Federal Judge Strikes Down National Day Of Prayer Statute

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' date='19 April 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1271719770' post='2096449']
Wasn't the whole opposition that it supposedly somehow violated the Constitution?
As president, James Madison, "the Father of the Constitution," declared a "national day of prayer and fasting" during the War of 1812.

An "establishment of religion" in the 18th century meant an official national tax-supported church, like the Church of England. A non-denominational "day of prayer" does not constitute such an establishment.

Besides, I fail to see how a national day of prayer would actually harm anyone. I find "slippery slope arguments" that it's a short step from a day of prayer to the Spanish Inquisition or whatever a bit weak, to say the least - especially considering that national days of prayer have been around since our nation's founding.
[/quote]
It's your word against a member of the Constitutionally established judiciary branch. Let me give you one guess as to who I'd rather trust on this issue...

[Vincent Vega]

I think it's bad that we feel like we need the government to give us a day on which to pray.
Talk about begging for a nanny state.

[Slappo]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='19 April 2010 - 09:00 PM' timestamp='1271736041' post='2096559']
It's your word against a member of the Constitutionally established judiciary branch. Let me give you one guess as to who I'd rather trust on this issue...
[/quote]

Too bad members of the constitutionally established judiciary branch don't actually interpret the constitution correctly and haven't for years.

[Winchester]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='20 April 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1271736041' post='2096559']
It's your word against a member of the Constitutionally established judiciary branch. Let me give you one guess as to who I'd rather trust on this issue...
[/quote]
Of course you should turn over your reason to politicians. Makes sense.

At least we blame our superstitions on a Supreme Being.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

Well, fortunately, I don't need a government statute to tell me to pray.

[add]

the first day of the Judaeo-Christian seven-day week is a official national day of prayer
maybe the 1st day of the week is unconstitutional too! using this logic

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='20 April 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1271792094' post='2096887']
Well, fortunately, I don't need a government statute to tell me to pray.
[/quote]
Precisely. I don't know why there is a big stink. Don't you want the government to leave your religion alone? Most people distrust the government, so why would you want them backing religious activities?

[rizz_loves_jesus]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='20 April 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1271736041' post='2096559']
It's your word against a member of the Constitutionally established judiciary branch. Let me give you one guess as to who I'd rather trust on this issue...
[/quote]

The Supreme Court once ruled that blacks were only 3/5 of a person and that slavery was Constitutional. I suppose that should have gone unchallenged too...

The courts can be wrong.

Edited April 22, 2010 by rizz_loves_jesus

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' date='21 April 2010 - 07:52 PM' timestamp='1271901155' post='2097680']
The Supreme Court once ruled that blacks were only 3/5 of a person and that slavery was Constitutional. I suppose that should have gone unchallenged too...

The courts can be wrong.
[/quote]
No, the courts can decide to overturn rulings. However, that doesn't make the former ruling any less legal, at the time. If you don't like it, there are other countries you can live in. Otherwise, you have to live with the rule of law in this one.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Socrates' date='19 April 2010 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1271719770' post='2096449']
Besides, I fail to see how a national day of prayer would actually harm anyone. I find "slippery slope arguments" that it's a short step from a day of prayer to the Spanish Inquisition or whatever a bit weak, to say the least - especially considering that national days of prayer have been around since our nation's founding.
[/quote]

Who says the Spanish Inquisition was a bad thing?

[rizz_loves_jesus]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='22 April 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1271974663' post='2098233']
No, [/quote]

The courts can't be wrong?

[quote]the courts can decide to overturn rulings. However, that doesn't make the former ruling any less legal, at the time. If you don't like it, there are other countries you can live in. Otherwise, you have to live with the rule of law in this one.[/quote]

But again, just because they say so doesn't mean it's right. Judges are fallible human beings. I never said slavery was always illegal. I said the courts were wrong in their interpretation of the Constitution.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' date='22 April 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1271979856' post='2098273']
The courts can't be wrong?



But again, just because they say so doesn't mean it's right. Judges are fallible human beings. I never said slavery was always illegal. I said the courts were wrong in their interpretation of the Constitution.
[/quote]
Yes, there can be a difference in what is right and what is legal. I'm talking about legality.

[rizz_loves_jesus]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='22 April 2010 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1271984811' post='2098311']
Yes, there can be a difference in what is right and what is legal. I'm talking about legality.
[/quote]

I'm talking about Constitutionality. Slavery was never Constitutional. They only thought it was because they thought blacks were not fully people. We know now that blacks are just as much people as whites are. Therefore, the courts were wrong in interpreting the issue at that time. Again, they are not always right. Your earlier posts seem to imply that just because they have been appointed for the purpose of interpreting the Constitution means that no one should question or challenge those interpretations, which is simply not true, as shown by the Three-Fifths Compromise.