I don’t think “80% of people would be down” is the sole criteria for a Holiday.
@Arac, DonutKnight: I was by no means saying that 80% statistic as the justification or support for the holiday. It was used in my argument towards America blatantly preferring religion over no religion at all since the beginning. America has a lot to “ridden,” not just this holiday to be a secular nation.
@OmegaflareX:
“Did you even read the facts I just listed? How is it a spur of the moment statement if I just told you that religion wasn’t nearly as pronounced in this country until the 50s, when communism became associated with atheism?”
I mean “spur of the moment” as opinionated, likely from your paraphrase of facts and lack of research. I am not denying you of the fact that the 50s pronounced religion for the country, but gaining popularity and being the “prominence” of religion is too far to be taken with a grain of salt.
Let’s look at some more facts…
The song America was the de facto national anthem since the early 1800s with lyrics stating God. 1
The national anthem of America has been, officially, “The Star-Spangled Banner” since 1931, and it was officially used by the USN since 1889. This song sang: “And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’” It was written in 1814. 2 3
“In God is our Trust” was believed to be shortened to “In God We Trust” and included on and off on coins since 1864, and it was required by law to be included on quarters and up since 1908. 4
Thanksgiving, 1863. 5
“God Bless America,” written in 1918, played on radios very much. 6
“Our nation is run by our Constitution, not our Declaration of Independence. You would also have to assume that the Founding Fathers held the same opinion on religion’s influence in the United States that you do. Some of the founders were notably critical of religion; just look up quotes by John Adams, Ben Franklin, and even Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence.”
I have not said religion influenced America. I have only been stating America has been, historically, religious. Give me a link to some quotes, because all I see is they were critical about which religion was right (for them) and the fact that church and state is a bad idea.
“So what? Again, you would have to assume that the Founding Fathers had the same beliefs on religion that you do, and apparently they didn’t believe in a National Day of Prayer. If the Founding Fathers believed that religion was as significant in life as the 1950s did, they wouldn’t have created the Establishment Clause.”
I don’t have any belief on religion. The facts and history are there that America was very religious. There have been many days in the history of America that days have been set aside for prayer. What does the Establishment Clause have to do with religion not being significant? They simply didn’t want one of the many religions at the time to become the national religion and they didn’t want any of the religions at the time to be barred or preferred. However, the history shows that states didn’t abide by these for a long time after. (See books and links below)
“A far fewer people went to church in the late 1700s than the percentage that attends church today, by the way.”
Give me the link to this statistic. Some of the links below beg to differ, stating 70-80% were churchgoers 6, much higher than today’s churchgoing statistic.
More things to look at…
Religion and American Law: http://books.google.com/books?id=36HdkC-KjwEC (Good Book)
America’s God and country: http://books.google.com/books?id=BtGzlMatpUUC (Good Book)
No King But King Jesus: http://www.daveblackonline.com/no_king_but_king_jesus.htm (Paraphrases books containing America’s texts; facts and history are here)
http://www.straight-talk.net/heritage/h-facts.shtml (More, with links to many more books too)
…
However, the history shows that states didn’t abide by these for a long time after.
States didn’t abide by the Establishment Clause because, to put it plainly, it didn’t apply to them. The Bill of Rights was held by the Supreme Court (Barron v. Baltimore) not to restrict the States under the original Constitution. It wasn’t until the 14th Amendment was ratified (and still about 60 years after that) that incorporation became prevalent. And then it wasn’t until the Warren Court (53 through 69) that most of the BoR were incorporated. Prior to incorporation, for a State to be beholden to the Establishment Clause, it would have needed something similar in its state constitution or its state courts would have held the BoR did apply to that state (I think the relevant example of that is Nunn v. Georgia).
This is a stupid thing to debate. People have historically been religious, whatever country they’re in.
The point is, giving people who do have religion a holiday, which is not mandated or enforced in any way, and which isn’t even a Federal Holiday where leave from school and work is granted, isn’t discriminating against anybody any more than no pants day is. Considering everything else in the world, it is an inane, petty issue.
I also don’t see why America should become a secular nation, even. The only trouble with being religious is when it forces others to be, which it does not, in America.
I actually find prayer comforting - at least, silent prayer, not necessarily reciting Christian prayers. At the same time, I see prayer day as probably being a back-alley way to force organized religion on us.
