Obama Overruled By Liberal Judge

[smoking357]

Obama finally gets one right and stands up for our great traditions of having the country be founded on and dependent on God, only to get shot down by a liberal judge.

Federal judge rules Day of Prayer unconstitutional

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic.

President Barack Obama's administration has countered that the statute simply acknowledges the role of religion in the United States.

 

[bigg cheese]

we don't need the government to recognize a day that we'll do regardless...

 

[onviousluu]

I don't think anyone could argue very well that a national day of prayer is constitutional, but regardless, who cares? I mean really is that something worth getting upset about?

If you wanna pray? PRAY! Go ahead. You don't need the federal government to tell you when to pray.

 

[Ogre]

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

What I don't understand...

What religion, exactly, is the National Day of Prayer propping up, supporting, or otherwise enhancing?

 

[melensdad]

I don't think anyone could argue very well that a national day of prayer is constitutional...

Why not? The government is not allowed to establish a religion. None is established in the national day of prayer. Want to pray to the Albino Goat Goddess, then so be it. Nobody is saying you MUST pray. Nobody is saying you MUST pray within a specific religion/faith. It is just a day of recognition for people of faith who want to pray, not really much different than ARBOR day where we plant a tree (pray to the earth gods).

 

[jdhaines]

It seems like it should be a bad idea to anyone of faith to have a law on the books relating government to religion.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I would argue that if there is a law about it then there can't be the free exercise thereof. The judge argued that laws acknowledging a religion being present are ok, but a law can't be about religion that serves no other purpose. She also said that this ruling has nothing to do with the power of prayer, or those who feel strongly about praying in their daily lives.

Also, why would anyone who wants to pray want/need recognition? If you are religious you know where you sit, you know your beliefs, and you are comfortable with them. If you are not, then you should do some reading and research to either confirm them or look into alternatives. Why would you want the government reaching into peoples' daily lives and patting everyone on the back who prays?

I say keep the .gov the hell away from everything relating to religion.


Disclaimer: I'm not religious, but I still agree that religion should be a personal choice with no government influence. My freedom of NOT praying, I feel, is directly related to everyone else's freedom TO pray How, When, Where, and with Whom they please.

 

[Expat]

This whole operation that the radical atheists have going, to stamp out any and all religion in this country, is kind of sad. Why are they so threatened by other people's religious practices? They seem insecure in their beliefs. Our Founding documents are full of references to God. All of our Founders were religious to some extent and routinely opened meetings with prayer. Having a National Day of Prayer goes back to 1789 when George Washington issued a proclamation. Several of the States had official State religions subsidized by the taxpayers showing that all of these theories of freedom "from" religion are incorrect. No, I am not advocating that we have a State religion now.

 

[irishfan]

This whole operation that the radical atheists have going, to stamp out any and all religion in this country, is kind of sad. Why are they so threatened by other people's religious practices? They seem insecure in their beliefs. Our Founding documents are full of references to God. All of our Founders were religious to some extent and routinely opened meetings with prayer. Having a National Day of Prayer goes back to 1789 when George Washington issued a proclamation. Several of the States had official State religions subsidized by the taxpayers showing that all of these theories of freedom "from" religion are incorrect. No, I am not advocating that we have a State religion now.

As sad as the radical Atheist movement may be it is working. Personally, I know I am a christian and if I want to pray I will regardless of who is around. If you are an atheist then that is your choice but you shouldn't infringe on my right to pray just as I shouldn't interrupt a muslim with their prayer.

 

[jdhaines]

This whole operation that the radical atheists have going, to stamp out any and all religion in this country, is kind of sad. Why are they so threatened by other people's religious practices? They seem insecure in their beliefs. Our Founding documents are full of references to God. All of our Founders were religious to some extent and routinely opened meetings with prayer. Having a National Day of Prayer goes back to 1789 when George Washington issued a proclamation. Several of the States had official State religions subsidized by the taxpayers showing that all of these theories of freedom "from" religion are incorrect. No, I am not advocating that we have a State religion now.

Why do you think that this ruling has to do with a "Radical Atheist" movement? Why would atheism in general have to be radical? I hesitate to say that it's another religion, but I would claim that it's another set of beliefs. If you are fine with Buddhists practicing their beliefs and they aren't radical, then why would atheism be? I don't think this has anything to do with insecure atheists, but has everything to do with keeping government out of a very personal part of people's beliefs.

As sad as the radical Atheist movement may be it is working. Personally, I know I am a christian and if I want to pray I will regardless of who is around. If you are an atheist then that is your choice but you shouldn't infringe on my right to pray just as I shouldn't interrupt a muslim with their prayer.

I agree with this 100%. This ruling isn't about infringing on anyone's right to pray. It's a block on the government making a law about prayer. That removes infringement on religion by the government. Everyone should be free to practice however they want without some pencil neck government official making a statement about it. Leave us the hell alone.

 

[mrjarrell]

According to the article Obama intends to blow the judges ruling off. That should put him in contempt of the court. Guess we can't expect him to respect the rule of law. Wonder if the judge has the courage to issue an arrest warrant? Somehow, I doubt it.

Obama spokesman Matt Lehrich said in an e-mail to The Associated Press the president still plans to issue a proclamation for the next prayer day.
"As he did last year, President Obama intends to recognize a National Day of Prayer," Lehrich said.

 

[Bill of Rights]

A proclamation or a recognition is not a law.

The 1A specifies in part that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. A law that _______ is to be called the NDoP would not have any bearing on a specific establishment of religion; that is, it would not say that that day is the NDoP for Catholics, or for any specific relgion, just a general statement, however, the easy way around this is to have it not be a law or not come from the Congress. In the first, it could be a "resolution", and in the second, it could be Obama proclaiming the NDoP.

It really doesn't matter. People who want to pray will and those who do not, won't.

And those who want to try to fool the American people into thinking they are religious and/or Christian will continue to attempt to do so regardless.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Rich.Carpenter]

Do we really think that Obama had any expectation that this would pass? I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, per se, but whose purpose do you *really* think is served by having such a motion shot down in a very public manner?

If you want more people to lean toward a particular way of thinking and the law happens to be on your side, the best thing you can do is get it publicly upheld by the Supreme Court.

I'm just sayin'...