The Antichristian Phenomenon

I wonder how many of the religious folks in the US government who forced on such a decision for whatever pointless reason there may be. I mean, aren't there more IMPORTANT things they could fix instead of deciding a national day for prayer?!

LeaT, many in the religious community say the same about our fight against this government violation and intrusion. So while we fight to correct other wrongs and to move on with our lives, we take a little time and a little money to correct this issue which is so clearly a violation, defeating it should not be a problem.

I understand your point here. There are many, more immediate concerns to be dealt with, though I would like to remind you that every time we allow something wrong to be forced upon us, we make each successive violation easier to commit. When do we draw the line?

36 U.S.C. § 119 : US Code – Section 119: National Day of Prayer

The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating
the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the
people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and
meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.

The national day of prayer was created in 1952 by a joint resolution of the United States Congress, and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, so by anyway you look at it Chad, this is far more than a "suggestion" and a clear violation.

Chad, please consider doing your homework before you speak in class.

I don't quite think you get the point. Why should the president need to tell people to pray at all (yes, he is telling them, not suggesting them, hence violation) if the country is already so religious? What is the purpose behind it? The groups that do not pray are in minority, what this part of the constitution does is that it simply ignores this group, reinforcing the fact that they are in minority and make them even more socially marginalized, because they are excluded rather than included. You know, they could've phrased the national day of prayer in so many other ways that could include even the non-religious or those who do not pray.

By excluding this social group, they might actually feel that they are less of American citizens than those who belong to a group who do pray. I am not an American so I can't tell how those people feel about it, but I would most certainly feel that way if it was me.

I would also like to add something which was dicsussed in my NA and NRM class this Wednesday, in that in USA, religious freedom exists so people are free to believe, while in Europe religious freedom exists so people are free to not choose a religion. I think it's an interesting distinction and this idea is certainly true with regards to the national day of prayer.

LeaT,

I'm glad you mentioned your classroom discussion concerning the U.S. & European viewpoints on religious freedom. Is is interesting to see students are being taught around the world the growing strength and influence religious groups are having upon the future of our country. History has clearly shown that religious conversion of governments has led to the downfall of powerful nations again and again.

Those of us in the U.S. without a belief in gods have always fought for our right to live our lives as any U.S. citizen is free to do. As our nation becomes more polarized, many more people are willing to risk standing up publicly to say the religious right is way out of line on topics such as this one.

Chad is dishonest to claim that 36 U.S.C. § 119 : US Code – Section 119: National Day of Prayer is a mere "suggestion," and we have no reason to claim a violation by our government, with help by some religious groups desiring to make our nation into a Christian version of Iran. The intent is a clear attempt to promote Christian beliefs; no other conclusion can be made when you consider the history of the day.

LeaT, I want to point out that there are many Christians, leaders and followers, that do not want to see the government involved in their religion, nor religion in their government. Some of these people have joined groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United to keep the wall of separation intact. It helps that we have this support.

Vjack write<a href="http://shttp://www.atheistrev.com/2008/08/about-atheist-r…” target=”_blank”>shttp://www.atheistrev.com/2008/08/about-atheist-r…
Here is a great site to get a taste of our struggles in the U.S., from a man living under extreme religious influence.

Christopher,

“Chad is dishonest to claim that 36 U.S.C. § 119 : US Code – Section 119: National Day of Prayer is a mere “suggestion,” and we have no reason to claim a violation by our government ”

Again I ask…what exactly is this a violation of?

“with help by some religious groups desiring to make our nation into a Christian version of Iran. The intent is a clear attempt to promote Christian beliefs; no other conclusion can be made when you consider the history of the day”

You keep limiting the day of prayer to Christianity. Did the president specifically mention the Christian God? NO! He said “to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences”. How does that equate to the U.S becoming a “Christian version of Iran”?

Of course, but these people may feel less violated than those who do not believe at all, for example.

