# Athiests sue President over National Prayer Day



## tinhamodic (Oct 4, 2008)

> MADISON, Wis. ?  The nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics is suing President Bush, the governor of Wisconsin and other officials over the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer.
> 
> The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued Friday in U.S. district court, arguing that the president's mandated proclamations calling on Americans to pray violates a constitutional ban on government officials endorsing religion.
> 
> ...





C'mon, is this really necessary? I mean the lawsuit?


----------



## Draffut (Oct 4, 2008)

Religeous folk need an official Holiday to actually pray?

Though I wouldn't mind having anouther assinine Holiday.


----------



## fghj (Oct 4, 2008)

racists sue black history month? indians sue columbus day? unemployed sue labor day?


----------



## Purgatory (Oct 4, 2008)

Besides from taking a day off, it makes no sense. That's the second group I know who's trying to sue Bush.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 4, 2008)

The lawsuit is perfectly fine. If a national "praise allah" day were made, christians would certainly not just stand by and let it happen.



fghj said:


> racists sue black history month? indians sue columbus day? unemployed sue labor day?



With the difference that none of the holidays you mentioned are unconstitutional.


----------



## Byakuya (Oct 4, 2008)

lol praying


----------



## Mider T (Oct 4, 2008)

How about them just not being observant?  I didn't even know this was a national holiday.


----------



## Raiden (Oct 4, 2008)

Wow, sad that atheists just can't respect other people's values and customs. It's just like fghj said, there's no difference between this and racists suing for Black History Month.


----------



## escamoh (Oct 4, 2008)

wow lame holiday


----------



## Hwon (Oct 4, 2008)

Its one thing for the government to observe holidays for religions.  Its another to federally endorse a day for religious purposes.


----------



## fghj (Oct 4, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> The lawsuit is perfectly fine. If a national "praise allah" day were made, christians would certainly not just stand by and let it happen.



Is this a christian holiday only? Anyway, if they get a day off, why bitch.


----------



## impersonal (Oct 4, 2008)

tinhamodic said:


> C'mon, is this really necessary? I mean the lawsuit?


Apparently it's the only way to fight back against the religious nuts running your country.


----------



## Yammy (Oct 4, 2008)

fghj said:


> racists sue black history month? indians sue columbus day? unemployed sue labor day?



The prayer is obviously meant for christians. Imagine on national prayer day someone gets out a rug and faces toward mecca to pray they would be ridiculed.

Not familiar with the prayer of other religions but still the line between seperation of church and state is getting more and more skewed


----------



## Amaretti (Oct 4, 2008)

Raiden said:


> Wow, sad that atheists just can't respect other people's values and customs. It's just like fghj said, there's no difference between this and racists suing for Black History Month.



I don't think there's any problem with the day itself - it's been around since the 1950s after all. It's the federal endorsing and mandating that is objectionable, not only to atheists, but to other religions too. In recent years there have been strong objections from the Jewish and Mormon communities as they have been discriminated against on this day. It was supposed to be a day for all religions to celebrate, but has since been completely monopolised be evangelicals. The NPDTF that's named in the lawsuit has been actively snubbing other religions from taking part for several years now - now with government endorsing. 

Is it too much to ask the government to uphold the constitution? Oh wait, sorry. Of course it is.


----------



## Mider T (Oct 4, 2008)

Because it's Christian majority?  Honestly, it's not required so just leave it be.


----------



## Reznor (Oct 4, 2008)

I could understand if a person of a different religion decided that the holiday's federal endorsement caused discrimination and wanted a lawsuit of it.

I don't know why Atheists should give a shit. Especially not the Agnostics. With regards to them, fghj first post makes total sense.


----------



## The Fireball Kid (Oct 4, 2008)

Raiden said:


> Wow, sad that atheists just can't respect other people's values and customs. It's just like fghj said, there's no difference between this and racists suing for Black History Month.



yes, but you see, it's unconstitutional.


----------



## Yammy (Oct 4, 2008)

> I don't know why Atheists should give a shit. Especially not the Agnostics. With regards to them, fghj first post makes total sense.



No it doesn't. How is learning history the same as either being to forced to pray to some fictional being or pointed out that your not?

Could you imagine when your work has the national prayer time and you decided to not pray?

Atheists are discriminated in this country even though it's supposed to be freedom of religion. Their shouldn't be a day that everyone prays or gets pointed out for not praying anyway.

Black history and a racist isn't the same  unless the racist doesn't believe blacks history happened at all and that there is some law against separation of history and state....


----------



## Spencer_Gator (Oct 4, 2008)

What the hell thats just stupid


----------



## fghj (Oct 4, 2008)

IForgotMyEmail said:


> No it doesn't. How is learning history the same as either being to forced to pray to some fictional being or pointed out that your not?
> 
> Could you imagine when your work has the national prayer time and you decided to not pray?



Someone's forcing someone to pray? Sorry but I'm not familiar with US law. Separation of church and state doesn't mean government is required to be atheistic.


----------



## Hwon (Oct 4, 2008)

Reznor said:


> I could understand if a person of a different religion decided that the holiday's federal endorsement caused discrimination and wanted a lawsuit of it.
> 
> I don't know why Atheists should give a shit. Especially not the Agnostics. With regards to them, fghj first post makes total sense.





We give a shit because its not a religious holiday, but a federal holiday endorsed for religious purposes or in other words its the government promoting religion, which is unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter if you promoted all, some, or an atheistic view.  The government is suppose to remain secular and thus doing any of those is unconstitutional.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 4, 2008)

National prayer day?  How did I not hear about this?  I'm glad they're suing to get it abolished.



Reznor said:


> I could understand if a person of a different religion decided that the holiday's federal endorsement caused discrimination and wanted a lawsuit of it.
> 
> I don't know why Atheists should give a shit. Especially not the Agnostics. With regards to them, fghj first post makes total sense.



The government isn't supposed to endorse any kind of religion.  Frankly I want it done away with too, its totally unnecessary?  People need a special federal holiday to pray?  I was under the impression the major religions already had a weekly holy day each week that they prayed especially hard on, so why do they need a single day of the year?


----------



## Yammy (Oct 4, 2008)

fghj said:


> Someone's forcing someone to pray? Sorry but I'm not familiar with US law. Separation of church and state doesn't mean government is required to be atheistic.



Basically what it means. You start making exceptions for one religion you have to do it for ALL OF THEM. It's either all or none. In this case it's easier for the government to stay neutral or atheistic as you want to call it.

No you aren't forced in the sense that someone holds a gun to your head but I remember in elementary school where I didn't feel like honoring stupid prayer time by standing up and faking it any longer. Got called out as being believing in Satan or what not and the teacher made me stand outside. 

It's the same no matter where you would be during this national prayer day.


----------



## Reznor (Oct 4, 2008)

I don't think that it shouldn't be done away with. That's not what I'm saying.

My question is why are atheists leading the charge, rather that a faith that actually feels marginalized by it?


----------



## ximkoyra (Oct 4, 2008)

*If you don't like it, gtfo 


Oh wait, you're only allowed to say that to immigrants 


Anyways, I didn't even know such a thing existed.  The argument that the government 'makes' you pray on this day is stupid because I bet most people don't even know that it exists.  High gas prices, failing economy, foreign threats, etc. and these people have nothing better to do than to try and sue the government 



*


----------



## LouDAgreat (Oct 4, 2008)

I back this lawsuit...I don't want to be forced to bow my head in a fucking national holiday...people who don't respect this national prayer day...who don't pray and are shown on television...will be ostracized by those bible-nut jobs..called godless...and un-American..the priests and pastors who talk this shit in-front of all their congregants will call for the shunning of people who don't pray on the national prayer day... This is one step closer to establishing a state religion...and one step closer to making the BIBLe OUR CONSTITUTION.

I SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY VALUE THE BIBLE MORE THAN THEY DO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FREEDOMS THEY PROVIDE. 



			
				fghj said:
			
		

> racists sue black history month? indians sue columbus day? unemployed sue labor day?



Unlike the examples listed above, A National Day of Prayer is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Government is not supposed to affiliate its with religion.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 4, 2008)

Reznor said:


> I don't think that it shouldn't be done away with. That's not what I'm saying.
> 
> My question is why are atheists leading the charge, rather that a faith that actually feels marginalized by it?



Probably because "prayer" is pretty generic and can apply to any religion.  Why would they lead the charge against something that is essentially for them?


----------



## Psycho (Oct 4, 2008)

just cause it's national prayer doesn't mean you need yo pray, like, most people don't go tree hugging on tree day or dress themsevles as pilgrims on columbus day

and besides, almost every popular religion prays, muslims pray, jews pray, christians pray, so i guess it's pretty fair

and if you feel offended you could just send a letter asking for a "atheist/agnostic day", but then the christians would sue bush... damn religion, always fucking up the simple stuff


----------



## Tleilaxu (Oct 4, 2008)

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> just cause it's national prayer doesn't mean you need yo pray, like, most people don't go tree hugging on tree day or dress themsevles as pilgrims on columbus day
> 
> and besides, almost every popular religion prays, muslims pray, jews pray, christians pray, so i guess it's pretty fair



Because unlike the other exmaples national prayer day is being endorsed by the government which violates the constitution which is or should be the supreme law of the land.


----------



## Xion (Oct 4, 2008)

Good luck atheists. Hopefully the hatred every American seemingly feels towards you won't contribute to your failure.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 4, 2008)

Хамирокаы said:


> just cause it's national prayer doesn't mean you need yo pray, like, most people don't go tree hugging on tree day or dress themsevles as pilgrims on columbus day
> 
> and besides, almost every popular religion prays, muslims pray, jews pray, christians pray, so i guess it's pretty fair
> 
> and if you feel offended you could just send a letter asking for a "atheist/agnostic day", but then the christians would sue bush... damn religion, always fucking up the simple stuff



I stand by what I said before.  Every major religion tends to have a weekly day they pray especially.  Adding a single day of the year seems highly unnecessary.  A holiday would be better used for almost anything else.  I'd rather have a "national shiny pants day".


----------



## iLurk (Oct 4, 2008)

When's nation "Praise Allah" day?

And to whom are we giving our prayers to?

Your God? My God?


----------



## fghj (Oct 4, 2008)

iLurk said:


> When's nation "Praise Allah" day?
> 
> And to whom are we giving our prayers to?
> 
> Your God? My God?



Allah means God
But keep trying


----------



## Xion (Oct 4, 2008)

They probably have snowball's chance in Hell of winning.


----------



## Believe It! (Oct 4, 2008)

Praying does not equal religion. Also, these God haters can't prove that they have suffered from this action. Therefore the lawsuit is invalid and will not go through.


----------



## Masaki (Oct 4, 2008)

Amaretti said:


> Is it too much to ask the government to uphold the constitution? Oh wait, sorry. Of course it is.



The constitution claims that an unjust government can be overthrown.

But that's illegal in America.

Good times.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 4, 2008)

National prayer day forces people to pray..

Like a gay parade forces people to be gay.


----------



## hustler's ambition (Oct 4, 2008)

So in other words... atheists won't be satisfied unless they force their opinions on *everyone*...?


