|
|
April 19, 2010, Matthew Cochrane, Is the National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional?
Is the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional? A Wisconsin federal judge believes so. USA Today reports:
A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional Thursday, saying the day amounts to a call for religious action.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote that 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.
Christopher Hitchens and Tony Perkins debate the subject on Anderson Cooper’s CNN talk show:
Perkins is right. The historical precedent, beginning with our Founding Fathers, should make it abundantly clear as to how the First Amendment should be interpreted. This is also not a case a Wisconsin district judge should be settling. America used to be a land where democratically-elected representatives wrote the laws. No longer. It is increasingly becoming clear that judges, appointed for life, are far more important in setting our nation’s course than our elected representatives.
|
| Comments |
This one is too easy. "Congress shall make no law," but they made a law. Unconstitional. Hitchens does a good job of articulating the Founders' intentions behind the establishment clause. Doink-doink. - c |
|
America used to be a land where democratically-elected representatives wrote the laws.
I think the Constitution says it this way. Congress writes the bills/laws. The President signs them into laws. SCOTUS reviews the laws' constitutionality because the Constitution is the highest law. The people may amend the Constitution. Three branches of government one of which is populated by appointees.
So while it is true that democratically elected reps still write the laws, the SCOTUS still reviews the laws. - c |
|
"Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you."
Billy Joel 1978 - c |
|
Historically the 1st Amendment alluded to an established national religion, especially in relationship to establishing one Christian denomination above another. Moreover, this decision was to be left with the states. Unfortunately, this all changed in 1947 when the 1st Amendment - which was related to the limitations of the Fed. Gov. - was interpreted through the 14th.
What Hitchen's was getting at is a misunderstanding and application of the 1st. Besides, doesn't he have an agenda as well?
James Madison originally proposed the 1st, but he actually didn't even author the final form. In addition, this was something debated amongst his peers. It's not like he established it himself.
Finally, what Hitchen's position is historically invalid, especially when considering that the Congress called for a Thanksgiving Prayer the day after ratifying this Amendment.
Hitchen's is using double standards as well at end saying that Perkin's is intolerant. Really? Are you not intolerant of his position? If Perkins was a Muslim, Buddhist, or Humanist, I wonder if Hitchen's would have any qualms? Probably not. - Jesse Wisnewski |
|
the way this religion stuff really works is that all is fine until someone complains about it then, like prayer in public schools, it has to be ended
the fed's are not essential to getting together to pray one day a year - c |
|
the cliches will never die
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4182689/palin-america-is-a-christian-nation
- c |
|
finally, a book that articulates how the church is incompatible with culture war
To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World by James Davison Hunter - c |
|
In all honesty, I fail to see how Hunter's view differs from my own. Where do you think we disagree? - Matthew Cochrane |
|
this guy probably thinks God wrote the Constitution or he's in search of the grail:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/15/american-hunting-osama-bin-laden-gun-detained-northern-pakistan/ - c |
|
maybe he's the guy that started this site: www.iotconline.com - c |
|
|
|
|
| |
©2009 Matthew Cochrane
| |
|
Recent Activity:
Top 5 Posts of the Month:
Recently Viewed Posts:
Top Ten Most Commented
A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 8: Commonly Held Objections and Their Fallacies (378)
Roe v. Wade: The 35th Anniversary of Legalized Abortion (147)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: A Followup (108)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: On the Recent Controversy Surrounding Tullian Tchividjian and Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (106)
A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 3: The Proper Mode of Baptism (79)
Friday Political Roundup VI: Thoughts on New Hampshire's Primary (Special Wednesday Edition) (78)
Why I Like Mike, Part 2: Responding to the Conservative Establishment's Attacks (75)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: Congregational Meeting Announcement (69)
From the Depths of the Web 2, June 2008 (65)
Can the Church Compromise on Baptism? Part 1 (60)
Top Ten Hits All-Time
- Abortion, America's Greatest Sin, Part 4: Defining Personhood
- Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban
- A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 7: The Sign of the Covenant
- A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 8: Commonly Held Objections and Their Fallacies
- Mentorship Program for Incarcerated Young Men Gives Christians Opportunity to Witness, Offer Guidance
- Abortion, America's Greatest Sin, Part 3: The Beginning of Life
- Book Review: Love and Respect
- Book Review: Velvet Elvis
- The True Meaning of Christmas: Wrath, Judgment, Hope, and Grace
- In Defense of My Church and Pastor: On the Recent Controversy Surrounding Tullian Tchividjian and Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church
Add your Feeds:
Blogs I read:
Fave Five
Religious and Cultural
Friends and Family
See what my readers are saying…
“this website should be named NotConsistentThought or NotCompleteThought”
“I would say you are too sensitive”
“you just twist and spin”
“you just bloviate and pontificate”
“you are legalistic”
|
|