayer was an act of “ceremonial deism,” a Supreme Court construct that states that rote repetition of religious phrases are more ceremonial than meaningful and therefore not in violation of the Constitution. She would have been well-advised to read a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. In a stunning judicial victory this March, American school children won the right to recite the Pledge in its entirety. What made this victory so stunning was not that the courts permitted use of this phrase in this daily educational ritual. Courts had done so before. It was not even that this time the court in question was the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – notorious for its liberal activism from the bench. What made this victory so extraordinary was the court’s reason for affirming the right to say “under God” in the Pledge. In past cases, the courts had granted this right because they said the phrase had been so robotically applied throughout the years that it was devoid of religious meaning. This time, in this case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the right to say “under God” precisely because of their meaning. Borrowing the argument presented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the court stated that those two words are chock-full of meaning, a bountiful statement of American history and philosophy, and that is why they can and should be a part of our nation’s pledge. As the Becket Fund stated in its brief, “ It is uncontestable that since even before the Declaration of Independence, it has been an important part of our national ethos that we have inalienable rights that the State cannot take away, because the source of those inalienable rights is an authority higher than the State.” The religious underpinnings of our nation are not evident simply because the Founding Fathers wrote about their belief in God – although there is more than ample evidence of their own faith. Our nation’s essence is that rights belong to the individual, not the collective; that our rights are God-given and not simply granted by the government; that our rights are inalienable. And that is all the proof needed to say America is truly one nation under God. Our Founding Fathers knew the best way to preserve our God-given rights was not to restrict the entrance to the marketplace of ideas, but rather to keep it wider. They did not want faith and religion to control or dominate that marketplace, but they realized faith and religion must have a seat at the table.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jul 17, 2010 20:45:42 GMT -5
|
|