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 4, 2008)

Bush needs to convert to buddhism before his term ends.



Atheists everywhere must stand and unite in supporting separation of buddhist temple and state.


----------



## Harmonie (Oct 4, 2008)

I find this pretty funny, even though I don't really think it was worth doing all of this over. Especially considering it's just a holiday. I never have understood why they always want Christmas called "X-mas" and stuff like that, I couldn't even understand when I was an atheist... It's not forcing it upon anybody.

Although I guess this is clearly a religious holiday and doesn't have any secular celebrations like Christmas... It still doesn't really seem like a big deal to me. Just don't pray. If people are forcing others to pray that's an issue, though.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Oct 4, 2008)

Nesha said:


> So in other words... atheists won't be satisfied unless they force their opinions on *everyone*...?



No thats not true, what they dont want is the government endorsing religion.

I am Christian and I certainly dont support this, it does go against the constitution. The seperation of Church and state has become increasly blurred and this is not acceptable.


----------



## hustler's ambition (Oct 4, 2008)

Tleilaxu said:


> *No thats not true, what they dont want is the government endorsing religion.*
> 
> I am Christian and I certainly dont support this, it does go against the constitution. The seperation of Church and state has become increasly blurred and this is not acceptable.



Christmas is a religious holiday. After all, it celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. Let them sue the government for that too.


----------



## impersonal (Oct 4, 2008)

fghj said:


> Someone's forcing someone to pray? Sorry but I'm not familiar with US law. Separation of church and state doesn't mean government is required to be atheistic.



You don't understand the difference between secularism and atheism ? A big boy like you ?


With regards to the topic, I've got a personal experience to share. I've spent some years in a catholic school, even though I have always been an atheist. There was a prayer time, once a week, maybe 15 minutes. Of course I didn't pray, I just sat there watching others pray. 

Well, it's not a pleasant feeling. You really feel rejected. As for me, I kind of deserved it, as I went to a christian school. But that a government enforces it ? That means people don't have a choice. That effectively makes the USA a christian nation, and that sends a message to all non-christians : you're not welcome. That's clearly not how you create patriots. That's how you divide a people.


----------



## Son Goku (Oct 4, 2008)

they should've protested a lawsuit is a little much


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 4, 2008)

Nesha said:


> Christmas is a religious holiday. After all, it celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. Let them sue the government for that too.



The federal holiday of Christmas celebrated by most people has nothing to do with Jesus.  Unless of course you think Jesus partied with Santa Claus and Rudolph.

Yes christians sometimes put up things like the nativity scene and such, but thats part of their religion.  The holiday itself has a secular meaning at this point.

Show me one possible secular aspect of prayer day.


----------



## Unholy Paint (Oct 4, 2008)

Nesha said:


> Christmas is a religious holiday. After all, it celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. Let them sue the government for that too.



Yes, but Christmas has become more of a secular observance. Anybody might celebrate it just for the sake of festivities, without any religious connotations. Completely different from a government-mandated National Prayer Day.

EDIT: Late. Sorry, didn't see Tsukiyomi's post.


----------



## Mael (Oct 4, 2008)

Honestly I've never heard of this National Prayer Day.  As a Christian I honestly couldn't care nor would I find it necessary as a national day.  I'll pray when I want to and quite frankly don't need a reminder from the National Holiday Committee (doesn't exist) to pray.  All in all it's rather useless of a day since once again, prayer need not a set date and time.

The atheists having beef with this?  If their beef was more on the practicality/purpose of a day to remind one to pray, then it's valid.  If it's those just trying to rag on religion again, then no.  Outside of that...the lawsuit won't happen and quite frankly it might serve as another case of why America is going out of control with lawsuits.

Live and let live...that's how I roll.  I don't tell atheists they should convert or pray and they don't tell me I'm unsophisticated.  The lawsuit and the national day IMO are both unnecessary.


----------



## Xion (Oct 4, 2008)

Masaki said:


> The constitution claims that an unjust government can be overthrown.
> 
> But that's illegal in America.
> 
> Good times.



It does? Where does it say we can overthrow our own government?


----------



## Horu (Oct 4, 2008)

This almost makes me want to vote for Palin.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 4, 2008)

Is *Memorial Day* having war or the armed forces shoved down your throat?

How about St. Patrick's day having Ireland crammed up your ass?

If you answered 'no' to these 2 things..

Then why do people say "prayer day" is religion being forced on them?



You don't have to pray to the christian God, you know?  Buddhists can pray to Buddha.  Muslims can pray to Allah.  

Atheists, you can pray to your logic and science.

Its a day for everyone.


----------



## spaZ (Oct 4, 2008)

Just because its a national prayer day doesn't mean that they have to actually pray or celebrate the fucking hoilday. Its the same with Christmas and stuff, why aren't they sueing about those than?


----------



## Xion (Oct 4, 2008)

Horu said:


> This almost makes me want to vote for Palin.



Well technically I don't think you can vote directly for Palin, just the McCain-Palin ticket.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 4, 2008)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Is *Memorial Day* having war or the armed forces shoved down your throat?
> 
> How about St. Patrick's day having Ireland crammed up your ass?
> 
> ...



Its government endorsement of religion.  Yes they cannot force you to pray but they shouldn't be endorsing any kind of religion, period.


----------



## Simulacrum (Oct 4, 2008)

Their suit is based on the claim that prayer is mandated. I, for one, have never had government officias put a gun to my head or been imprisoned for not observing this day. In fact, this is the first that I've even heard about it. It also doesn't promote any religion, but rather the concept of religion. Their premise is defunct, and I wish there were stricter penalties for filing such superfluous lawsuits to ward off this kind of chicanery: it's the lax suing laws that make our culture so sue-happy in the first place. 

As for people justifying Christmas. Guys, it's called CHRIST-MASS. What about Easter? You can't get any more religion-specific than those two biggest religion-based holidays. And the word holiday comes from the base HOLY-DAY. You guys are retarded if you think this attack on "prayer day" has any credibility to it but are quiet on Christmas and Easter. :/


----------



## Juno (Oct 4, 2008)

Simulacrum said:


> As for people justifying Christmas. Guys, it's called CHRIST-MASS. What about Easter? You can't get any more religion-specific than those two biggest religion-based holidays. And the word holiday comes from the base HOLY-DAY. You guys are retarded if you think this attack on "prayer day" has any credibility to it but are quiet on Christmas and Easter. :/



By all means we happily celebrate the day Jesus came out of the chocolate egg, as well as the day he was born under a fir tree.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 4, 2008)

Simulacrum said:


> As for people justifying Christmas. Guys, it's called CHRIST-MASS. What about Easter? You can't get any more religion-specific than those two biggest religion-based holidays. And the word *holiday comes from the base HOLY-DAY*.



BAWWWWWWW
and atheist was a curse word thousands of years ago


----------



## Xion (Oct 4, 2008)

spaZ said:


> Just because its a national prayer day doesn't mean that they have to actually pray or celebrate the fucking hoilday. Its the same with Christmas and stuff, why aren't they sueing about those than?



Paid vacations.


----------



## Hwon (Oct 4, 2008)

Simulacrum said:


> Their suit is based on the claim that prayer is mandated. I, for one, have never had government officias put a gun to my head or been imprisoned for not observing this day. In fact, this is the first that I've even heard about it. It also doesn't promote any religion, but rather the concept of religion. Their premise is defunct, and I wish there were stricter penalties for filing such superfluous lawsuits to ward off this kind of chicanery: it's the lax suing laws that make our culture so sue-happy in the first place.
> 
> As for people justifying Christmas. Guys, it's called CHRIST-MASS. What about Easter? You can't get any more religion-specific than those two biggest religion-based holidays. And the word holiday comes from the base HOLY-DAY. You guys are retarded if you think this attack on "prayer day" has any credibility to it but are quiet on Christmas and Easter. :/



I wish there were higher standards for our education on government and history because you fail on so many levels.

First, you argued that it doesn't promote any particular religion, but just religion in general.  Well, not all religions "pray" or even have anything to "pray" to so yes it is promoting a particular religious concept that is not universal amongst all religions.

Second, its just sad that you and the others here don't understand the difference between the government recognizing a religious holiday and the government *MAKING* a holiday for religious purposes.  We have holidays because that is the government protecting your right to celebrate your religion on a religious day.

So before you go calling people retarded educate yourself a little bit about the actual issue.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 4, 2008)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Its government endorsement of religion.  Yes they cannot force you to pray but they shouldn't be endorsing any kind of religion, period.




Its definitely not an endorsement of religion.

To me, endorsement of religion implies the government giving special privelege or utilizing force in an effort to coerce people to believe in something.  The government allowing religious people to pay 10% taxes while atheists pay 50% taxes would be an endorsement of religion.

Since the majority of the population is religious giving them a day to practice their religion is not an endorsement.  Its simply accommodating the needs of taxpayers.  Everyone from atheists to gays has this same privelege.

Gays can have parades where they share their views and perspective.  And, it is not a government endorsement of homosexuality.  Atheists likewise if they chose could do the same.

Therefore it most definitely is not an endorsement of religion.

But tell me, what does endorsement of religion mean to you?


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (Oct 4, 2008)

they are just trying to grab a little attention, if i was the judge i wouldnt even hear this case


----------



## Mael (Oct 4, 2008)

Seabear said:


> By all means we happily celebrate the day Jesus came out of the chocolate egg, as well as the day he was born under a fir tree.



Someone needs to watch South Park's "Hare Club for Men." :B

You should also know that the Cadbury Bunny was actually there during the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem and was with him on his resurrection on Easter Sunday.  The Bible just forgot to include him and the chocolate egg he made that Jesus popped out from. 

I heard it was the most heavenly chocolate ever.  It actually cured diabetes instead of giving it to you.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Oct 4, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> Praying does not equal religion. Also, these God haters can't prove that they have suffered from this action. Therefore the lawsuit is invalid and will not go through.



So when people pray what exactly are they doing? And how does that no relate to religion? 

"God Haters" this is the reason why a National Holiday of Prayer shouldn't be allowed. Those that don't participate will immediately be scorned as "God-less un-American foreigners who deserve to get their citizenship taken away from them". 

I bet you value the Bible more than the Constitution.


----------



## BAD BD (Oct 4, 2008)

Fucking butthurt atheists.


----------



## Mintaka (Oct 4, 2008)

Not only is this a great idea but I fully support it.

Religion is a goddamn private thing and the government should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!  It is unconstitutional and frankly should be gotten rid of.

To those of you who are getting all bent out of shape read this little part.  



> The day of prayer, held each year on the first Thursday of May, creates a "hostile environment for nonbelievers, who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders," the lawsuit said.


I'm certain people can testify to this one.


----------



## Mider T (Oct 4, 2008)

BAD BD said:


> Fucking butthurt atheists.



Your avatar and this quote, only in the Cafe


----------



## Jin-E (Oct 4, 2008)

Based from the posts i read in this thread, many people here didnt even know that this day existed in the first place and thus it hardly affected their everyday life. So its not like i think Atheists really care that much about the day itself(GASP! I see Religious Practicing! M.U.S.T DESTROY). Its more that they are using this case to showcase their principles. 



