National Day of Prayer is on, despite court ruling

I don't believe in absolutes. I believe in reasonable conclusions and compromise.

There is a fine line between radical and paranoia.

We have both sides tearing at each's other throats on these matters... those who point to the separation of church and state clause to keep the religion out of government when the intended purpose of the clause was to keep both institutions mutually exclusive. Having no state-mandated religious practices ensured religious freedom and that is how it should be.

Lets face it.. religion is not kept out of the government 100% and vice versa. Thats a pipe dream. You can't ask every judge or legislator in America to keep their religious leanings out of their political lives, and you can't keep state issues from clashing with church issues.


You're suggesting that any form of compromise on an issue of a "National Day of Prayer" results in a slippery slope which will inevitably move us back into a state-sponsored religious country. I don't see that happening at all and find it a bit ludicrous to suggest. You claim to have no problem with religion as long as it is kept out of your personal life, yet you seem to have a vendetta against it as you are always the most outspoken person on this board when it comes to these sort of topics. Thats fine, I personally feel like I've been taken advantage of by Christianity in my personal life many times, I understand what its like to be held down by incoherent reasoning and delusions of grandeur.


What I'm suggesting is that with a little understanding we can reach an amicable settlement that satisfies those who wish to express themselves by declaring some meaningless "National Day of Prayer" which really holds as much bearing on most of America as "National Pancake Day".

 

Is it wrong to be radical about fairness?

 

Not at all.

Being a radical often times just means you're either socially ahead of the curve, or you're bat**** insane.




I'm as disillusioned with the faulty reasoning and head-in-the-clouds mantra of religion as the next guy, but I really don't see a growing paradigm shift over declaring a "National Day of Prayer". I mean Christmas and Thanksgiving are National Holidays but nobody is forcing Turkey and Egg Nog down your gullet.

 

Actually, my dear sith, that would not be ambivalent, since it would be 100% against recognition of the event. Ambivalence is characterized by conflict regarding the subject, not ignorance of it.

That's right Donny, I can feel the good in you, the conflict...Search your feelings....

Yes it is. The governmentis merely recognizing the cultural fact that it's commonly celebrated, and conveniantly timing the holiday around it. Again, they are not endorsing or forcing anyone to do anything in regards to the supposedly christian activities that occur at the same time.

It's conveniance and recognition sans endorsement or encouragement. Seriously. When I worked on a federal site, the christmas holiday was a holiday. That is all. I don't think "oh hey, look, Obama gave me Dec 25th off to celebrate the birth of Jesus", I think Obama gave me the 25th off. It's on you to attach meaning to it. Call it the winter soltice if you like, get yourself some hookers and blow, swear to dionysus, and have at it.

Time off is mandated. Observance of anything is not. End of story.

No doubt.

Pragmatism is involved. Maybe it's unfair, but it's ridiculous to split hairs over this since the whole damn country runs on majority opinion. Only a sith thinks in absolutes...

Recognition is not endorsement. If I recognized that the majority of people in houston are Astros fans and had a "citywide day of astros celebration" would I be forcing non-astros fans to don bagwell jerseys and moan about how inept the team is? No. It would just be observing the simple reality that is demographics.

 

lulz. :grin: I'm not batcrap insane, but I am passionate. Any one of the religious posters here I wouldn't hesitate to help in any moment of need.

Honestly, I have no vendetta against religion as long as it 1) doesn't break the law and 2) isn't recognized by the government.

What I do have a vendetta for is protecting people's freedom and fairness in regards to religion (both the freedom of and the freedom from it).

 

This debate hinges on whether you feel that the government establishing holidays to recognize/observe religion (holidays, practices, etc) is a promotion (albeit weak promotion) of them or not.

If you don't think it is, then there's nothing I can do for you. That is a completely illogical standpoint. You're welcome to keep thinking that way, but it will never make sense, especially when this holiday in particular is established for the explicit reason of allowing people to observe religious practices and holidays.

If the government mandated a day to celebrate the believing there is no god, that would fly in direct opposition to religion/believers. It would be their government declaring that we should recognize that belief (whether you like it or not, it is an admission of legitimacy of that faith, and NOT as Max suggested, an acknowledgement of the fact that "a bunch of people aren't going to work that day"). Because of the fact these two things cannot co-exist, you cannot have the government recognize one unless they recognize the other to an equal extent and have it remain fair. Even then, it is failboat to co-mingle government and religion in any way, shape or form. Whether it be a faith in God or a faith in that God doesn't exist. I don't want either case happening.

You cannot be ambivalent when you tacitly encourage people to celebrate a religious holiday by giving them mandatory (or paid) time off. You cannot mandate them to celebrate the holiday, but you are showing favor to/approval of their beliefs. And that is unfair to the rest of us, especially non-believers.

 

This thread is proceeding as I have foreseen...

Spoiler

That's pretty much it.

Look, I have my own personal beliefs, which I normally prefer to keep to myself. If the national day of prayer stays, I will move on with the rest of my life. On the other hand, if the national day of prayer is abolished....I will move on with the rest of my life.

