In the United States a day of ‘observance’ called “The National Day Of Prayer”, which was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, has been extravagantly celebrated by numerous administrations since that time. It is in essence a day filled with idle wishes, hands clasped and upturned noses, looking to the heavens for a plethora of gifts and grants. Some of which may come to pass, many of which will not, but none can be directly attributed to sitting idle with folded hands.
This year, Presidential ‘celebration’ of this national observance has been scaled back in comparison to previous years. Especially in regards to a standing, open invitation to the White House many evangelical leaders enjoyed, and they are subsequently awash in confusion, anger and disparaging remarks for the current administration.
As an atheist and stringent secularist myself, the pullback of the federal government’s celebration is surely welcome. While not a complete abolition of the government endorsed religious celebration which I would greatly appreciate, hopefully it is a sign of further progression towards more reasoned and constitutional adherent policies from this White House regarding First Amendment violations.
There exists no necessity for a government endorsed day of prayer. The claims regarding the effectiveness of prayer bear no veracity and prayerful individuals have their houses of worship to pray as a group or their homes to pray in private.
The National Day Of Prayer was a mistake and unconstitutional when initiated and while the majority of citizens in this nation may exercise their freedom to pray, it is not the role of government to encourage any religious activities. It has been said, “what’s the harm?” regarding the observance of this non-holiday as an argument in favor of continuing the practice, but the more insightful question is, “what’s the need?”
This nation and many others would experience much greater benfit with hands at work, than with hands partaking in a superstitious ritual. Move on nation, grow up and get to work.
Christ was kind, meek, and a servant. He did not seek,nor did He desire, to be seen of men. When He prayed to His Father God, He went apart from the group and did so in private.
Prayer is simply a word which means ‘talking with God.’ Who wants to share such an intimate time with a group? Also, person who genuinely have a personal relationship with God…need no reminders nor encouragement to ‘pray.’ Those who need reminded through a National Day of Prayer….are likely not sincere.
Prayer, like so many other aspects of true Christianity, has been replicated by superficial and false practices. The only thing God wants from the Christian is for he or she to love others as He loves them. Many so-called Christians have done more to destroy the cause of God and Christ than any true enemy ever could.
Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Couldn’t agree more. Whatever happened to the idea of ’separation of church and state’? Glad to see the Obama Administration (why is it an entire administration making these choices, isn’t there supposed to be one guy at the top, what was his name, PRESIDENT?) starting to roll back some of the overbearing Christianity that has been prevalent in the last 8 years. Anybody else remember Bush’s ‘mission from God’ address? I honestly thought a statement like that would mean impeachment…at the time. Seemed reasonable to me, after Clinton. But I suppose that is not how America works, ne?
I’m a Lutheran by baptism and (kinda) by practice. I have to agree that the feds and religion need to keep an arms length approach. I would support a legal removal of the day from the books.
Sigh, it seems that I need to insert some history here.
1775 First call to prayer by the Continental Congress for wisdom
1863 Lincoln called a day of “humiliation, fasting, and prayer”
1852 National Day of prayer created
Prayer in our nation was not a curveball that was snuck in on some bill no one ever saw or read, unlike the stimulus bill. Our nation started in prayer with the founding fathers when they constructed the Constitution and you are trying to make the case that they intended a secular government. On the contrary, they were stating that there should not be another Church of England in America. This is what the first amendment is referring to, hence, the phrase “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise therof [religion].”
Please tell me, what law would Obama have broken had he attended a National Day of Prayer event? He is a citizen first, a president second. He has every right as we do to attend any religious event he pleases. Furthermore, Gonzobot, “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution so do not ever quote it again.
Now, I have no problem with you wanting something different than what is allowed in the Constitution, but you cannot possess some measure of logic when you state that the government should not “encourage any religious activites” when the men who drafted the very words you quote were devout religious men who called for religious activities from political positions for religious reasons. Your opinion is yours to have and to cherish, but you cannot argue with these facts.