> 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.



I dont believe the First Amendment has been broken if its simply a urging to pray regardless of your religious affiliation. Nor does it deny Atheists and others to abstain from praying if they so choose. 

Atheists(or rather this particular group of Atheists) claim that they feel like social outsiders in society. But how can you possibly be able to avoid that sometimes when you have the views shared by the minority? Its inescapable to a certain extent.


----------



## Gary (Oct 4, 2008)

They're only doing this for the money.


----------



## Jin-E (Oct 4, 2008)

^ Guess Religion and Atheism have something in common then


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 4, 2008)

tinhamodic said:


> C'mon, is this really necessary? I mean the lawsuit?



Was it really necessary to piss on the Constitution?


----------



## Altron (Oct 4, 2008)

i lol'd


----------



## Mashy (Oct 4, 2008)

What about


----------



## Mael (Oct 4, 2008)

Iodine said:


> What about



Ya know...the most ironic thing of all this is that it all started in London with the March for Jesus where I was honestly, truly, expecting some Bible Belt state to start it first.

Of course Mr. I Was Voted In Twice Because I Can Have a Beer With Joe Six-Pack (Palin FTL) signed a bill for this.  You wanna do good deeds on Jesus Day?  Fine by me.  My guess is that you'll march and then a silly lot of you will proselytize those you consider heathen, even Catholics and light Christians.

If only I haz mah Spess Mehrens on meh rite nao.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 4, 2008)

Lets start with this(first definition is the most relevant):

endorse - verb
*
 1.to approve, support, or sustain: to endorse a political candidate.     *
2.to designate oneself as payee of (a check) by signing, usually on the reverse side of the instrument.    
3.to sign one's name on (a commercial document or other instrument).    
4.to make over (a stated amount) to another as payee by one's endorsement.    
5.to write (something) on the back of a document, paper, etc.: to endorse instructions; to endorse one's signature.     
6.to acknowledge (payment) by placing one's signature on a bill, draft, etc. 



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Its definitely not an endorsement of religion.
> 
> To me, endorsement of religion implies the government giving special privelege or utilizing force in an effort to coerce people to believe in something.  The government allowing religious people to pay 10% taxes while atheists pay 50% taxes would be an endorsement of religion.



The definition of endorsement is basically if you are supporting it.  The government already enables people to practice their religion, the don't need to endorse it with a special day.  Also you do realize that churches are tax exempt right?



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Since the majority of the population is religious giving them a day to practice their religion is not an endorsement.  Its simply accommodating the needs of taxpayers.  Everyone from atheists to gays has this same privelege.



They don't need a day.  Christians already have sunday off, Jews already have saturdays (I believe their holy day is saturday) off.  They get this once a week.  Not to mention they are free to take off their religious holidays.  This extra day is totally unnecessary.



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Gays can have parades where they share their views and perspective.  And, it is not a government endorsement of homosexuality.  Atheists likewise if they chose could do the same.
> 
> Therefore it most definitely is not an endorsement of religion.
> 
> But tell me, what does endorsement of religion mean to you?



How does homosexuals being able to have a parade even remotely close to the same thing as giving them their own special day to engage in homosexual sex?


----------



## ninjaneko (Oct 4, 2008)

They should've called it "National Prayer and Meditation Day"  You don't have to believe in anything to meditate (in fact, it probably facilitates good meditation lol).



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Its definitely not an endorsement of religion.
> 
> To me, endorsement of religion implies the government giving special privelege or utilizing force in an effort to coerce people to believe in something.  The government allowing religious people to pay 10% taxes while atheists pay 50% taxes would be an endorsement of religion.
> 
> ...


Well, to be fair, there's not a federally-backed National Gay Day, and it's not technically "accomodating" if it's unnecessary, which this is. There is a difference between a "national" holiday (like National Teachers Day, National Pie Day, etc) and one that is federally endorsed, that is, the government says, "Get out there and observe this day accordingly" along with closing banks and libraries, and officials observing the day in an official capacity (ie. Thanksgiving Day).

A lot of atheists (and theists) are arguing that because this is a federally-backed holiday that the government created which not just recognizes, but officially promotes and encourages prayer (something which generally acknowledges a "higher power" like God), it is unconstituional. It would count as government endorsing religion and making atheists feel outcasted.

However, most posting in this thread didn't even know it existed - I pray; I think prayer is a good thing. I also live in the Bible Belt; I have literally seen a church on three out of four corners of an intersection. And yet I do not feel obligated in the slightest to pray on National Prayer Day. No one talks about it at work, school, or elsewhere, like Columbus Day, Labor Day, etc. I don't know about the churches, but an atheist wouldn't be there generally anyway. I don't see groups of people out in public spaces praying or evangelisizing. It's non-existant as far as I can tell. Nothing closes. Stores don't have specials. So I wonder how many atheists are actually being affected in practice rather than in theory?

I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who are pursuing this for the same reason religious folk try to inject their beliefs into the government - they believe their beliefs are right and the more people who believe like them and behave accordingly with those ethics, the better off society will be. 

But, as shown especially in this thread, a lot of atheists and others simply believe this is not constitutional. I could care less about a National Prayer Day. My own beliefs dictate my impetus to pray, not the government (unlike with Christmas, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, etc). I don't find it inherently offensive - the majority have beliefs consistant with prayer, and as my Mom always says, "I can't hurt" - but if it's marginalizing a group (my personal experience is that it hasn't, but I'll assume those suing have had that experience since they're suing), or is a law consistent with "establishing religion" than it needs to remain as just one of the bazillion other "national" holidays no one really celebrates.

So I guess...I don't know where I really stand with this? Need more info, and to think when I'm not tired (aka go easy on me)...


----------



## sannin1993 (Oct 4, 2008)

Nesha said:


> So in other words... atheists won't be satisfied unless they force their opinions on *everyone*...?


That is basically what Christians are doing.


----------



## BrojoJojo (Oct 4, 2008)

I think Atheists discriminate against other people more than religious people in this country.



> That is basically what Christians are doing.



I'm thinking that's the point of what he said.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 4, 2008)

Lol atheists just like to complain. If they don't want to celebrate holidays don't, no one's forcing them to, that's really what the constitution is about. We're not taking down Christmas just cause they don't like it.


----------



## sannin1993 (Oct 4, 2008)

Griff Hyral said:


> I think Atheists discriminate against other people more than religious people in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking that's the point of what he said.


Excuse my post then i miss interpreted it.


----------



## Horu (Oct 5, 2008)

II Xion II said:


> Well technically I don't think you can vote directly for Palin, just the McCain-Palin ticket.


Heh yeah that's true, but she's just one 70-some-year-old man's dying breath away from being president, you have to consider the chances of her rise are highly likely, and regardless, her influence will still be of the highest calibre. Honestly, the hype surrounding her almost makes one forget McCain's the primary runner


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 5, 2008)

Big deal. I'm atheist and I could care less about this National Prayer Day shit. Pray all you want, won't affect me.


----------



## xpeed (Oct 5, 2008)

Oh come on!  People get a life!  It's not like it's a law that bends your arm backward and forces you to pray along.  Bunch of nuggets.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 5, 2008)

I hate it when people are like "as long as it doesn't affect me..."

Of course nobody is forcing you to pray but if you don't protect your fucking constitution, you won't have it much longer. A constitution is there for the most fundamental laws of a country. Laws that shouldn't be changed unless absolutely necessary and should be held sacred 100% of the time. A constitution is the thin line that protects the people from an absolutist government.

Would a national racism day be alright? After all, nobody is forcing you to hunt down ^ (use bro) and as long as you're white it won't affect you at all.


----------



## iander (Oct 5, 2008)

Yes I mean as long as something doesnt "affect" anyone it doesnt matter if its unconstitutional.  Such great logic.


----------



## Simulacrum (Oct 5, 2008)

The first national prayer day after the founding of the US was called for by the second President, John Adams. I suppose we should invent a time machine, go back to 1798 and put a stop his shitting all over the Constitution (which was largely based on the Massachusetts State constitution that Adams was largely responsible for) least the nation devolve into a theocracy before the 19th century takes wing! 

... or instead of riling yourselves up into a Chicken Little-esque frenzy you can realize that this prayer day gives no respect to any established religion(s) and thus is not unconstitutional. But, ya'know, whatever. :/


----------



## Dreikoo (Oct 5, 2008)

Funny how close the nonreligious and the religious fanatics really are.


----------



## impersonal (Oct 5, 2008)

Simulacrum said:


> The first national prayer day after the founding of the US was called for by the second President, John Adams. I suppose we should invent a time machine, go back to 1798 and put a stop his shitting all over the Constitution (which was largely based on the Massachusetts State constitution that Adams was largely responsible for) least the nation devolve into a theocracy before the 19th century takes wing!
> 
> ... or instead of riling yourselves up into a Chicken Little-esque frenzy you can realize that this prayer day gives no respect to any established religion(s) and thus is not unconstitutional. But, ya'know, whatever. :/



Yeah, same with the "In God we trust" motto, Bush saying "_No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God._", etc, etc. 

And then people wonder why atheists are hated more than blacks or muslims. Is that because of Dawkins ? Is that because they complain from time to time ? Or is that because the US government is trying to display them as outcasts through such things as this "national prayer day" ?



> Atheists(or rather this particular group of Atheists) claim that they feel like social outsiders in society. But how can you possibly be able to avoid that sometimes when you have the views shared by the minority? Its inescapable to a certain extent.


Indeed. But it's easier when the government isn't doing active propaganda in favor of the mainstream belief. Next thing, we'll see ads stating: "you don't believe in a God ? You're going to hell". Paid by the government. Tell me how this is different, _in principle_, with what's being done here.


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 5, 2008)

Dreikoo said:


> Funny how close the nonreligious and the religious fanatics really are.



Yeah gee...because you know those atheist fanatics slam planes into buildings ALL the time.


----------



## GrimaH (Oct 5, 2008)

Griff Hyral said:


> I think Atheists discriminate against other people more than religious people in this country.



Yeah by upholding the country's most fundamental law, and complaining that others don't.
You want some actual illegal discrimination? We could start snatching Christian babies from hospitals and eating them you know 



Inuhanyou said:


> Lol atheists just like to complain. If they don't want to celebrate holidays don't, no one's forcing them to, that's really what the constitution is about. We're not taking down Christmas just cause they don't like it.



1. That's not what the Constitution is about you uneducated fucktard. Go and read your goddamn constitution.

2. Christians don't own Christmas. It's not a Christian holiday, it has its roots in paganism. Also it's now pretty much secular.


----------



## BandGeekNinja (Oct 5, 2008)

anything I have to say...has already been said a million times over, so I wont say anything but this: we're heading to the crapper...


----------



## TatsuBon (Oct 5, 2008)

no respect that's what they have.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 5, 2008)

TatsuBonFanGirl said:


> no respect that's what they have.



Exactly. No more undeserved respect for religious nuts.


----------



## Xion (Oct 5, 2008)

According to the President they are now enemy combatants.


