Comments for The National Day of Reason Doesn’t Have a Prayer at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 18 out of 18 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Thu, 23 May 2013 20:34:58 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-10768 Deacon Stagg, You're joking, right? A Christian calling secularists arrogant? I suggest you look up "mote", cross reference "plank". Secularists, generally, are: pro choice - in everything; pro responsibility - we don't abdicate that responsibility to an ephemeral, unknowable,entity; pro knowledge - we don't assume that everything is "god's will" Wake up, the bible is only a book, written by men who used some stories from Egyptian myth. - Martin Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:24:18 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6677 Grump: apology accepted. - Gary Mon, 02 May 2011 16:19:46 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6674 Being that prayer in one form or another is common to a myriad of religious and spiritual practices by virtually every belief system EXCEPT atheists, a National Day of Prayer, which specifies nothing in regard to the belief set or form of said prayer, can hardly be said to be establishing a state religion in any way, shape, or form. - Debra Mon, 02 May 2011 08:14:51 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6673 There is nothing more reasonable than to acknowledge that we did not make ourselves. - elizabeth Mon, 02 May 2011 07:27:22 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6670 My dear Grump, John Adams said "Human passions unbridled by morality and religion...would break the stronges cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." The truth isn't open to interpretation, we either call things what they are or call things what they are not, the first is honest and sane, the second is propigated by our universities, media and government. - Achilles Mon, 02 May 2011 06:10:26 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6666 Gary, I would concede that much is open to interpretation. Presidents actually can "make law" by issuing executive orders. The First Amendment was shaped in part by the Flushing Remonstrance 80 years earlier, which objected to restraint on religion freedom. It seems La Fouchecauld's maxim applies here: "Arguments would not last long if the fault were only on one side." - Grump Sun, 01 May 2011 12:28:42 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6664 America as a Christian nation? The answer is "yes and no". Some were Deists, some were Christian. Some people wanted a theocratic government and others did not. While the theocratic model did not ultimately win out, it was still in the hearts and minds of enough to at least make the case that the nation was heavily influenced by Christianity. Please keep in mind that the First Amendment forbids *Congress* from passing a law "respecting the establishment of religion". What the President may or may not do is not at stake within the text itself; though the tradition of precedent in how the Constitution has been interpreted does extend this prohibition beyond just Congress, let's try to keep the distinction intact for the sake of clarity. And on that note: the Constitution, much like the Bible, is difficult to interpret. The actual text: "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." The President, unlike Congress, does not establish laws. He can, however, speak freely and freely exercise religion (whatever that means). Unless he is on vacation, he is pretty much always "on the clock". To make it so that he may not speak religiously while "on the clock", even based on a concern for how much influence his position gives, would be to abridge his freedom of speech. He may freely encourage something, if he so wishes. And people may freely practice religion, if they so wish. If we may freely speak and assemble, we may freely set aside a time to assemble for prayer. Which, essentially, is speech. While prayer may indeed be part of "religion" (it probably is correct to say that), it does not "establish" religion. Given that the founding fathers had rebelled against Britain's theocracy-monarchy, it is helpful to look at how Britain operated then in order to understand what may have motivated the First Amendment. In part, it seems to repeat the 1689 Bill of Rights. And, in part, it seems to oppose the idea that it's OK to have a national church with a quota of members sitting on the House of Lords at any given time -- especially since America refuses class distinctions. Given that bit of historical context, it would seem plausible that the founding fathers were concerned with the idea of the government becoming subservient to the influence of the upper echelons of a particular church body. And a National Day of Prayer in no way "establishes" any such thing. - Gary Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:09:03 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6662 The U.S. was not founded as a "Christian nation," but rather by Deists. Gary, I'm not "offended." There is nothing in the Constitution that says I have a right not to be "offended." But what I do read in the First Amendment is that there shall be no law "respecting establishment of a religion." A presidential