Lack of coercion (school prayers are unconstitutional in part because of the idea of a captive audience) and lack of specifying any specific religion pretty much means it’s not forcing organized religion on anyone, even in a back-alley manner.
Its a way to force it by changing the social milieu. If a country has a national prayer day, it implicitly endorses prayer and religion. Little kids learn about prayer day and are socialized to believe that religion is endorsed by our society. Its the first step down the slippery slope of socializing everyone to believe that prayer and religion are necessary and synonymous with the ideals of our government.
It reminds of when religious groups wanted schools to do “quiet time”, a time during each school day when children were encouraged to ‘reflect’ if they wanted to.
There is also an official Forest Products week. That is seven times as long, so when little kids learn about Forest Products Week they are SEVEN TIMES as socialized to believe that Forest Products are endorsed by our society. It’s the first step, and the next six, down the slippery slope of socializing everyone to believe that Forest Products are necessary and synonymous with the ideals of our government.
There is also an official Gay and Lesbian Pride month. That is thirty times as long, so when little kids learn about Gay and Lesbian Pride Month they are THIRTY TIMES as socialized to believe that Gay and Lesbian Pride is endorsed by our society. It’s the first step, and the next twenty-nine, down the slippery slope of socializing everyone to believe that Gay and Lesbian Pride are necessary and synonymous with the ideals of our government.
Shall I go on? I can mad-lib in Safe Boating Week, if you want.
If you want to go the essay route I’m not even going to bother, especially since everything I said is common knowledge.
I never claimed that I was upset, however I can see why other people would find it to be inappropriate. Obviously, we have free will to recognize National Prayer Day or Pie Day or any other ‘holiday’ as we see fit. Someone might see having a prayer day as reflecting that the US is a Christian country or something and be upset.
I personally don’t care. Although, I do celebrate Pie Day.mmm
Kids don’t learn about Forest Products Week, or any of those other obscure ones, since few adults even know about them. But even if they did, those things have far less consequences than matters of religion. How can you compare being taught how to safely boat to being taught that prayer is necessary?
You’re right that Gay and Lesbian Pride month is meant to socialize children to accept homosexuality. That’s a good thing. And as far as I can tell, Gay and Lesbian Pride month is not endorsed by the government. Unlike national prayer day.
Furthermore, the behavior of religious groups shows that it is a big deal any time they get their foot in the door. They are highly motivated, focused, and have tons of money. Given their past aims and goals, we have every reason to believe that they won’t just stop at national prayer day when it comes to infiltrating the government. They are not just trying to sell a product or increase exposure of a hobby, unlike your other examples - they’re trying to actually pass laws and change the fundamental ways people live. Creating the perception that religion is endorsed by the government, and mainstream society in general, is one way they try to convince people they have the authority to dictate how we live.
Anybody that would associate prayer as being Christian is a little narrow-minded on the study of religions. There’s over 3,000 religions in America that pray or meditate in one way or another. Spiritual people often pray/meditate, too.
I’ve found that some atheists and the like are-trying-to/have adopted the annual day as the National Day of Reason. 1 It would seem people would rather have a day then not have one at all.
The entire point was that the existence of an observance (which is not even a holiday, technically), is hardly teaching children that prayer is necessary. I never even knew this day existed when I was little kid. If I had been told that such holiday existed, I very much doubt my reaction would’ve been “Oh, there is a holiday for this, and thus our government/society could never function without it, much like Saint Patrick’s Day, Halloween, and Cinco de Mayo, all of which are instrumental to the running of the United States government.”
First, you are incorrect; Clinton declared June Gay and Lesbian Pride month in 2000. Secondly, it’s a government-sponsored event that functions, in your argument, as propaganda for something which may conflict with certain individuals’ religious beliefs.
I think they might be excited to share their faith with others, but maybe I’m just old-fashioned enough not to believe that anyone who believes in any form of the supernatural that is even remotely benevolent is part of a massive conspiracy to control the lives of everyone in America through cleverly placed holiday-that-isn’t-even-on-the-calendar-in-my-room brainwashing.
Are the atheists advocating the National Day of Reason secretly Dan Brown-style Vatican spies infiltrating the “heretics” to create a subliminal tie between praying and being reasonable, implying that those who aren’t religious are irrational?