----------



## TatsuBon (Oct 5, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> Exactly. No more undeserved respect for religious nuts.


 
yes it's exactly the same as descriminating any other race, ethnicity or race.
it's totally uncalled for.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 5, 2008)

TatsuBonFanGirl said:


> yes it's exactly the same as descriminating any other race, ethnicity or race.
> it's totally uncalled for.



 I don't respect black people just for being black, is that discrimination? I don't respect religious people just for being religious, is that discrimination?

You fail, the separation of church and state happens to be esablished by law and any American citizen has the right and duty to complain whenever the constitution is being violated.


----------



## TatsuBon (Oct 5, 2008)

there is complaining about something you disagree or agree on in a way
you have to be careful of the words you use and how you say them

like your dislikes to blacks or religious people?
in london for saying you don't like them you'll get a sentence in prison, longer than one for a massacre.

but i agree, the world has gone VERY soft.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 5, 2008)

TatsuBonFanGirl said:


> there is complaining about something you disagree or agree on in a way
> you have to be careful of the words you use and how you say them
> 
> like your dislikes to blacks or religious people?
> ...



There we see how the word "respect" decays. When I say I do not respect someone, that doesn't mean I dislike them or I hold some grudge against them, it just means that I have no respect for them. I don't respect someone who lights himself on fire for his religion, why would I respect any other religious activity? Just because it's religion doesn't make it somehow respectworthy.

This here is not about agreeing or disagreeing with something, it's about protecting the constitution of a country.


----------



## TatsuBon (Oct 5, 2008)

oh so you don't DISLIKE but you don't respect them?
interesting.

tbh i'd love to see you debate about this to the prime minister of england.
because i can see you have strong views about this and this thread is a big problem in london.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 5, 2008)

TatsuBonFanGirl said:


> oh so you don't DISLIKE but you don't respect them?
> interesting.
> 
> tbh i'd love to see you debate about this to the prime minister of england.
> because i can see you have strong views about this and this thread is a big problem in london.



Let's see:

respect

1 a: to consider worthy of high regard : esteem b: to refrain from interfering with <please respect their privacy>
2: to have reference to : concern

I think you're referring to 1b, while I talk about 1a.

I do not respect religion, as in I have no respect for it, since it doesn't deserve any. Why should I respect something that I consider stupid?



But as I said before, all that is irrelevant, since this here is about the constitution of the united states, not what I respect or not. Any of those so-called patriots who is against abolishing a national prayer day is a hypocrit.


----------



## TatsuBon (Oct 5, 2008)

you're athiest (i'm assuming) but you still think abolishing national prayer day is how can i put this...pick another word which goes with unacceptable, inappropriate etc but to your liking. 

so why do you think religion is stupid?
just curious :3


----------



## Coteaz (Oct 5, 2008)

The government isn't forcing anyone to pray, but the fact that it is giving special recognition to religion is a violation of the Constitution.
Of course, seeing as how atheists are the most hated minority in 'God-fearing America', this won't go anywhere.



Pilaf said:


> Yeah gee...because you know those atheist fanatics slam planes into buildings ALL the time.


Don't forget all those damn evil witches burned by the goodly Atheist Inquisition...


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 5, 2008)

TatsuBonFanGirl said:


> you're athiest (i'm assuming) but you still think abolishing national prayer day is how can i put this...pick another word which goes with unacceptable, inappropriate etc but to your liking.



It's necessary to preserve the constitution of that country.



> so why do you think religion is stupid?
> just curious :3



Because both the scripture and the history of religion is full of violence and crimes against humanity. Because society allows religious indoctrination of little children (Ever wondered why kids of muslims become muslim, kids of hindus become hindus, etc?). Because it teaches ignorance is bliss and that we don't need science because we have all the answers in some scripture written by prophets a few thousand years ago who smoked god-knows-what.

Finally because in all the centuries of theocracies, what advancements did religion bring us? What great insights did we gain thanks to the idea of a god? We learned nothing of value for future generations. It was not until supernatural beings were ignored and natural explanations for sought that we made great discoveries.


----------



## TatsuBon (Oct 5, 2008)

that's a well written answer i have to say
if i asked an atheist why, they'd probably go "because it's stupid and it doesn't exist" bababa. 
but ok now i understand why you feel so strongly about it :3


----------



## sadated_peon (Oct 5, 2008)

Simulacrum said:


> The first national prayer day after the founding of the US was called for by the second President, John Adams. I suppose we should invent a time machine, go back to 1798 and put a stop his shitting all over the Constitution (which was largely based on the Massachusetts State constitution that Adams was largely responsible for) least the nation devolve into a theocracy before the 19th century takes wing!
> 
> ... or instead of riling yourselves up into a Chicken Little-esque frenzy you can realize that this prayer day gives no respect to any established religion(s) and thus is not unconstitutional. But, ya'know, whatever. :/



To which other founding father protested. 
January 23, 1808 - Thomas Jefferson. 
"Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it. ...civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."

And Madison - 1822
""There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship.""

So lets go back in time machine where our founding fathers, where Thomas Jefferson the person most noted for his contribution of the establishment clause said that this was a violation of IT.


----------



## Gooba (Oct 5, 2008)

This isn't the Atheists trying to push their beliefs on others, it is trying to stop others from pushing theirs on us.  There is really no Constitutional defense for this day, or having "In God we Trust" on our money, or "under God" in the pledge.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 5, 2008)

Simulacrum said:


> The first national prayer day after the founding of the US was called for by the second President, John Adams. I suppose we should invent a time machine, go back to 1798 and put a stop his shitting all over the Constitution (which was largely based on the Massachusetts State constitution that Adams was largely responsible for) least the nation devolve into a theocracy before the 19th century takes wing!



Problem is athiests were discriminated against heavily, even in law, until relatively recently. We couldn't testify in Courtrooms until 1925.

Shit, by your logic slavery is okay too because the founding fathers owned slaves.

Back then athiests couldn't fight for their rights. Now we can


----------



## Zephos (Oct 5, 2008)

I love when people treat our revolutionary "fight for your rights" Founding Fathers like eternal gods whose every word is law.

It's the most grotesque hypocritical stupid bullshit around.


----------



## Zephos (Oct 5, 2008)

fghj said:


> racists sue black history month? indians sue columbus day? unemployed sue labor day?



Quick , sue the anti-shitposting day people.


----------



## Stalin (Oct 5, 2008)

There is no need for a national prayer day.


----------



## Believe It! (Oct 5, 2008)

Simulacrum said:
			
		

> ...or instead of riling yourselves up into a Chicken Little-esque frenzy you can realize that this prayer day gives no respect to any established religion(s) and thus is not unconstitutional. But, ya'know, whatever. :/



That is exactly correct. It does not establish any religion because prayer is common among all religons and it is even done by non-religious people. Only most of them call it "reflection" or "meditation".

If Obama is elected, count on the National Day of Prayer being turned into the National Day of Hope.



			
				sadated_peon said:
			
		

> To which other founding father protested.
> January 23, 1808 - Thomas Jefferson.
> "Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it. ...civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."



It is obvious by his statements that he was concerned about the government restricting prayer to certain times of the year, not calling one day out of the year the National Day of Prayer. You fail.



			
				sadated_peon said:
			
		

> And Madison - 1822
> ""There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely *indiscriminate*, and *merely recommendatory*; or rather *mere designations of a day*, on which *all who thought proper might* unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, *without any penal sanction enforcing the worship*.""
> 
> The Nation Day of Prayer does that, and it does not enforce worship on the people. So you fail x 2.
> ...


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 5, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> That is exactly correct. It does not establish any religion because *prayer is common among all religons* and it is even done by non-religious people. Only most of them call it "reflection" or "meditation".



Rastafarians and Pastafarians don't.FAIL!


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 5, 2008)

The Cheat said:


> There is no need for a national prayer day.



I concur.

Considering the circumstances of Atheists being the most discriminated group of people in the USA, I doubt the case will even go through.

Nonetheless it's a statement that they feel needs to be made.

But really, I have yet to come across a situation where I've felt pressure from religious fanatics, perhaps that it may be because my community is becoming rather secular... and the fact that it is becoming secular is a sign of what future generations will be like.

Agnosticism and Atheism are growing rather rapidly in the US, this day will be abolished from it being supported by the govt, eventually.


----------



## sadated_peon (Oct 5, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> It is obvious by his statements that he was concerned about the government restricting prayer to certain times of the year, not calling one day out of the year the National Day of Prayer. You fail.


Here is where the quote is from


"But it is only proposed that I should recommend *not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer.* That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from."

He is directly talking about the day of prayer. He is saying there should be no day of prayer. That you cannot understand him is not my problem, but this is a clear objection to the day of prayer. 



Believe It! said:


> The Nation Day of Prayer does that, and it does not enforce worship on the people. So you fail x 2.


Once again, here is the original. 
Episode 1 Stream

Once again he is directly talking out a day of prayer and how he is against it. 
He believe that it went against what he was saying, which is why he said it. 




Believe It! said:


> He never said that. You need to repeat... no, you need to take a history class.


He did say that, you just ignore reality.


----------



## Kahvehane (Oct 5, 2008)

I'll be perfectly honest here: as an atheist, I'm embarassed to be put in the same league as these fools who think they need to take it upon themselves to sue the president for "National Prayer Day."

Their argument is that it discriminates against non-believers. What the fuck are you smoking people? Just don't pray on National Prayer Day. Take that time to sit back and laugh at the morons who feel they sincerely need to talk to their imaginary sky-bullies. I do it all the time.

Wanna know something? I go to a Christian school where they slip their beliefs and theology into every subject of study, force us to participate in "chapel" every thursday for 45 minutes, and even require a mandatory Biblical studies curriculum every year from K-12. I hate it. It's absurd and a downright waste of my precious time.

"So just change schools and quit whining!"

I could. I could be going to Baylor School (where my dad graduated from), which is essentiallly a prep school for colleges like Duke, Vanderbilt, Emory, and even the Ivy League. Why don't I? Well, for starters, tuition is about $18,000 per student (significantly higher than the cost when my dad went there), and most of the kids there are the kind of jerks who need a visor to keep their foreskin up. You know, the kind with bottomless wallets and egos the size of the moon.

So I stick with my oppressive Christian school and I put up with the shit they do there. And I'll tell you, one thing I've learned about these religious types is that as long as they have stuff like National Prayer Day, it'll keep them happy and out of your face. Besides, if atheists, who claim to be persecuted by National Prayer Day, try to eradicate it, they would in turn be persecuting theists. Then we atheists would be hypocrites. 

National Prayer Day itself is a perfect way to pronounce religious freedom in our country. It's a celebration of such freedom. This group of atheists needs to stop whining about it, because frankly, _that_ is unconstitutional.

People in this country are free to believe whatever the hell they want, even the goddamn president. If his beliefs influence his decision making, so be it.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 5, 2008)

Light Artist said:


> Their argument is that it discriminates against non-believers.



Fail, read the article. This is not their main arguement.



			
				article said:
			
		

> [It] violates a constitutional ban on government officials endorsing religion.


----------



## cacophony (Oct 5, 2008)

if i get off from school they can pray as much as they fucking want.


----------



## Red (Oct 5, 2008)

I didn't even know we had a national prayer day


----------



## Believe It! (Oct 5, 2008)

The Cheat said:
			
		

> There is no need for a national prayer day.