If you wish to change the Constitution or get a different government, call your congressman.
Now now, calm down. For starters buddy, I’m Canadian. EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF AMERICAN POLITICS IS AMUSEMENT TO ME. Not because its funny (even though most of it is), but because its just so messed up. Every single issue you can think of, Americans are willing to fight amongst themselves about. President wants french mustard! ‘No way!’ shouts his aides, thrusting a bottle of good ol’ American mustard (ironically, a bottle of French’s) into his hands. And it is referred to as Dijongate.
As to separation of church and state, I was referring to the idea – which I don’t think can be argued is in place, given the previous leader. Had Bush been able to, he’d have started a draft for his holy war, in the name of God, to protect America. But he couldn’t – such an action would be immediately shut down, and he’d be carted away. The First Amendment guarantees that no man shall be persecuted for his beliefs; the founding fathers were far better Christians than are around today, methinks, BECAUSE of this. They understood that nobody likes getting picked on, for any reason – and so they outlawed it. Not because they were making a religious country, but because they were making a fair, just, and RIGHTEOUS country, supporting TOLERANCE.
Just think. If some of our modern ‘christian’ leaders were in that room way back when, we very well may have grown up to a country where Sunday Service is mandatory, prayer times are strictly enforced, and where every man must do his service to God and Country and destroy the infidels who do not believe. I’m not going to try to speak for you, but I personally think that would be a terrifying world to exist in. But it wouldn’t be a Christian world. At least, not the sort of Christian I was brought up.
Great reads, in general …
Rusty Pang’s points are misguided. Religious types love to point to our founding fathers as having built the nation on tenants of religion … when in fact, the majority of our founding fathers were deists. They saw the benefit of the some of the moral lessons of Jesus, but they didn’t take it much further than that.
In the context of the time period, it was nearly impossible for them to envision the technological advances of the future, so their believing in some resemblance of a higher power is understandable – but to categorically claim that they built everything upon the foundation of the Bible? Not the case in the least.
“Separation of church and state” isn’t in the constitution, but the sublime references to ‘god’ throughout our system weren’t injected into our government until political parties looked to manipulate legislation to their aid well after the founding of the country.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
“Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.” It is humorous that you would use that phrase, considering that Tyler Durden was a counter culture character written to get you to critically think. He might also tell you, “[F*ck] what you know. You need to forget about what you know, that’s your problem. Forget about what you think you know about life, about friendship, and especially about you and me.”
justinsreality, you say my thoughts are misguided because you think that they are the same as all the empty arguments and rhetoric that the religious right throws out there. If that were so, please tell me why 24 or the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence ministers or held degrees from seminaries? If this nation was not founded in Biblical principles, can you tell me why John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
Or perhaps you may be able to enlighten me when Thomas Jefferson penned these words, “I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
Maybe I was completely off my rocker when I read John Hancock, the first signer of the DoC, “Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”
You might think James Madison, our 4th president an extreme right winger because he said, “Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.”
Patrick Henry, ratifier of the Constitution, the same guy who is supposed to be against religion in the government stated, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
There is plenty more, but I don’t want to spam this thread too much.
Gonzobot, I’m sorry to assume you were an American, but I am even more sorry that you are a Canadian. At least, in the sphere of government. My wife is Canadian and I have heard my fair share of Quebecois ideology and philosophy. Are you raving mad that conservatives are in power? I jest.
Now, I digress, I wonder though, if you were in America. I would tell you that although I cannot make you believe in my religion because of the first amendment, are you not trying to do that with Christians? Is not atheism, “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe?” This is the definition of religion.
You find some sort of satisfaction in “EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF AMERICAN POLITICS” because we are passionate about what we believe? Whether for right or wrong, how can you say that this is a bad thing. For if one cares about his country, should he not fight for it, even if his opposition is domestic? If there are Americans fighting and arguing over “french mustard,” I would agree with you. However, we are not discussing condiments or frivolous ideas. The entire foundation and purpose of the American government is the context of the discourse.