proclamation is not a law but it comes close. It is a sanctioning by government of a religious practice--prayer. If government can "encourage," to use your word, then where does it stop? It is only a short step from "encouragement" to "mandating." As in Obamacare. - Grump Sat, 30 Apr 2011 13:50:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6661 Grump: to refer to what someone does as "bible thumping" is pejorative, as a Catholic commenter just mentioned. You once again fall to anecdotal evidence of what you say "some" Catholics do or don't think. While your comments about the lack of a specific national Day of Prayer are not anecdotal, your other comments were. You seem unaware of the concept of coordinated prayer as an assembly, or of occurrences of it in the Bible. With regards to figuring out authorial intent, that's a tricky matter. ANYTHING is a fiddle that can be played to any tune so long as you ignore context. The Bible is not alone in this, though its cultural distance from us makes it more susceptible since we are further removed from its original context. That is why we need to increase biblical literacy. The first half of Matthew 6 revolves around three ideas: 1. Don't show off when giving charity 2. Don't show off when praying 3. Don't show off when fasting So what's the point? Don't show off. Jesus gives specific examples of how Pharisees would stand on street corners and pray just to get recognition from people (Matthew 6:5). The overall idea of the triad is to avoid selfish gain for recognition. And, while this could be done on a group level, seeking recognition more naturally lends itself to individual actions. But Jesus didn't say we were supposed to keep our religious activities "private", either. Just move back a chapter and you'll see that Christians are like a lamp in a dark world. A lamp is worthless if it doesn't shine and give light to others. The point is to draw attention to God's goodness, the light, rather than to ourselves as the lamp. I agree that the government has no business "telling" people to pray, if by "tell" you mean "force" or "command". But if you mean "encourage", then I see nothing wrong with this. Why can't the government encourage people to pray? Prayer is not a political-religious entity that may take over the government, so no church is going to take over the state. It doesn't violate the First Amendment, since "encouraging" neither establishes nor limits religious freedom. You are completely free not to pray, even if you feel uncomfortable or offended. Do you have an inalienable right to feel comfortable or not offended? - Gary Sat, 30 Apr 2011 09:19:32 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6660 By the bye, Francis Beckwith, an excellent article (I was distracted in my earlier post by some consternation). Satire can never be overused against those who are arrogant. Thank you! - Deacon Jim Stagg Sat, 30 Apr 2011 07:42:25 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6659 Mr. Grump, Please do not smear Catholics, many of whom hold Reverend Graham in high regard. That comment is even beneath you....of all people. - Deacon Jim Stagg Sat, 30 Apr 2011 07:38:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6658 Great article. - DPierre Sat, 30 Apr 2011 03:50:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6657 To Grump. Words have been so smeared of meaning that it is difficult to communicate across the Grand Canyon of rhetorical excess - yet, one tries. Small thoughts follow. 1. Prayer was never mandated, but invited. 2. We were created as a Christian nation. 3. God guarantees what worldly rights we might have. Nothing else makes sense; for man granted rights may be turned aside when convenient for man's latest necessity. I see nothing wrong with an invitation to give thanks and praise to a power even greater than the neo-lords of Washington. It might put some of their mandates in a more helpful context. - Other Joe Sat, 30 Apr 2011 03:32:55 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6656 Gary, I was merely trying to take a more objective tack. Remember that from 1789-1952 there was no such Day. Characterization of Graham as a "bible thumper" would not be considered perjorative by some Catholics, especially those who never read the Bible. To repeat, pray all you want. But the government has no business telling people to pray. The fact that we are arguing about this only proves Crabb's point that the issue is contentious rather than unifying. How do you know what Jesus "intended." I take His words at face value. But then again, the bible is an old fiddle on which you can play any tune, isn't it? - Grump Sat, 30 Apr 2011 03:09:32 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6655 Matthew 5 is talking about one's private prayers; Jesus never intended to restrict public prayer as a group. You're taking that out of context, as does Crabb. You provide anecdotal evidence (or rather, parrot that provided by Crabb) against the Day of Prayer, but that really doesn't prove that the holiday is as ineffectual as you make it out to be. Did you do a fair job gathering counterevidence from friends who are religious? After all, you'd have to listen to them in order to get both sides in the first place. Setting apart a particular day or time for