There is no need for Martin Luther King Jr. Day either. Should we get rid of that? We have holidays for a reason, and it is to observe certain things. If you don't want to observe them, then don't.



			
				Xyfar said:
			
		

> Considering the circumstances of Atheists being the most discriminated group of people in the USA, I doubt the case will even go through.



Ohhhh! Uh-oh! Don't say that too loudly, you just might upset a liberal homosexual or a liberal black person or a liberal woman or a liberal illegal alien.



			
				Xyfar said:
			
		

> Nonetheless it's a statement that they feel needs to be made.



Yes because they are just so oppressed by the fact that a day is being called something that they hate. Here's an idea. How about they start a petition to remove the day from the calender and then submit that to the congress? That's how you change things. By going to the legislature, not the judiciary.



			
				Xyfar said:
			
		

> But really, I have yet to come across a situation where I've felt pressure from religious fanatics, perhaps that it may be because my community is becoming rather secular...



No, it's because atheists are not at all oppressed for their lack of belief. God haters are argued against for their disbelief in God as well as their attack on America's religious and Godly heritage.



			
				Xyfar said:
			
		

> and the fact that it is becoming secular is a sign of what future generations will be like.



It only takes one generation. They can choose a religion any time they want to, and that's what scares the God haters. They want to eliminate God and Christianity from society in every way so that no one has the chance to choose it.



			
				Xyfar said:
			
		

> Agnosticism and Atheism are growing rather rapidly in the US, this day will be abolished from it being supported by the govt, eventually.



It will if Obama is elected. But it won't be abolished, just changed, which is what Obama is all about. He'll say it is too dividing and change it to the day of hope, like I said. I don't care about some day being abolished. I pray whenever I want to. What I care about is if our way of life is abolished and if we will be persecuted for our beliefs.



			
				sadated_peon said:
			
		

> Here is where the quote is from



I know where the quote is from. Get on with it!



			
				sadated_peon said:
			
		

> "But it is only proposed that I should recommend not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. *an authority over religious exercises* which the Constitution has directly precluded them from."



Right there. Like I said, his concern was the government gaining authority over religion. It wasn't about the government promoting prayer. The founders supported the promotion of prayer and religion because they knew a strong belief in God and a clear set of morals is what held a society together and made civilization possible.



			
				sadated_peon said:
			
		

> He is directly talking about the day of prayer.



I know what he's talking about, but that isn't the issue. The issue is his concern for what is unconstitutional. He never said a day of prayer is unconstitutional. He said that having authority over religion is unconstitutional, and he thought the power to designate a day of prayer could lead to such an *authority over religion*, which the constitution strictly forbids.

He only *recommended* that they not have a day of prayer. Had it been unconstitutional then there would have been no recommendation, there only would have been a clear ORDER.



			
				sadated_peon said:
			
		

> He is saying there should be no day of prayer.



BECAUSE he though it would lead to an unconstitutional authority over religion, not because the day itself would be unconstitutional.



			
				sadated_peon said:
			
		

> That you cannot understand him is not my problem, but this is a clear objection to the day of prayer.



You're the one who can't understand him. Perhaps my educating you just now helped you to understand him better.



			
				sadated_peon said:
			
		

> Once again he is directly talking out a day of prayer and how he is against it.



And how he was against it? No, he said WHY is was against it, and the reasons he stated have not been fulfilled by the current day of prayer. Therefore your argument is fail!



			
				sadated_peon said:
			
		

> He believe that it went against what he was saying, which is why he said it.



And what was he saying exactly? Answer: That the day could indirectly institute an authority over religion, which is what he had a problem with. The National Day of Prayer does not institute any authority over religion and therefore his concern does not apply to this issue.



			
				Light Artist said:
			
		

> I'll be perfectly honest here: as an atheist, I'm embarassed to be put in the same league as these fools who think they need to take it upon themselves to sue the president for "National Prayer Day."



I understand your point. Atheists simply have no personal belief in regard to God or religion, but they respect those who do. But these trouble makers bringing the suit are not atheists. They are God haters. They believe God exists and they hate Him for it, and so they attack everything that has to do with Him, including those who believe in Him.



			
				Light Artist said:
			
		

> Their argument is that it discriminates against non-believers. What the fuck are you smoking people? Just don't pray on National Prayer Day. Take that time to sit back and laugh at the morons who feel they sincerely need to talk to their imaginary sky-bullies. I do it all the time.



Hmmm... are you sure you're an atheist?



			
				Light Artist said:
			
		

> Wanna know something? I go to a Christian school where they slip their beliefs and theology into every subject of study, force us to participate in "chapel" every thursday for 45 minutes, and even require a mandatory Biblical studies curriculum every year from K-12. I hate it. It's absurd and a downright waste of my precious time.



But is it a good school?



			
				Light Artist said:
			
		

> "So just change schools and quit whining!"
> 
> I could. I could be going to Baylor School (where my dad graduated from), which is essentiallly a prep school for colleges like Duke, Vanderbilt, Emory, and even the Ivy League. Why don't I? Well, for starters, tuition is about $18,000 per student (significantly higher than the cost when my dad went there), and most of the kids there are the kind of jerks who need a visor to keep their foreskin up.



And so Christian school is better because the kids there are not jerks. SAY IT!



			
				Light Artist said:
			
		

> You know, the kind with bottomless wallets and egos the size of the moon.



They don't have bottomless wallets. Their parents just don't know how to tell them "no".



			
				Light Artist said:
			
		

> So I stick with my oppressive Christian school and I put up with the shit they do there.



Oh woe is you. So oppressed. You would like to go to another school, but you'd just be oppressed there by the snobbish "atheists". Or perhaps you could be home schooled. But then you'd be oppressed by your parent. Ya know what I think? I think you're a teen with angst with the delusion of being oppression when it is in fact your own hormones changing. What do you think of that?



			
				Light Artist said:
			
		

> And I'll tell you, one thing I've learned about these religious types is that as long as they have stuff like National Prayer Day, it'll keep them happy and out of your face.



Oh really? And name one time that they got in your face with their religion and describe what they did.



			
				Light Artist said:
			
		

> Besides, if atheists, who claim to be persecuted by National Prayer Day, try to eradicate it, they would in turn be persecuting theists. Then we atheists would be hypocrites.



Uh no, because the day didn't exist from the get go. They would just be removing supposed oppression on them, not oppressing those who pray. And they're not atheists, they're God haters.



			
				Light Artist said:
			
		

> National Prayer Day itself is a perfect way to pronounce religious freedom in our country. It's a celebration of such freedom. This group of atheists needs to stop whining about it, because frankly, that is unconstitutional.



No, whining is not unconstitutional, just annoying. They have the right to do what they are doing, but their law suit lacks merit. It should be rejected instantly, and I predict that it will be since they can't prove they have been harmed by this day.


----------



## ♠Mr.Nibbles♠ (Oct 5, 2008)

365 days they have and when the religious folk ask for 1 day hell needs to be raised


----------



## Kensei (Oct 5, 2008)

After my freshman year in high school which was the school year when 9/11 occured, we were forced to observe the National Day of Prayer. Basically, we had 15 minutes set aside where we had to stand up and bow our heads. No, we didn't stay home. We had school, and we had that 15 minutes of class time during home room. Whether we chose to make a prayer or not was up to us. However, you can imagine for atheists, agnostics, or people who pray in a different fashion that it was a jarring experience.


----------



## Chee (Oct 5, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> There is no need for Martin Luther King Jr. Day either. Should we get rid of that? We have holidays for a reason, and it is to observe certain things. If you don't want to observe them, then don't.





			
				article said:
			
		

> The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued Friday in U.S. district court, arguing that the *president's mandated proclamations calling on Americans to pray violates a constitutional ban on government officials endorsing religion*.
> 
> The day of prayer, held each year on the first Thursday of May, creates a *"hostile environment for nonbelievers, who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders,"* the lawsuit said.
> 
> The national proclamation issued this year asked *God's blessings on our country and called for Americans to observe the day with appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities.*



Simply put, Martin Luther King Jr. Day isn't a religious day.


----------



## Xyloxi (Oct 5, 2008)

A holiday devoted to prayer, how stupid.


----------



## impersonal (Oct 5, 2008)

Believe It! said:
			
		

> Simulacrum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well done simulacrum !


----------



## Kensei (Oct 5, 2008)

Hugo_Pratt said:


> Believe It! said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Entirely incorrect here. Most schools force observance of christian rituals during school on this particular day.


----------



## dreams lie (Oct 5, 2008)

I would love to have another holiday, but I support the lawsuit. It's just another bunch of Christians trying to impose their views on everyone else;  only this time, they're trying to do it through the legal system.


----------



## Chidori Mistress (Oct 5, 2008)

How stupid.


----------



## Believe It! (Oct 5, 2008)

Chee said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by article
> The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued Friday in U.S. district court, arguing that the president's mandated proclamations calling on Americans to pray violates a constitutional ban on government officials endorsing religion.



There is no constitutional ban on government officials endorsing religion. 



			
				Chee said:
			
		

> The day of prayer, held each year on the first Thursday of May, creates a "hostile environment for nonbelievers, who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders," the lawsuit said.



Well the liberal news organizations make me feel like a political outsider. Can I sue them?

No, because being made to feel a certain way politically is not a violation of any of our rights.



			
				Chee said:
			
		

> The national proclamation issued this year asked God's blessings on our country and called for Americans to observe the day with appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities.



A recommendation. Not an order, not a law, not an enforced act.



			
				Chee said:
			
		

> Simply put, Martin Luther King Jr. Day isn't a religious day.



The man was a religious figure who based his rights on his religious principals. He was named after a religious figure. Therefore the name in and of itself is religious, and thus by these God haters' standards, unconstitutional.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 5, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> No, it's because atheists are not at all oppressed for their lack of belief. God haters are argued against for their disbelief in God as well as their attack on America's religious and Godly heritage.



I'm not quite sure what you were trying to argue in the other posts, *shrug*.

But with this one, I'll pick back. Call atheists what you want, I don't really care, but this is not the reason that I'm not being pressured by religious people in my community. You have no idea where I live, or what my community is like. Everyone is tolerable of each other where I am, and no one really cares what the other one believes in. What we do believe in is working as a community in order to achieve what we need to live on.  It has nothing to do with them arguing against my disbelief or acknowledgment of ignorance of a god existing or not.

Stop assuming silly things.


----------



## Kensei (Oct 5, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> A recommendation. Not an order, not a law, not an enforced act.



Actually, it is enforced in many states. Either way, the day is unconstitutional as government is not entitled to make any laws respecting any religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 5, 2008)

Well,I can see many anti-religion people coming up with a joke,"Religious people are so stupid,they need a holiday to pray"


----------



## Amaretti (Oct 5, 2008)

Kensei said:


> Actually, it is enforced in many states. Either way, the day is unconstitutional as government is not entitled to make any laws respecting any religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"



Nothing about disrespecting religion.

"Up Yours Scientologists Your Religion is Bad and You Should Feel Bad" Day. Give it to me.