Well, its still ok by me if Gay and Lesbian Pride Month was sanctioned by the government. I’m pragmatic when it comes to government’s interference in our lives - if I think some good can come of it, like increasing tolerance for gays, I support it.
I think they might be excited to share their faith with others, but maybe I’m just old-fashioned enough not to believe that anyone who believes in any form of the supernatural that is even remotely benevolent is part of a massive conspiracy to control the lives of everyone in America through cleverly placed holiday-that-isn’t-even-on-the-calendar-in-my-room brainwashing.
Are the atheists advocating the National Day of Reason secretly Dan Brown-style Vatican spies infiltrating the “heretics” to create a subliminal tie between praying and being reasonable, implying that those who aren’t religious are irrational?
First of all, “anyone who believes in the supernatural” are not the people who created Prayer Day. They are lobbyists for religious groups who petitioned the government through money and political leverage(i.e. votes) into creating this day. There are plenty of good religious people who don’t want to force their beliefs on others. These people don’t see the need for a national Prayer Day.
The atheists aren’t part of a conspiracy, because they’re mostly not as organized as religions, but their intent is mostly as strong as the religionists. they would probably petition the government to get rid of Prayer Day or create the Day of Reason if they had the power to do it. In other words, they too want to use the government to promote their idea of a good society. The difference is that in their view, any endorsement of religion by the government is dangerous.
I have to agree with them. You’re right that most religious people don’t want to force their view on others, but there’s always that core that does - always, in any religion - and these are the people that are the most active, dangerous, and powerful. The Founders created Separation of Church and State not because they thought religion was inherently bad; rather, they recognized that as long as religion and governmetn were fused, religion could potentially be used as a tool of manipulation and repression. This is backed up by the history of mankind.
All those other holidays you mention - Halloween, Christmas, Easter - are so commercialized as to be not dangerous.
In my experience, there is an overwhelming amount of people in the US that will automatically associate prayer with Christianity. At least day of reason doesnt single out non-religious people.Or, should I say, non-spiritual.
A lot of people think the US is a Christian country with little respect for anything else.
i prayed for secks to no avail
Need I point out again that the individual States weren’t bound by the Establishment Clause and there was State established religions back in the 1790s? Of particular note were states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and others (but not Virginia) which had a religious tax: people would pay taxes that would then be directed to the religion of their choice. Germany has something similar nowadays. They thought it was within the power of the State to act as a Nursing Father of the church given what was perceived as the social positives from having religion. These endorsements of religion existed when the BoR were ratified in 1791.
It is quite possible then that the Establishment Clause could be read instead as a States-Rights Amendment; it was meant to prevent the federal government from establishing a church but allowed the States to continue on their merry ways without fear of a Church of America. The backdrop of BoR ratification, after all, was based on the idea of more local governments with a weaker national government with very little say in domestic matters. When talking about why the Founders crafted the Amendments the way they did, they must ALWAYS be read with the understanding that they did not apply to the States (well, except for the 10th).
If you want strict separation, do you fully understand what that should entail? All government money should not go to any religious organizations (and I imagine tax exempt status should be revoked too). Soup kitchens, Goodwill, church hospitals… All of those should receive no funding under strict adherence to the Wall of Separation. Although, as a consequence of strict separation, I would argue that the doctrine of sanctuary should be brought back.
I wonder who the votes were.
O yah all those other religious people I mentioned.
I still don’t see how national prayer forces anything on anyone.
You, uh, know I was making fun of you, right?
The government “endorsing” religion with a holiday is no less dangerous than the government “endorsing” gay and lesbian pride with a holiday. National prayer day isn’t going to turn people into crazed religious zealots anymore than gay and lesbian pride month is going to turn them into flamboyant strawman caricatures of gays lesbians.
I like the separation of church and state, too. I just happen to think this is an inane, ridiculous, and insignificant thing to be upset about.
Where, historically, it is well known that each society’s National Day of Prayer, rather than having a state religion and mandating prayer more than one day a year instead of just creating a purely optional holiday to celebrate it on, was the key to their religious power?
HOLY FUCK ITS SHIN 
You were making fun of me? Well, I chose to respond seriously, but whatever. I don’t feel like arguing so you can have the last word.
