National Day of Prayer

[Texsox]

It's promoting a religious activity: prayer. It doesn't matter if it's non-denominational (we swear it's not evangelical!).

Is it *picky* to b**** about something so small? Sure.

 

How about a National Day of No Prayer? I bet that would go over well.

 

 

That would be the other 364 days. For some, they need that last day.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's a good point, actually. Personally, I don't get too excited about stuff like this, ... with that said, though, don't take my PERSONAL freedom away to pray or not to pray. The rest is a stupid arguement, really.

 

 

You really think so? I don't see it that way.

 

True.

 

Okay, but at what point should the government not interfere with (insert X here).

 

Who are you, and does kap know you have his SoxTalk sign-in?

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Okay, but at what point should the government not interfere with (insert X here).

 

Depends on X...

[kapkomet]

Depends on X...

 

 

Well, there's health care, there's providing entitlements for whatever, there's regulation, there's etc. etc. etc. that the government seems to think they should take care of for us. Where does it stop? Why religion? Why anything...?

[CrimsonWeltall]

Why religion? Why anything...?

 

Because we're specifically talking about the First Amendment's separation of church and state.

 

[kapkomet]

Because we're specifically talking about the First Amendment's separation of church and state.

 

 

Fine. But what about anything else that's in the constitution?

 

I'm just interested in where people think line should stop.

[lostfan]

Well, define "general welfare" I guess.

[kapkomet]

Well, define "general welfare" I guess.

 

 

Oh, well, that explains everything. It means the government should do everything. Got it.

[lostfan]

If you want me to answer the question and show how it's different from yours and why I think I'm right, I have to know how you'd define that idea.

[kapkomet]

If you want me to answer the question and show how it's different from yours and why I think I'm right, I have to know how you'd define that idea.

 

 

Seriously, you are... but that is weak sauce, and a stupid arguement (not by you, but by these jackasses in Congress).

[StrangeSox]

General welfare + interstate commerce + 14th amendment = unlimited federal power, pretty much.

 

But all of those other cases are clearly distinct from issues directly applicable to the 1st amendment.

 

Going with the Lemon Test, what possible secular purpose does a NDoP serve?

[kapkomet]

General welfare + interstate commerce + 14th amendment = unlimited federal power, pretty much.

 

But all of those other cases are clearly distinct from issues directly applicable to the 1st amendment.

 

Going with the Lemon Test, what possible secular purpose does a NDoP serve?

 

 

And that's ok? And then, they should do away with the first amendment.

[bmags]

obviously.

[StrangeSox]

And that's ok? And then, they should do away with the first amendment.

does not compute.

[kapkomet]

does not compute.

 

 

Sure it does. So you interpret 14th, interstate commerce, and general welfare as something the federal government has the authority to basically do whatever the hell they want. Then you cry foul when they have a "NDoP"?

 

Does not compute.

[StrangeSox]

First, that's how they're used, not my interpretation.

 

More to the point, how is that analogous to violating an amendment?

 

[kapkomet]

First, that's how they're used, not my interpretation.

 

More to the point, how is that analogous to violating an amendment?

 

 

OK, some Kaperbole ™ aside here - it's a problem when the government eusurps anything, IMO, that's not explicit to the constitution.

 

So, the NDoP doesn't mention any religion, nor was that its intent. Yet, there's a lot of people who are getting their noses out of joint because of this huge over-reach by our government. Yet, real over-reaches of different kinds occur every day, so why is this a big deal?

[CrimsonWeltall]

Fine. But what about anything else that's in the constitution?

 

I'm just interested in where people think line should stop.

 

That's a rather large scope for a single thread.

[StrangeSox]

OK, some Kaperbole ™ aside here - it's a problem when the government eusurps anything, IMO, that's not explicit to the constitution.

 

So, the NDoP doesn't mention any religion, nor was that its intent. Yet, there's a lot of people who are getting their noses out of joint because of this huge over-reach by our government. Yet, real over-reaches of different kinds occur every day, so why is this a big deal?

 

It favors religion over non-religion, and that's enough to trip over the judicial hurdles.

[CrimsonWeltall]

So, the NDoP doesn't mention any religion, nor was that its intent. Yet, there's a lot of people who are getting their noses out of joint because of this huge over-reach by our government. Yet, real over-reaches of different kinds occur every day, so why is this a big deal?

 

The NDoP is clearly religious in nature. It encourages Americans to engage in a religious act. What other intent could it have?

 

I don't think anyone has said it is a huge over-reach. I've said this is a minor CSS violation.

 

[kapkomet]

It favors religion over non-religion, and that's enough to trip over the judicial hurdles.

 

 

It does? Pray to yourself. Or don't. I don't think it mandates anyone to do anything, like say, buy health insurance.

[lostfan]

George Washington ordered every able-bodied white male citizen to buy a musket + supplies at his own expense in 1792. Yes I know militias and the authority to raise an army are specifically laid out in the Constitution but it doesn't say specifically say the government has the authority to order citizens to buy private goods either. (Today all those things are paid for by the government with tax dollars but I bring that up to say, yes, Washington did things that the Constitution didn't specifically authorize, so did Jefferson.)

Edited April 29, 2010 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

George Washington ordered every able-bodied white male citizen to buy a musket + supplies at his own expense in 1792. Yes I know militias and the authority to raise an army are specifically laid out in the Constitution but it doesn't say specifically say the government has the authority to order citizens to buy private goods either. (Today all those things are paid for by the government with tax dollars but I bring that up to say, yes, Washington did things that the Constitution didn't specifically authorize, so did Jefferson.)

 

 

Really? That's pretty cool. Will you pay for my insurance, please? I need welfare.

[lostfan]

I bet you make more money than me so I'd rather you pay my insurance

[southsider2k5]

You all make more money than me, so gets to buyin! For all of this left-wing love out there, I sure haven't seen any of your paychecks coming my way.