----------



## Simulacrum (Oct 5, 2008)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Problem is athiests were discriminated against heavily, even in law, until relatively recently. We couldn't testify in Courtrooms until 1925.
> 
> Shit, by your logic slavery is okay too because the founding fathers owned slaves.
> 
> Back then athiests couldn't fight for their rights. Now we can


 You have a point with swearing oaths in court (which didn't actually restrain anyone from testifying, but only refused to hear testimony from people who didn't swear the commonly used oath to tell the truth) but it doesn't apply to what's going on here. Nobody is being discriminated against here, despite what the angry atheists are trying to claim. 

And what's more, Adams, who was the first President to call for a national prayer day, was against slavery, didn't own slaves or use labor of others' owned slaves. Supporting a national prayer day by citing Adams is not the same as supporting slavery because some Founders owned slaves: the Constitution was starkly written with the intention of the issue of slavery being resolved (it was an issue at the time of the founding, but political circumstances wouldn't allow it to be resolved and still maintain the union). The argument that this holiday is against the intention of the Constitution is just wrong, and I have yet to even see anyone make that case by backing it up with anything other than BAWWing. This holiday is not an endorsement of an establishment of religion; it is a call by the government to have religious people do what they do.


----------



## Kensei (Oct 5, 2008)

Amaretti said:


> Nothing about disrespecting religion.
> 
> "Up Yours Scientologists Your Religion is Bad and You Should Feel Bad" Day. Give it to me.



Actually, it's implied that they don't disrespect religions as well as other religions could prop up days that are antagonistic to rival religions. So, there should be no "Prayer Days" nor should there be "X Religion Sucks Days".


----------



## Amaretti (Oct 5, 2008)

Kensei said:


> Actually, it's implied that they don't disrespect religions as well as other religions could prop up days that are antagonistic to rival religions. So, there should be no "Prayer Days" nor should there be "X Religion Sucks Days".



ORLY          ?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 6, 2008)

It is obvious that prayer day favors certain religions over others. There are many religions like Pastafarianism that do not have a prayer ritual and these are flat out ignored.


----------



## Suzumebachi (Oct 6, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> It is obvious that prayer day favors certain religions over others. There are many religions like Pastafarianism that do not have a prayer ritual and these are flat out ignored.



I don't see the problem.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 6, 2008)

Suzumebachi said:


> I don't see the problem.



The government is not allowed to officially favor a certain religion  If you don't see a problem in the constitution being violated, you might _have_ a problem.


----------



## drache (Oct 6, 2008)

Given that I don't pray nor do many others (yes there are religions that don't pray so it's just not atheists/agnostics) this does seem to violate the sepreration of church and state.


----------



## impersonal (Oct 6, 2008)

Suzumebachi said:


> I don't see the problem.



You wouldn't see the sun if I slammed your face into it.

(goddamn cavemen)


----------



## Rei (Oct 6, 2008)

-late-
Theres a holiday for praying?
Wtf?


----------



## Believe It! (Oct 6, 2008)

Kensei said:
			
		

> Entirely incorrect here. Most schools force observance of christian rituals during school on this particular day.



Well then most schools must be private Christian schools, since public schools cannot do that. In fact, Christian students in many public schools have to fight for their ability to observe the National Day of Prayer. Muslim students on the other hand are allowed to pray every day in order to meet their religious tenents.



			
				Xyfar said:
			
		

> But with this one, I'll pick back. Call atheists what you want



I call atheists "atheists" and I call God haters "God haters. What do you think of that?



			
				Xyfar said:
			
		

> this is not the reason that I'm not being pressured by religious people in my community. You have no idea where I live, or what my community is like. Everyone is tolerable of each other where I am, and no one really cares what the other one believes in.



Well if you don't know what they believe in, then you can't say that I'm wrong. I say some of them are Christian and that they aren't pressuring you to do anything because that isn't what Christians do.



			
				Xyfar said:
			
		

> What we do believe in is working as a community in order to achieve what we need to live on.



Wait, so no one cares what the other believes in, yet you know that all of you believe in working as a community. How does that work? Also, what kind of things do you all do as a community to fulfill what you stated above?



			
				Kensei said:
			
		

> Actually, it is enforced in many states.



Name one, and then prove it.



			
				Kensei said:
			
		

> Either way, the day is unconstitutional as government is not entitled to make any laws respecting any religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"



Well you see, you make a point that is incorrect, then you post a fact proving that it is incorrect, and yet this correction escapes you to the point where you post the incorrect point anyway. Read what you wrote. "Congress shall make no law respecting *an establishment of* religion" means that they cannot establish a religion over the people nor force them to swear to any religion.



			
				Simulacrum said:
			
		

> the Constitution was starkly written with the intention of the issue of slavery being resolved (it was an issue at the time of the founding, but political circumstances wouldn't allow it to be resolved and still maintain the union).



Exactly correct.



			
				Simulacrum said:
			
		

> The argument that this holiday is against the intention of the Constitution is just wrong, and I have yet to even see anyone make that case by backing it up with anything other than BAWWing. This holiday is not an endorsement of an establishment of religion; it is a call by the government to have religious people do what they do.



Quoted for truth.



			
				Saufsoldat said:
			
		

> It is obvious that prayer day favors certain religions over others. There are many religions like Pastafarianism that do not have a prayer ritual and these are flat out ignored.



There is no such religion.



			
				Saufsoldat said:
			
		

> The government is not allowed to officially favor a certain religion  If you don't see a problem in the constitution being violated, you might have a problem.



Actually they can favor any religion they want. They just can't establish a religion.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Given that I don't pray nor do many others (yes there are religions that don't pray so it's just not atheists/agnostics) this does seem to violate the sepreration of church and state.



There is no such thing as the separation of church and state.

Also, prayer is not a practice of religion only. Atheists can pray as well, if they so choose. Or as they may like to call it, "meditate".

So there is no problem here.


----------



## Toby (Oct 6, 2008)

Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The National Day of Prayer is a day designated by the United States Congress as a day when people are asked to come together and pray, *especially for their country.*



The bolded part is what some people here would find slightly unconstitutional. And I understand that slightness, because it is slightly out of context with the only slightly-so beliefs of the founding fathers, who wrote the slightly constitution of the Slightly United States. Moreover, it is only slightly out of line since they are merely asking for you to come out and pray (probably slightly). I slightly care, but it is not required of me to do so. 

Can I ask, on an unrelated note, why they felt the need to make this a national holiday, though? "The first Thursday in May" doesn't strike me as historically important, but maybe somebody can explain the relevance?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 6, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> There is no such religion.


Then,your little Jesus fanfic religion doesn't exist either


----------



## Skylark (Oct 6, 2008)

I thought the law stopped them from endorsing an offical religion for the country, not "everyone pray to your own god on this day." if you don't have a god, you miss out on all the festivities but you do not get to sue.


----------



## Nodonn (Oct 6, 2008)

Dromus said:


> I thought the law stopped them from endorsing an offical religion for the country, not "everyone pray to your own god on this day." if you don't have a god, you miss out on all the festivities but you do not get to sue.



How about when your religion doesn't involve prayer?
The government is clearly endorsing religions involving prayer here.


----------



## Adonis (Oct 6, 2008)

While this is just plain stupid all around, minorities (atheists in this case) need to learn to...PICK...THEIR...BATTLES.


----------



## drache (Oct 6, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> There is no such thing as the separation of church and state.
> 
> Also, prayer is not a practice of religion only. Atheists can pray as well, if they so choose. Or as they may like to call it, "meditate".
> 
> So there is no problem here.


 
Praying is a religious act, it's invoking a higher power(s) to intercede in a certain way.

If you don't believe in a higher power(s) or don't believe that if said higher power(s) exist that they are not going to do anything even if they hear then you are not praying.

Meditation is a much more broader catogery but it's still not really prayer.

And seperation of church and state doesn't exist? Great, I here by mandate Dracheism, you will worship the awesomeness that is me. Anyone refusing to will be shot. Get the point or do I need to drive a semi over it?



Dromus said:


> I thought the law stopped them from endorsing an offical religion for the country, not "everyone pray to your own god on this day." if you don't have a god, you miss out on all the festivities but you do not get to sue.


 
The probelm is still how this is worded.

If the bill said 'every day people will get 5 minutes to spend in reflection on thier religion if they wish. That 5 minutes can be spent in anyway so long as it is not disprutive to others or in some way violates previous policty.' That would be much better as it's giving people 5 minutes to be participate in thier beliefs but it's not being specific as to how.

Of course the best thing would be for schools to just not do this peroid.


----------



## Adonis (Oct 6, 2008)

I'd have to disagree with praying being a religious act. It's possible to invoke a "higher power" through prayer without being affiliated with any religion.

Theism =/= religion.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 6, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> There is no such religion.



Um, yeah alright, if you say so. I guess Buddhism doesn't really exist... Neither does Jainism or Konfuzianism. Yes, let's ignore some major world religions.



> Actually they can favor any religion they want. They just can't establish a religion.



Had to dig a bit for this one, but the surpreme court disagrees with you:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. *Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.* Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State. (Justice Hugo Black, Everson v. Board of Education (1947))


----------



## INSTA-KILL (Oct 6, 2008)

Xyloxi said:


> A holiday devoted to prayer, how stupid.



America is built on prayer. What is on your money?
IN GOD WE TRUST
Deal with it or shut up.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 6, 2008)

Adonis said:


> I'd have to disagree with praying being a religious act. It's possible to invoke a "higher power" through prayer without being affiliated with any religion.
> 
> Theism =/= religion.



But then it favors religions with a higher power over those without (buddhism, jainism, etc)


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 6, 2008)

Playmaker said:


> America is built on prayer. What is on your money?
> IN GOD WE TRUST
> Deal with it or shut up.



"In God we Trust" was not the original motto for the U.S.

It was "E Pluribus Unim" "From many, One." 

In God we Trust was added (illegally, I might add) much later.


----------



## drache (Oct 6, 2008)

Playmaker said:


> America is built on prayer. What is on your money?
> IN GOD WE TRUST
> Deal with it or shut up.


 
That was done in the *1950s*, not at our founding. You should be more careful before you get all hostile


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 6, 2008)

drache said:


> That was done in the *1950s*, not at our founding. You should be more careful before you get all hostile



But Drache....facts and figures don't matter to the religious. They simply plug their ears and tell you that you hate America.


----------



## Adonis (Oct 6, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> But then it favors religions with a higher power over those without (buddhism, jainism, etc)



True, but it's sort of in the same way a "National Literacy Day" would exclude the illiterate.

Don't get me wrong. A National Prayer Day is fucking retarded.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 6, 2008)

Adonis said:


> True, but it's sort of in the same way a "National Literacy Day" would exclude the illiterate.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. A National Prayer Day is fucking retarded.



Which part of the constitution forbids favoring literacy over illiteracy?



Pilaf said:


> But Drache....facts and figures don't matter to the religious. They simply plug their ears and tell you that you hate America.



Why do you hate America?


----------



## INSTA-KILL (Oct 6, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> "In God we Trust" was not the original motto for the U.S.
> 
> It was "E Pluribus Unim" "From many, One."
> 
> In God we Trust was added (illegally, I might add) much later.