Chad, he could've just removed the "faith" part, and he would've included every citizen, faithful or faithless. But now he says "faith and consciences". What is being implied here is that the conscience is a part of having faith, because the clause"faith and conscience" is descriptive to "give thanks, in accordance to their own". If he had said "OR" instead of "and", then faith and conscience would not be weighted as equal and there is a choice. If I do not have faith, I may still possess a conscience and vice versa. But now faith and conscience are equal because of the "and", and therefore implies both are required when to pray or give thanks. Yes, it is a linguistical issue, and they could have phrased it in other ways to not exclude any groups of peoples. And no, this is not nitpicking, because this IS what it actually says. You can twist it into your own interpretation, but when analyzing the clauses, it becomes evident non-religious are not included.

LeaT,

First, you say its wrong to marginalize a group of people, then you say its shameful in Sweden to even speak about religion and that believers are considered to be nut jobs….does that not seem a bit hypocritical? And for the record I don’t agree with the recent legislation in Sweden regarding blasphemy. While I certainly don’t condone blasphemy, people have a right to freedom of expression, even if I don’t agree with what they’re expressing.

Furthermore, I’ve never been to Europe so you’re correct that perhaps I don’t fully understand the religious climate there. I do however live in America so I do fully understand it here. You make it sound as if being an atheist is a crime in America, and that the first thing we do here (upon meeting someone) is say “Hi, I’m Chad. Let me tell you how much I love God”. Sorry, but that’s just not the way it is. Perhaps you don’t fully understand the climate here.

Finally, with regard to whether or not a day of prayer is a violation…I was speaking from a legal perspective.ie It does not violate any legal statute.I do see your point however, but this is where we will simply have to agree to disagree. I don’t feel as though a national prayer day turns non believers into social outcasts. Look at it this way…here in America we have one DAY in recognition of prayer. Yet the entire month of June is designated as Gay & Lesbian Pride month. This was established in 2000 by, then president Bill Clinton. By your logic, does that not marginalize people who aren’t gay? And not just for one day…but for an entire month.

LeaT,

Just a quick correction…earlier I referenced Sweden in relation the the blasphemy laws…I meant to say the Netherlands. Sorry about that.

I never said that I personally marginalize them. I may not agree with them, but I can still respect them. I respect my grandmother's faith. I find fundamentalist religious just as bad as fundamentalist atheists. Still doesn't mean that I can respect their existences and their freedom to express themselves even if I may find them to be nutholes. I also merely told you about the general social attitude because you clearly didn't understand where the difference lied in. Please don't twist what I say into something which I didn't.

Maybe I exeggerated my statement, but from my personal understanding people take faith and their beliefs completely different, and it is common for people to talk about god the first thing they do when they meet people. I don't base it on nothing, I base it on what others have said and their personal experiences AS AMERICANS or visitors in USA.

As for HBT and queer people… Chad. That's a kind of a stupid thing to say. People still look down on HBT and queer people. They are still socially marginalized. The reason they got a month dedicated is because people recognize their cause so they get more space within the society. It doesn't mean that the general attitude towards HTB and queer people have necessarily changed. There is a HUGE difference in political correctness and what people really believe, which is shown in their SUBCONSCIOUS attitudes.

Let's take an example of what I mean, not directly linked to HTB or queerness, but to gender-attitudes. As a student, I've been looking for a part-time job for a long time. So I talk to my cousins about it. What do they suggest? They suggest I should seek employment helping elderly people, that kind of deal. They don't do it because they know it might be easier for me to get in as a woman. They do it because they know I need a job and money. Do I want to work with that kind of job? No. I don't. They are on the absolute bottom on my list. I rather work as a telephone salesman again than over that. But my point is that they don't suggest these jobs out of nothing. They do it specifically because 1) women are associated with those jobs 2) it is easier for a woman to get employed 3) I am a woman. By suggesting such jobs they unconsciously tell me that I should adhere to certain attributes that are considered feminine in nature. But that's not me. They pigeonhole me on the sole basis that I was born with two X chromosomes, because that's what they were taught to do as children. My cousins would never say that they think that women should explicitly work with these jobs. I know they wouldn't. But it is so integrated into our minds, the social structure, the social climate, the culture. These things are very hard to change and it doesn't help that people don't realize that when they do like what my cousins did, they actually help to maintain the system even if they may in theory be against it. But in practice they aren't. We express things very subtly about everything every day. People still have negative thoughts about HTB and queerness because it questions the patriarchal structure. Why do you think it is mostly men who feel threatened by HTB and queerness? It's not completely random.

^ dipshit