We might be better off never discussing such things if we always do so with the flippancy of french mustard. However, since I am not willing to let subject material like this pass without the proper attention, do not feel that I would just drop a stupid rhetorical sentence to try and “stick it to you.”
The reality is, I have looked hard and long at political theories, religious belief systems, and hypotheses on the origins of life and have concluded that the evidence ONLY points to a Judeo-Christian worldview. The irony is, that when the evidence takes you to any other place than a biblical world view, it is accepted. However, anything that points to Christianity is immediately dismissed as unreasonable. I would submit to you, that it is not only a reasonable explanation, but the ONLY reasonable explanation.
If your ‘research’ has led you to the only possible conclusion of a god, then http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ ? Can you shoehorn your God into this world, without negating everything He ever said or did or made us believe? Because there is zero proof in this world that there is a god, beyond the controlling interests of the Church. None. No proof whatsoever; a jug of milk will answer just as many prayers as Jesus ever did.
I went to the linked site and it is full of holes. If you expect me to shutter when I read manipulated excerpts out of the Bible, you’ve got to try harder. The website is a poorly done Michael Moore travesty. The very same Bible also says in James, “You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.”
The question, “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees” is based upon the false premise of the soldier’s merit, which if the author had read the Bible entirely, would understand that in Romans it says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” God owes the amputee nothing, in fact, God deserves everything from him as he does us all. The very fact that God even considers helping us anyways demonstrates his good nature.
If you are really interested in a good discussion on why won’t God heal amputees, it’s prudent to ask why was he an amputee in the first place. Essentially, suffering and pain is in the world, so why is there evil in the world causing all of this. In fact, while we are on the subject, what is evil? Where did it come from?
If there is no God, how can there be evil? What standard are we comparing things to so that we can determine good from evil? I can explain these things. Can you?
If you say there is no such thing as evil or good, how do you know this? You could only know this if someone told you. Roll this back through history to the first sentient being. Who told them what was evil and what was good?
How can a blind man differentiate between colors unless someone told him. And even then, his understanding is severely limited.
You want to hold onto your “proof” that there is no God so tightly that you fail to recognize that what you hold onto is nothing. I don’t get jollies for telling people such things. All I do is talk about the truth. All I do is defend the truth.
I can’t make people believe, I just present the evidence and the arguments.
RustyPang.com
“A more insightful question would be ‘what’s the need’?”
I have a thought, as a Christian stumbling across this blog from Digg, and it is this:
If God doesn’t exist, why do you care if these people waste their time praying?
If any taxpayer money has been used in the NDOP, and that bothers you, that is one issue. I would ask, as a Christian, for a full refund of wasted tax payer money spent on abortion, and the exporting and expansion of abortion “rights,” as well as a host of other issues. I suppose in the end of the day, if it’s tax payer money you’re concerned about, I’m with you: down with the pork, and yes it includes the NDOP.
Now, I agree with you, that the NDOP probably shouldn’t exist. However, I don’t agree with you that the State shouldn’t endorse religion.
Establishing a State church is one thing, but backing up the moral backbone of this country, and all that made it America (i.e. the Christianity inherent in the foundational history of our nation) serves the theist as well as the atheist, as both are endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator.
If given the chance, I suspect the raging atheist crowd would put us on Sunday reservations, and duct tape our mouths if we dare mention “In God we Trust?” Or “In Jesus’ Name we pray?” Would that be your goal or desire, I wonder?
If it is not your desire, and we can agree that we both are free to disagree openly and publicly on the matter of God’s existence (though you are a living and breathing bit of evidence standing in a universe of evidence all of which you deny to your own peril), then I ask:
What are you so afraid of? People praying to a God you deny? If you are right (impossible), and God doesn’t exist (*though He most certainly does*), then why do you care so much?
Or is it rather the case that you do actually believe that God exists, as Romans 1 states quite clearly as well as Psalms in various places, and you just don’t like Him?
Just curious. Nice blog, otherwise.