Constitutionality of National Day of Prayer?
 

After reading countless posts about the 'National day of Prayer' being removed by Obama, I felt inclined to do a little research.

You can read the entire entry on Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/prayerday.asp

Which brings us to the next location of this argument, the constitutionality of this actual law.





What do you think?

Have you ever thought for a second all this dribble they are always debating, all this current affair bullshit is just a bunch of hollow distractions to keep us busy and our minds off the more important matters?

Not really.


I didn't even know we had a Day of Prayer. :eek:
Either way, I think it's pretty annoying how people are basically washing religion off the hands of everything. Makes me lose the tiny bit of patrionism I have, just because it makes me go ":("

Examples?

"Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." -- George Orwell

Well, you have the, uh, topic we're originally supposed to be posting about, v.s. something nobody knows about.
It's entirely possible that, at the moment, they're arranging the deaths of everyone in america, and this is a beautiful distraction. Of course, that's one stupidly huge exaggeration, but in all reality, it could very well be happening.

I would say it's more along the lines of they are lining their pockets with our money and giving us an image of them actually doing anything.

Look at most government jobs. If you're unionized, it's practically impossible to get fired. You make more money than most people. They give us an image of being there for us, but they're self-serving, basically.

Personally, I'd like for a complete dissolve of all civilization. I could live w/ a disbandment of the federal government though. http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/ Check it out.

The complete dissolvement of all civillization, unfortunately, would be horrible. Sure, it sounds nice, at the moment. Perfect freedom, the ability to do what you want, when you want, and have perfect equality, in terms of obtaining something (Trade). But the problem is, how do we keep it that way? Over generations, it's bound that new Kings will rise, and lead people. More or less, making the entire world Chaos alignment just makes room for the Law alignment to shine.

Neutrality is the answer.

I have no idea how that skipped my mind.
Bingo. Nail on the head.

As long as there is civilization, there will always be a hierarchy.. So once again KA, there must be a dissolvement of civilization.

"Horrible" is a relative term in this scenario Skurai. For me it would be glorious and a great relief. If I may quote. 143. Since the beginning of civilization, organized societies have had to put pressures on human beings for the sake of the functioning of the social organism. The kinds of pressures vary greatly from one society to another. Some of the pressures are physical (poor diet, excessive labor, environmental pollution), some are psychological (noise, crowding, forcing humans behavior into the mold that society requires). In the past, human nature has been approximately constant, or at any rate has varied only within certain bounds. Consequently, societies have been able to push people only up to certain limits. When the limit of human endurance has been passed, things start going wrong: rebellion, or crime, or corruption, or evasion of work, or depression and other mental problems, or an elevated death rate, or a declining birth rate or something else, so that either the society breaks down, or its functioning becomes too inefficient and it is (quickly or gradually, through conquest, attrition or evolution) replaced by some more efficient form of society.[25]
If you bothered to read that you would understand why it would be so much easier and peaceful to have a completely "Un-civilized" society.

All I'm saying is even if we get rid of the problem, it'll just come back a century later.

Solution: Passing down values and morals with each generation.

If the survivors are in agreement (which presumably they would be since they most likely would have been active participants in the revolution) that the world that they had come from and are now moving away from was virtually evil in every aspect I think they/we would be determined to make sure it will not happen again.
At some point it all comes down to; do we want to destroy ourselves by destroying the land we live on? Or do we want to live with nature as intended the only harmonious way possible?

I'm gonna go right ahead and call you out on this one, because I think you're wrong. And to perhaps lend credence to my argument, it kinda validates Skurai's assumption that things will always end up back where they were, which annoys me to no end because I generally can't stand the fucker.

Why did people originally come to America? To escape religious persecution. The "founding fathers" as they're often labeled wanted to make sure this didn't happen again, because they and their ancestors had endured it. However, look at America today. It would be beyond foolish to claim that religious persecution is absent today. It would be an UNDERSTATEMENT to say that religious persecution runs rampant. Our own elected officials swear on the Bible to uphold the constitution. Try growing up in the south as a person who questions religion and tell me that religious freedom exists in America. Hell, tell me that much freedom at all exists and I'd call you crazy. And freedom is exactly what our country was supposedly founded on.

You can try to change things all you want, but reality is that "good" and "evil" (or as I'd rather like to call them, "side 1" and "side 2") are both going to be around forever, because they fundamentally define each other. In my opinion, the best way to deal with them is to learn to let them coexist. The more one side fights against the other, the more the other side fights back. I like to think of it like a tug-of-war match with a giant rubberband. The harder each side fights, the more stress each side experiences. The natural tendency of things is towards neutrality. Because really, why the fuck should we pull on the rubber band when we could just stop, get together in the middle, and smoke a fatty?

Isn't there always a chance for change? A chance that we may learn after so many mistakes? It sounds like you have given up hope. I don't blame you, sometimes I wish I could just live an ignorant blissful life as well. We can't though, our eyes are not blind the horrors around us. You have to pose the question to yourself KA, when your in your deathbed and you look back on your life... will you be happy with it? Will you have made a difference? Even tried? Or just sat idly by and watched.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

A quote like that doesn't stand the test of time without having some basis.

I think your mashing two different historical events together. The colonists who originally left Britain elected to do so for religious reasons (among many other personal reasons I'm sure), but they were still considered British subjects and remained under British power for a while after coming to America, it was only after a course of events that they wanted to severe all ties. Mostly taxes, but other Acts as well.

I don't think I'm doing "nothing" by being neutral, Kaneda. I think I'm doing more good by being neutral, because I think any deviation from that causes the conflicts in question. Like I said, "Good" and "Evil" fundamentally define each other. Without one, you can't have the other. If you truly want to get rid of "Evil," the only way to do so is by getting rid of "Good." In reality, I don't think you can completely get rid of either, but I think minimizing differences is the key to peace and serenity. Which, in my eyes, is true freedom.

And I'm not mixing up historical events.

"Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe. The New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were conceived and established "as plantations of religion." Some settlers who arrived in these areas came for secular motives--"to catch fish" as one New Englander put it--but the great majority left Europe to worship God in the way they believed to be correct. They enthusiastically supported the efforts of their leaders to create "a city on a hill" or a "holy experiment," whose success would prove that God's plan for his churches could be successfully realized in the American wilderness. Even colonies like Virginia, which were planned as commercial ventures, were led by entrepreneurs who considered themselves "militant Protestants" and who worked diligently to promote the prosperity of the church. "

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=...772fca588841f8

It seems to me good and evil only exists in a human world. You take away the people and what do you have left? A utopian world that would ultimately settle into a nice equilibrium years after we have passed.

And yes, I will agree that persecution exists today, and that they did elect to leave because of it. Just because they are persecuted though doesn't mean they can't practice whatever they want still. I was wrongly thinking a long the lines of Governmental persecution.