And it's still there?
Move on.
Hooray for your Wikipedia find, lol.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> That was done in the 1950s, not at our founding. You should be more careful before you get all hostile



Wrong in the late 1800's.
And I didn't say we founded it, I said America was built on prayer, God. 
Move on people.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 6, 2008)




----------



## INSTA-KILL (Oct 6, 2008)

Wut..You trying to say something?


----------



## Goodfellow (Oct 6, 2008)

If the state and the church is supposed to be separated, then the government should go endorsing stuff as a National Prayer Day.

The atheists aren't doing anything wrong. Rather, they are doing something right. You shouldn't swallow everything your government throws at you.

edit: But in the context that Toby presents it makes a bit more sense of course I suppose.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 6, 2008)

Playmaker said:


> Wut..You trying to say something?



I think it's self-explanatory. You're just pulling an appeal to authority fallacy. "It's alright because it is so." The shit is on the money, that makes it alright.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 6, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> I think it's self-explanatory. You're just pulling an appeal to authority fallacy. "It's alright because it is so." The shit is on the money, that makes it alright.



You THINK?
HEATHEN!


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 6, 2008)

Diceman said:


> You THINK?
> HEATHEN!



Silence, mussulman!


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 6, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> Silence, mussulman!



gaylover


----------



## Xion (Oct 6, 2008)

Now now settle down. We are all God's/Allah's/The Flying Spaghetti Monster's children.


----------



## Toby (Oct 6, 2008)

Playmaker said:


> America is built on prayer. What is on your money?
> IN GOD WE TRUST
> Deal with it or shut up.



Hint: Very pertinent stuff in Religulous. You should see it.



Goodfellow said:


> If the state and the church is supposed to be separated, then the government should go endorsing stuff as a National Prayer Day.
> 
> The atheists aren't doing anything wrong. Rather, they are doing something right. You shouldn't swallow everything your government throws at you.
> 
> edit: But in the context that Toby presents it makes a bit more sense of course I suppose.



No, I agree entirely with what you wrote. It is just a recommendation from the government's side to pray for the motherland, but it is a silly one, and I feel like mocking it, because it is so unconstitutional. Technically the constitution counts for squat unless it is invoked, which it has in this case. But in the meanwhile it is best to keep the majority of the people under the illusion that indeed the US does trust in God to keep their currency safe, and now they can learn where that got them. Then they can learn the crushing truth about their founding fathers, as they turn to the cinemas for their relief.

Again, go see Religulous.


----------



## INSTA-KILL (Oct 6, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> I think it's self-explanatory. You're just pulling an appeal to authority fallacy. "It's alright because it is so." The shit is on the money, that makes it alright.



No, You totally missed the point.



Toby_Christ said:


> Hint: Very pertinent stuff in Religulous. You should see it.



Wut Wut now?


----------



## Toby (Oct 6, 2008)

Playmaker said:


> Wut Wut now?


----------



## Adonis (Oct 6, 2008)

Playmaker said:


> Wrong in the late 1800's.
> And I didn't say we founded it, I said America was built on prayer, God.
> Move on people.



No, you're wrong. While it first appeared in the 1860s, the phrase didn't become obligatory and made into the national motto by Congress until 1955/56. 

That said, I believe drache was referring to the pledge which was created in the late 1800s, by a clergyman no less, but didn't contain the phrase "under God" or any mention of God until, surprise surprise, the 1950s.

You know what all of this has in common? It's the result of McCarthy era fear-mongering associating communism and Atheism and consequently trying to establish the country as a Christian theocracy. How are Atheists in the wrong for being against such propoganda when, historically speaking, it's specifically targeted against them?

The more you know, right?


----------



## INSTA-KILL (Oct 6, 2008)

Wikipedia.....Blah



			
				Adonis said:
			
		

> How are Atheists in the wrong for being against such propoganda when, historically speaking, it's specifically targeted against them?



No, they fear what they don't understand. No one is bothering them. They need to get a life.


----------



## Adonis (Oct 6, 2008)

Playmaker said:


> No, they fear what they don't understand. No one is bothering them. They need to get a life.



This is the point I label you "an idiot not worth my time" and proceed to summarily ignore you. Thank you for making me aware of this in such a speedy fashion.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 6, 2008)

Playmaker said:


> Wikipedia.....Blah
> 
> 
> 
> No, they fear what they don't understand. No one is bothering them. They need to get a life.


STOP THE FUCKIN' PRESSES,this man speaks the truth
Lets pray to Jeebus!


----------



## Toby (Oct 6, 2008)

Not at all unconstitutional, I know I know. After all the chief of the treasury has all sorts of political powers for passing legislation in the US, doesn't he?


----------



## Suzumebachi (Oct 6, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> The government is not allowed to officially favor a certain religion  If you don't see a problem in the constitution being violated, you might _have_ a problem.



What religion does this favor?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 6, 2008)

Suzumebachi said:


> What religion does this favor?



All the theistic ones which use prayer.


----------



## Toby (Oct 6, 2008)

Suzumebachi said:


> What religion does this favor?



You will find the religious discrimination to be limited to the notion of , but it is first and foremost unconstitutional as a method of fusing faith with patriotism, and so it _seems _to encourage a relationship between church and state. I honestly wouldn't think of it as a big deal if there weren't so many Christians in the US, but it certainly has that effect of reinforcing the already neck-tight bond they have.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 6, 2008)

Toby_Christ said:


> Not at all unconstitutional, I know I know. After all the chief of the treasury has all sorts of political powers for passing legislation in the US, doesn't he?



The fact that its on the money (added after every founding father was dead) doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be there.  Separation of church and state dictates it shouldn't be there.

Much like "all men are created equal" makes slavery unconstitutional.  But much like with slavery its going to take time for this to be righted.  There is still strong religious sentiment in the US and it may well be generations before "in god we trust" is removed from the money.


----------



## drache (Oct 6, 2008)

Playmaker said:


> And it's still there?
> Move on.
> Hooray for your Wikipedia find, lol.
> 
> ...


 



You fail you specifically tried to use a phrase on our money that didn't offically show till about *160* years after our country was built/founded/whatever you want to call it.

Accept that you were wrong or not, but if you can't you look very foolish.

This country wasn't built on prayer it was built on tolerance, a flawed view of tolerance given we allowed slavery but though effort we became a better country and now you want to ignore all that because it's too troublesome.

We are not a Christian nation, we weren't even originally a religios nation and it probably has our founders rolling in thier graves at what we've let our country become.


@ Black Adnois, no I was talking about the money as that's when it was offically adopted but the modification of the pledge of alliance is another great example.


----------



## Taco (Oct 6, 2008)

Wow, I mean seriously. Wooooow. Look @ most of the kiddies in this thread.

"lol prayer", "lol religion", "dis hoiliday stoopied!"

Have some freaking RESPECT for other people, will you? You guys would QQ like hell if someone said "lol athiest" yet you go off saying making fun of other religions. 

I didn't know about this, but I'm glad there's a holiday like this. Maybe some people can learn to respect others through this.

/peace.

Edit: I back my position up with an example. A quote from this thread.



LouDAgreat said:


> don't want to be forced to bow my head in a fucking national holiday...people who don't respect this national prayer day...who don't pray and are shown on television...will be ostracized by those bible-nut jobs..called godless...and un-American..the priests and pastors who talk this shit in-front of all their congregants will call for the shunning of people who don't pray on the national prayer day... This is one step closer to establishing a state religion...and one step closer to making the BIBLe OUR CONSTITUTION.



Yeah, NOBODY'S FORCING YOU TO PRAY. If you're not religious, okay. You don't have to be. You have your rights in this country. Just because there are non religious people doesn't mean the other groups don't exist. 

And stop making fun of religious people. When you do that, people like me make fun of people like you who go off disrespecting. You're not cool by calling people "bible nut-jobs." You're just showing off your fail.

/peace for reals.


----------



## Zephos (Oct 6, 2008)

Forbidden Truth said:


> Wow, I mean seriously. Wooooow. Look @ most of the kiddies in this thread.
> 
> "lol prayer", "lol religion", "dis hoiliday stoopied!"
> 
> ...



Who the hell are you talking about.
What the hell are you talking about.

Did you even read the OP.


----------



## Taco (Oct 6, 2008)

Zephos said:


> Who the hell are you talking about.
> What the hell are you talking about.
> 
> Did you even read the OP.



Refer to the edit above ^

And yes I did.


----------



## lava (Oct 6, 2008)

Im sure the athiests would love it if there was a designated day just for their religion. YEs its a religion dont give me that bull shI*T!. If anyone wants to pray they can pray. No matter what they believe in. If u believe in sata,Jesus,alah and into other gods then pray its called freedom of religion . The athiets are getting out of control , their trying to stop other people from believing in what they want, and force their own sH*!t on others. What a disgrace .


----------



## Zephos (Oct 6, 2008)

Forbidden Truth said:


> Refer to the edit above ^
> 
> And yes I did.



Where did he call all christian s bible nutjobs.
He's calling bible nutjobs, bible notjobs.


----------



## Amaretti (Oct 6, 2008)

lava said:


> Im sure the athiests would love it if there was a designated day just for their religion. YEs its a religion dont give me that bull shI*T!. If anyone wants to pray they can pray. No matter what they believe in. If u believe in sata,Jesus,alah and into other gods then pray its called freedom of religion . The athiets are getting out of control , their trying to stop other people from believing in what they want, and force their own sH*!t on others. What a disgrace .



The atheist crusade and the systematic slaughter of the non-non-believers begins next year. Enjoy.


----------



## Zephos (Oct 6, 2008)

> Im sure the athiests would love it if there was a designated day just for their religion.



Athieism isn't a religion. It's a theological stance.



> YEs its a religion dont give me that bull shI*T!.



Look at how dumb you are.



> If anyone wants to pray they can pray. No matter what they believe in. If u believe in sata,Jesus,alah and into other gods then pray its called freedom of religion .



Hmm yes, now why do you need a nationally recognized day to do this.



> The athiets are getting out of control , their trying to stop other people from believing in what they want, and force their own sH*!t on others. What a disgrace .



I had no idea not wanting an imposed national holiday is an offensive move.
Or meant the end of prayer.

Look at how dumb you are.


----------



## lava (Oct 6, 2008)

Amaretti said:


> The atheist crusade and the systematic slaughter of the non-non-believers begins next year. Enjoy.



Next year? hmmm what do you mean?


----------



## Taco (Oct 6, 2008)

Zephos said:


> Where did he call all christian s bible nutjobs.
> He's calling bible nutjobs, bible notjobs.



Did you not read the quote? =P

As for the lawsuit, I actually lol'd. Taking things way over the top.


----------



## Zephos (Oct 6, 2008)

lava said:


> Next year? hmmm what do you mean?



It means the darkies, feminizts, heathens, and queers will come to take your white women after Obama wins.


----------



## lava (Oct 6, 2008)

Zephos said:


> Athieism isn't a religion. It's a theological stance.
> 
> A stance their willing to take as far as the terrorists.
> 
> ...


Again a matter of an opion


----------



## Zephos (Oct 6, 2008)

lava said:


> Again a matter of an opion



You goddamn pussy.

