Like they'd actually have taken the prayer out...

[conuly]

This late in the game, that'd be admitting that God does not sanction this election.

Unless he does. Or doesn't exist. Or whatever. But any god who'd sanction Bush as president is not the god for me.

Comments

[ironychan.livejournal.com]

Still, if Newdow doesn't want to listen to the prayers, he doesn't have to be there. If the president were an atheist he wouldn't have prayers, the fundies would gripe because they think there ought to be prayers, and they'd be idiots for it, too.

[conuly]

Except that nobody would be stopping them from praying - but this may prevent him from attending what should be a public ceremony. It also is deliberately alienating part of the public.

[ironychan.livejournal.com]

The only person preventing him from attending is himself. The hand of God isn't going to come down and bar him entry because there are prayers being said - that is his choice.

[conuly]

But this isn't a private ceremony, it's a public ceremony, installing somebody into the government. This is a secular government. Secular as in non-religious. Praying officially (not on an individual basis) at a governmental affair is very close to saying that you don't care about any religion but your own. This is exactly the sort of thing the first amendment was written to avoid.

[rainbowdarling.livejournal.com]

Isn't refusing someone else the right to pray at a ceremony putting them into office just like obstructing their freedom of religion? I don't like when people tell me I have to salute the flag because I'm an American, but I don't let them telling me that bother me, and continue to not salute the flag. If a person doesn't want to hear praying, and chooses not to attend an event, its his or her own choice, not the choice on behalf of the government, to do so. Besides, he could always close his ears.

In prayer, they aren't saying "our religion is the only acceptable one." They're saying, "This is what I believe, and I choose to excercise it publicly." Not such an unusual thing.

[conuly]

Unless I seriously misread the article (possible, it IS late), nobody is trying to stop Bush from praying. They're trying to prevent him from having a public, official prayer. It's a public governmental ceremony, not a public religious ceremony. There's no need to call in the clergy.

[rainbowdarling.livejournal.com]

I don't think there should be a reason to prevent him from doing so. He isn't forcing anyone to agree with them; he's excercising his rights. (Lord knows we don't get to do that enough in this country.)

[conuly]

His rights to pray end when he makes a spectacle and a religious ceremony over something having to do with the goverment.

[rainbowdarling.livejournal.com]

He is requesting that there be prayers at his ceremony, not that of, say, John Kerry. He has the right.

[conuly]

But it's not his ceremony. It's not like a wedding where the only important people are the bride and groom. It's a public ceremony, and it doesn't belong to him. It belongs to the public - all of us who love and defend the establishment clause.

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

But it's not his ceremony, it's the entire nation's ceremony. And it's being paid for, at least in part, by tax dollars. Using tax dollars for a religious purpose is a violation of the First Amendment.

[ironychan.livejournal.com]

He's not forcing anybody to participate. Freedom of religion means that people can't force their relgion on others - it doesn't mean that just because you're a public figure, you're forbidden from expressing it. If Newdow was going to be forced to join in the prayers if he went, then he'd have a legitimate complaint. But nobody's doing that.

If you want to gripe about state-sponsored religion, how about the words 'in God we trust' on the dollar? Only complaining about that is kinda stupid, too. Canadian currency all says "Elizabeth II - Dei Gratia Regina" and it's never bothered me.

[ironychan.livejournal.com]

Aaaaand I think I'm going to stop right here before we end up on otf_wank. Thanks for an interesting argument.

And... er... that wasn't supposed to sound sarcastic.

[conuly]

That's not likely to happen, is it?

[conuly]

Freedom of religion means that people can't force their relgion on others - it doesn't mean that just because you're a public figure, you're forbidden from expressing it.

Nobody's stopping him from praying in his church, his home, his free time. However, freedom of religion means that "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof". Something like that. Congress in this case has often been interpreted to mean "government in general". That's why you can't have an official prayer in public schools (though you can pray in groups or alone if you wish, so long as it's student-led). That's why we shouldn't have clergy at his inaugaration. It's not about his freedom of religion, it's about keeping the church out of the state.

[ironychan.livejournal.com]

Sorry, did I miss the bit where it said they were making a law requiring this at all inaugurations?

[conuly]

Did you miss the bit where it shouldn't happen at any inaugurations? It's not "his party". That's the party he's having afterwards.