Either scenario happening will have absolutely zero affect on my personal belief system and that's really all that should matter.

 

People can sit around and say this kind of stuff has no meaning/bearing on us, but symbolic gestures of approval/promotion/encouragement/compliance add up.

It speaks to what we are as a country, and while it may be a drop in the bucket to you, to me it's very, very important.

 

I don't think that is encouragement. And that is not illogical, regardless of whatever long-winded explanation you give. The holiday (christmas) is explicitly intended for christians to observe an event. The day off from the government does not explicitly intend that at all. Period. You are wrong.

It is recognition, and that is unfair to those of alternative persuasions. But what we have now is, I think, a pragmatic approach to the ambivalent ideology the government is beholden to maintain.

 

Are you against prayer, or is it just not something you feel you need to take part in?

There are lots of holidays that have zero significance to me. That doesn't mean national recognition of such days is an affront to me.

"National Day of Prayer" is for people of faith. It has nothing to do with you, unless part of your belief-system is to be anti-prayer (the very idea of other people praying offends you).

 

Alright, we're officially going in circles now.

You guys don't see it as encouragement/promotion and you don't recognize the relationship between religion vs. non-religion being competing/opposites.

Logical roadblock identified.

Peace out, 'til next time.

 

durvasa han solo'd donny.

 

Fear I sense in you.


I don't see declaring a meaningless "National Day of Prayer" leading us down a path toward state-mandated religion just as I don't see declaring "National Pancake Day" leading us toward state-mandated IHOP feeding bins on every 2nd and 4th Saturday of the Month.

Your slippery slope is one filled with dangerous reason, and not delicious syrup-filled pancakes and therefore I will not follow you down its path.

 

I've just read through this thread and the question I have is "prayer" really equivalent to endorsing "religion" in a specific sense?

The establishment cause was to prevent the establishment of a state church but it doesn't seem to me that encouraging a particular activity that spans multiple religion and even those that subscribe to no particular religion is the same as establishing a state church. The act of prayer while spiritual doesn't seem to me to necessarily be religion in the sense of advancing a particular institution.

To me that would be like saying that National Eating Day was advancing the Italian Food.

My read of the First Ammendment is that it specifically forbids the endorsment of religion but not spirituality so something as general as a National Day of Prayer wouldn't advance any single religion but a general spirituality.

 

Don't worry dude, we Muslims have a tendency to come out of nowhere and procreate furiously, something DonnyMost has not taken into account. :grin:

 

MadMax,

Doesn't this create a couple of problems? Namely:

1) What about 78%?

2) The conflict of interest - wouldn't a lot of people be swayed to push all holidays to that 80% point?

I'm not sure deciding on an ad-hoc basis would be fair to all.

Personally, I can see how this could be a stepping stone to potentially promoting religion. I don't see how this is promoting religion. If a whole bunch of people get together and pray for the country, that just means they are hoping for something. Maybe they should hae called it the National Day of Joining Hands for a Common Hope? lol

I can agree that this is right along the boundaries though.

 

I think there are almost no countries left in the world where you HAVE to pray.

Even Saudi Arabia has decided to enter the 20th century.

 

THIS is what I was just going to say.

I'm not sure if this holds true in Christianity, but it does in Islam so I thought worth mentioning..

The holidays Muslims get (Eid #1 and #2, Prophet's birthday, etc) were always honored but the Prophet PBUH and everyone else did NOT get a day off for them. They did NOT get a shorter/easier day for fasting. They went to work and essentially celebrated by high-fiving each other. The extent of it would be a much longer lunch break or something of that nature.

This is why it's so confusing to me when people complain about Islamic holidays - they're not meant to be celebrated by pausing your work - the underlying assumption being that by working you are doing a GOOD thing for the world, and it would be a shame to stop.

Certainly, I can agree with slashing all these holidays perhaps in favor of giving peopel those days back as annual leave days, or maybe half the equivalent.

One factor which is quite common is that on some holidays, I expect to take the day off but since my boss is from another culture, it is difficult for him to understand that I MUST be with my family on this day. For these kinds of awkward situations, a federal holiday is quite useful. But otherwise, I don't see the point really.

Also, I find it important that within the current framework that if you actually go to work on holidays (which you should be allowed to do in most cases), then you get those hours back as annual leave days (I believe they call in 'days in lieu' or something).

 

With respect to 1) -- i don't know when it changes...but just be practical and pragmatic. i'd say if you expect half your work force to take the day off regardless, it's pretty useless to call it anything other than a holiday. that's just from my own experience.

with respect to 2) -- again...practical and pragmatic. don't treat 80% like it's a magic number...don't treat 50% like a magic number. we're not living in a bubble. deal with things as they arise.

 

I think it creates a problem.. Mainly, when do you declare this? Do you survey the staff to get an idea?

If you have an idea of who will and won't be coming, doesn't this in the future push the company towards discriminating based on religion? (less religion = less holidays).

I'm just nitpicking here, but it's interesting to me because I may be able to feed this back to HR at work for a review they're doing.