prayer is completely biblical; it was done in the Old Testament as well as the book of Acts. This allows coordination of prayer as a group as opposed to individual prayers, which of course can be done at any day and time. Once again: you're trying to beat us at our own game. Do you really think you know what you're talking about? Pragmatically, Paul was saying "don't stop praying." You're just taking that at face value because it bolsters the case you're trying to make, even if it violates the author's intent. I'm sorry, Grump, but a few verses out of context, a sprinkle of one-sided anecdotes, the decision of a lower-level court judge, and a dash of inflammatory rhetoric ("bible thumping") just isn't convincing. - Gary Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:01:42 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6654 In a Wisconsin case, which has since been overturned because the plaintiff (Freedom from Religion Foundation) "lacked standing," U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that the government could no more declare a "Day of Prayer" than it could a "Day of Blasphemy." Ruling it unconstitutional, Crabb also said 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. A so-called "Day of Prayer" did not gain impetus until Billy Graham's bible-thumping on the Capitol steps in 1952 led to a representative by the name of "Priest" (some coincidence) introducing a bill to legislate a DOP. As Crabb notes, no tradition existed in 1789 of Congress requiring an annual National Day of Prayer on a particular date. It was not until 1952 that Congress established a legislatively mandated National Day of Prayer; it was not until 1988 that Congress made the National Day of Prayer a fixed, annual event. The Founders, led by Jefferson and Madison, created the Wall to purposely avoid controversies that are bound to flow from government and religion being too cozy. Reagan in 1988 signed into law the following, designating what day it was to be: "The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals." What is the rationale for one day of prayer? Are 364 others in the year not equally of importance? Did not Jesus say in Matthew 6:5 "You, however, when you pray, go into your private room and, after shutting your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; then your Father who looks on in secret will repay you." Would, one might ask, God be more receptive to the pleas of his creaturs on one particular day rather than on others? Does not Paul (or Timothy) say that we ought to pray "unceasingly"? Rather than uniting Americans in a common purpose, Crabb points out the divides and controversies that ensued: • In 2008, a national Jewish organization complained that the National Day of Prayer has been “hijacked by Christian conservatives,” who are “excluding and dividing us on religious lines. Dkt. #93-43; • In Plano, Texas, a multicultural group and a group of Christians held “dueling prayer services” on the National Day of Prayer after fighting over the right to hold their events at the city council building and threatening to file a lawsuit. • In San Antonio, Texas, a local resident threatened to file a lawsuit over themayor’s involvement in National Day of Prayer events. “Day of Prayer Lawsuit Dropped,” San Antonio Express-News, November 29, 2008, at 5B; • In Richmond, Virginia, a Jewish organization criticized a National Day of Prayer event attended by various state officials at the state capitol because the event’s sponsor excluded non-Christians. Robin Farmer, “Diverse gathering marks day of prayer: Christian-oriented event leaves some feeling excluded,” Richmond Times Dispatch, May 2, 2008, at B1; • In Buffalo, New York, Jewish and Muslim groups complained that the local National Day of Prayer events are “more about politics than prayer” and that the day is more accurately called the “Christian National Day of Prayer.” As one who has prayed on occasion (unsuccessfully), may I respectfully dissent from the idea of mandated public prayer. If you want to pray, no one is stopping you. If you don't want to, it's not the government who should be telling us to do so. Render under Caesar that which is Caesar's; Render unto God that which is God's. - Grump Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:03:35 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6653 Isn't it strange that so-called free thinkers so often want to restrict freedom of thought? freedom of action? Why is that atheism is so often linked with tyranny? - Mark Fri, 29 Apr 2011 06:18:53 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-national-day-of-reason-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html#comment-6651 I've noticed as well that "religion" seems to be a kind of idée fixe or nervous tic among the aggressively secular. What's most annoying, to me, about this is that "religion" (or "organized religion" for those who are "spiritual but not religious") never gets defined. One way to define "religion" that makes some sense to me is, following Mircea Eliade, "the division the world into sacred and profane." Under this definition then, the National Day of Reason is simply another religious holiday, one where people worship their own minds instead of their Creator. - Patrick Fri, 29 Apr 2011 04:49:11 +0100