It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US judge refuses to dismiss 'Day of Prayer' suit

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

US judge refuses to dismiss 'Day of Prayer' suit


www3.signonsandiego.com

MADISON, Wis. — A federal judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit that claims the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled this week the case brought by the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation can move forward with discovery.
A federal law sets the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations asking Americans to pray.

Crabb says the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics faces a heavy burden in proving the tradition violates the separation of church and state. But she says it should have an oppo
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Okay so let's get this straight.

Religious fanatics often have a skewed perspective of reality and still believe in books, of all religions, that were written by god knows who before time itself(not really before but u know what i mean).

And atheists pride themselves in being more logical thinking people. Yet I often see them fighting for the stupidests of reasons during critical times.

Religious fanatics get blinded by presidential campaigns talking about minor topics like abortion and stuff like that.

Atheists are really no different. At least Atheist groups I'm sorry I know i'm generalizing.

www3.signonsandiego.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Until such time as the government advocates prayer of a 'specific' sort, or to a 'specific' deity, this does not violate any Constitutional Law. Calling for disciplined thoughtful introspection and meditation is not something that people can actually be offended by unless it is forced upon them. How such a thing could be said to be happening is a political stretch.

Prayer is not in and of itself a doctrinal activity. Meditation can be said to be prayer. Singing can be said to be prayer. Hell, marathon running can be said to be a form of prayer.

This is another media-minded PR contrivance to frighten atheists into thinking that those who have some form of faith in their lives are dangerously insane. And while we are not allowed to comment or opine on someone outwardly displaying their sexual preference (that is uncivilized) it seems they contend it is apparently OK to do so about those who pray openly. Interesting.

Flame on.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


That is a perfect explanation of what this suit is truly about. This BS about being offended and thinking that because they are offended that i can't possibly be offended by their acts is getting out of hand. If your offended, tough. Don't pray, The proclamation says nothing about mandatory or even make any pretense of telling anyone what to pray or meditate about. It's foolish and this judge has his head up his butt wasting court time when others with real problems sit and wait years to get justice!

Zindo



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
This is another media-minded PR contrivance to frighten atheists into thinking that those who have some form of faith in their lives are dangerously insane.


I don't think this is the issue
The judge isn't the media firstly
and secondly media and govt. is one and churches aren't taxed

so.....



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


No matter how you try to twist it, the FACT remains that this is grandstanding from the ridiculous point of view of both the premis of the suit and the idiot judge actually thinking that this should go to trial!

Zindo



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


No matter how you try to twist it, the FACT remains that this is grandstanding from the ridiculous point of view of both the premis of the suit and the idiot judge actually thinking that this should go to trial!

Zindo


I'm glad to see it go to trial. Once there is a decision, and I am quite, quite confident that the National Day of Prayer will be upheld, then there is precedence. Hopefully, this will be the last.

By the way, I agree with you Maxmar


Calling for disciplined thoughtful introspection and meditation is not something that people can actually be offended by unless it is forced upon them.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
i see nothing wrong with it, i mean it could always be the precursor for what they were trying to do like a week ago with the whole bible year and #, but until they make it where the prayer is to a certain "god" or diety and its forced i dont see nothing wrong with it



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Um, why do we need a national day of prayer?

It's not the government's job to encourage religious practices. It's that simple folks. One of the cornerstones of the foundation of this country is religious freedom from the state.

It would be reasonable for religious people to shun the idea of the state picking an arbitrary date for people to pray, but reason has never really been a strong point for all the zealots out there has it?

I'm an Atheist from Madison, WI.
for the FFRF!



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
The law clearly states "Freedom OF Religion", not "Freedom FROM Religion"!!! The law was made to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Read up on your laws and the history behind them people! There's a reason we were all forced to take American History and American Government in high school!



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Im not religious and I think the last time I prayed I was about 10 and had just broke the VCR and prayed it would work before anyone found out and I got grounded haha

But I dont have a problem with this, if praying makes some people feel good then by all means pray.

I watched a documentary a few years back and I think its in Isreal, there is a church and people of all faiths pray there together! Christians, Muslims, Jews and ather religions Id never heard of before.

Some prayed quietly, some kind of muttered some even danced. But I though if every place of worship had a similar policy then a lot of the religious hatred would be broken down. They all seemed to respect each others views and Id call that a healthier kind of religion.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by milesp
Um, why do we need a national day of prayer?


Why does it concern you? Why do we need Gay pride parades, "Columbus" day, etc.?

This isn't about you. It's about others who don't feel diminished by faith.

Must people now ask for permision to pray?

Civil society needs to make room for everyone; otherwise it can't truly be considered either 'civil' or 'society'. The government is there to do what WE tell it to do, if the consensus of our representatives and the courts is 'no' fine. But what's the big deal with asking for payer to be recognized as a value our society embraces?

It seems to me that many atheists, not meaning you, are more anti-theist than a-theist.

MoonChild02;

I humbly disagree. This is precisely about religious expression not having an expressive form within the domain of the government. Thus calling for 'prayer' is fine, calling for worship would be wrong. Government isn't about God, it's about people..., all we are saying that it is a natural, and worthwhile thing for people, if so inclined, to pray.


[edit on 30-5-2009 by Maxmars]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Columbus day and Thanksgiving need to be abolished however guy above me

horrible holidays



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join