And no, no it's not.

The holiday is being imposed, not the other way around.

And religion has a set defenition which does not include atheism.


----------



## lava (Oct 6, 2008)

Zephos said:


> You goddamn pussy.
> 
> And no, no it's not.
> 
> ...



LOl riiiiight. Zephos no matter how much u hate me, no matter how much u want me dead, I still enjoy debating with u pek


----------



## Mintaka (Oct 6, 2008)

lava said:


> Im sure the athiests would love it if there was a designated day just for their religion. YEs its a religion dont give me that bull shI*T!. If anyone wants to pray they can pray. No matter what they believe in. If u believe in sata,Jesus,alah and into other gods then pray its called freedom of religion .



  Yeah your freedom of religion is fine just keep to yourself where it belongs.  The way I see it the instant your beliefs are made public there subject to whatever.  Religion is a private thing for church or for home.  Not for everyone else to have to both know and obey regardless.  Also it'a amusing to me how atheism itself has only one thing attached to it nothing less or more and that a lack of belief in a deity.  Other than that were all fuckin different so go take your "IS'A REWIGION!!!" bullshit your pastor probably taught you elsewhere.



> The athiets are getting out of control , their trying to stop other people from believing in what they want, and force their own sH*!t on others. What a disgrace .


Oh were getting out of control eh?  Says the person who is trying to defend a religion that has thrown itself into government policy despite that being agaisnt what this very country was founded upon.

It's about goddamn time we are able to speak our mind on these issues with even a chance of being HEARD!  Or have you forgotten that until extrodinarly recently I'd say maybe within the last 20 or 30 years that no one would ever listen to us and that for most of history we were simply killed for our lack of belief?  And yet you have the audacity to go claiming this kind of crap.  We are not forcing shit on anyone.  We are simply calling bullshit at that which is unconstitutional.

Ha where would that get us?  All that would do is make a whole bunch of stupid atheists who would fall back into religion because they never figured out things for themselves.


----------



## Taco (Oct 6, 2008)

Tokoyami said:


> Not only is this a great idea but I fully support it.
> 
> Religion is a goddamn private thing and the government should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!  It is unconstitutional and frankly should be gotten rid of.
> 
> ...


Yeah, Americans just trying to reel in the cash.

They aren't being forced to do anything. Nobody's putting a gun to their head and saying "ON YOUR KNEES AND PRAY." As said a few pages back, why not just sue for Christmas? Doesn't that make you feel like an outsider too? Huh? What? That's right.

Edit: While you're here, Tokoyami:

*points to the part of your sig about Christians*

It's stuff like that that make the religious people jump on your backs.

Edit 2:



> Yeah your freedom of religion is fine just keep to yourself where it belongs.



It's a good thing you said this. Now apply what you said to 90% of the athiests here. Just change the word "religion" to "belief" and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## lava (Oct 6, 2008)

Forbidden Truth said:


> Yeah, Americans just trying to reel in the cash.
> 
> They aren't being forced to do anything. Nobody's putting a gun to their head and saying "ON YOUR KNEES AND PRAY." As said a few pages back, why not just sue for Christmas? Doesn't that make you feel like an outsider too? Huh? What? That's right.
> 
> ...



 exactly. they love to use their  tactics, such as "The Straw Man", "The Re-Direct / MisDirect", "The long, drawn-out reply that has no meaning".... etc.  Im done with this thread


----------



## dummy plug (Oct 6, 2008)

everyday that is not a holiday is an atheist day


----------



## Taco (Oct 6, 2008)

lava said:


> exactly. they love to use their  tactics, such as "The Straw Man", "The Re-Direct / MisDirect", "The long, drawn-out reply that has no meaning".... etc.  Im done with this thread



Wait, what?


----------



## Amaretti (Oct 6, 2008)

lava said:


> Next year? hmmm what do you mean?



*You *probably didn't get the memo, I d*are*say. What I mean is that next year, *a* godless hoarde of *troll*s will rise up and spread rationality and enlightenment by the sword.

Sorry, I do believe my bold button is broken.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 6, 2008)

lava said:


> exactly. they love to use their  tactics, such as "The Straw Man", "The Re-Direct / MisDirect", "The long, drawn-out reply that has no meaning".... etc.  Im done with this thread



And,of course the world famous,''lava running away with his tail between his legs"


----------



## lava (Oct 6, 2008)

Diceman said:


> And,of course the world famous,''lava running away with his tail between his legs"



Luz~ IM BACK with my tail in my mouth!  Ah and Amaretti I get what ur saying now


----------



## Believe It! (Oct 6, 2008)

drache said:
			
		

> Praying is a religious act, it's invoking a higher power(s) to intercede in a certain way.



No it isn't. Praying can also be reflection within one's own mind, or the mindset in which one hopes for a good outcome.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> If you don't believe in a higher power(s) or don't believe that if said higher power(s) exist that they are not going to do anything even if they hear then you are not praying.



But even in that case, this would be theism. Not religion.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Meditation is a much more broader catogery but it's still not really prayer.



Yes it is. Prove me wrong if you can.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> And seperation of church and state doesn't exist? Great, I here by mandate Dracheism, you will worship the awesomeness that is me.



You have no power to mandate anything.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Anyone refusing to will be shot. Get the point or do I need to drive a semi over it?



No you just have to prove your claim by citing the constitution. Oh that's right you can't because you're wrong, as usual.



			
				Adonis said:
			
		

> I'd have to disagree with praying being a religious act. It's possible to invoke a "higher power" through prayer without being affiliated with any religion.
> 
> Theism =/= religion.



Exactly.



			
				Saufsoldat said:
			
		

> Um, yeah alright, if you say so. I guess Buddhism doesn't really exist... Neither does Jainism or Konfuzianism. Yes, let's ignore some major world religions.



No one believes in a FSM.



			
				Saufsoldat said:
			
		

> Had to dig a bit for this one, but the surpreme court disagrees with you:



Well if that's true then the Supreme Court must be wrong. But I'll bet that you're just incorrect about the court's ruling.



			
				Saufsoldat said:
			
		

> The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.



Then why are they tax exempt? Fail. Why is the oath of office sworn on a Bible? Double fail.



			
				Saufsoldat said:
			
		

> (Justice Hugo Black, Everson v. Board of Education (1947))



First of all, you're citing a court case that ruled in favor of a law that allowed taxpayer money to fund transportation to religious schools. So it is actually a ruling that you would probably disagree with. Second, this is nothing but one man's slightly incorrect opinion on the establishment clause. His word is not law. The government can endorse whatever religion they want, just so long as they are not given money or special rights.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> This country wasn't built on prayer it was built on tolerance, a flawed view of tolerance given we allowed slavery



We didn't allow it. We fought a war to end it.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> but though effort we became a better country and now you want to ignore all that because it's too troublesome.



Don't lecture others on the facts when you're the one who ignores them all the time.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> We are not a Christian nation, we weren't even originally a religios nation and it probably has our founders rolling in thier graves at what we've let our country become.



No, you liberals have our founders rolling in their graves. Yes we are a Christian nation and yes we were founded as a Christian nation. Mayflower Compact.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> @ Black Adnois, no I was talking about the money as that's when it was offically adopted but the modification of the pledge of alliance is another great example.



No, you were talking about prayer. Keep up with the discussion.


----------



## drache (Oct 6, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> No it isn't. Praying can also be reflection within one's own mind, or the mindset in which one hopes for a good outcome.


 
Yes BI a word can have 2 definitions, that doesn't mean those definitions aren't mutually exculsive.

Praying that this works (as an examples of that defintion) is *NOT* what this law is about and now your just engaging in pointless semantics.




Believe It! said:


> But even in that case, this would be theism. Not religion.


 
Huh? No, that doesn't even make sense. Even assuming your right Theism is a religion though you're probably just going to make up a definition for Theism now about how it's not a religion.



Believe It! said:


> Yes it is. Prove me wrong if you can.


 


That's really cute BI, but this isn't second grade and what you just did is a fallacy.

But points for effort.

Meditation is both prayer and not prayer, when I mediate I'm not asking for intervention by higher power(s), that said there's then Christian mediation that often asks saints for guidance (which I find hilarious but that's off topic).



Believe It! said:


> You have no power to mandate anything.


 
Me and my remington say otherwise 




Believe It! said:


> No you just have to prove your claim by citing the constitution. Oh that's right you can't because you're wrong, as usual.


 
 

You really can't be this stupid, did you somehow miss me stating it earlier?

Congress nor the consitution has the right to abridge the press. End of discussion go back to ranting about the gay mafia because at least there you're not massively and conclusively wrong.



Believe It! said:


> We didn't allow it. We fought a war to end it.


 
Yeah sure BI if you want to gloss over the first 100 years of the USA go for it 

The rest of us though realize that slavery was a fact in teh US and a terrrible wrong that we should never have allowed.



Believe It! said:


> Don't lecture others on the facts when you're the one who ignores them all the time.


 
 

I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time taking this seriously coming from you.

......

Okay, first when ever you interject yourself into a conversation I'm having with someone else not only is it rude but it looks like your stalking me not that I mind I guess but still.

Second that person needed a lecture as he seems to have had your civics teacher.

Third you're telling me what to do?  

That's hilarious, I don't know why you'd think I even consider listening to you but thank you for the effort.



Believe It! said:


> No, you liberals have our founders rolling in their graves. Yes we are a Christian nation and yes we were founded as a Christian nation. Mayflower Compact.


 
Wait so the Mayflower Compact is the foundation for our goverment?!?!?!? 

Your civics teacher really has failed you, I suggest you go back and reread American history.




Believe It! said:


> No, you were talking about prayer. Keep up with the discussion.


 

 

I was responding to a specific item brought up by another poster, you are the one that is falling behind.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 6, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> No one believes in a FSM.



Ignorant fool, the FSM is real, BELIEVE IT!

You can not prove me otherwise. BELIEVE IT!


----------



## yes (Oct 6, 2008)

Wow, a lawsuit is too much.


----------



## Toby (Oct 6, 2008)

Forbidden Truth said:


> Have some freaking RESPECT for other people, will you? You guys would QQ like hell if someone said "lol athiest" yet you go off saying making fun of other religions.



Most of us are actually debating whether this is constitutional or not, not whether religion is funny or laughable. So what you have here is a strawman.



Forbidden Truth said:


> I didn't know about this, but I'm glad there's a holiday like this. Maybe some people can learn to respect others through this.
> 
> /peace.



Oh, yes, maybe. But think now, for a second: How many Americans are actually religious? And how many are non-religious? , that's 84 and 16 per cent respectively. (It honestly doesn't matter which religion we are looking at here since this is a holiday for prayer, ok?)

My question to you is: Do you think this is something not worth fretting about when the constitution of the country strictly states that there shall be a separation of church and state? Then, why is it necessary, considering the vast number of Americans who are religious, or even constitutional, which is the most pertinent matter here, to legalise this? 

Would this not actually be an attempt of state to impose itself on religious people? I ask that you read the  again, especially where it stipulates that this prayer day is especially about praying for the country.

You know what that is? Patriotism. And there is nothing legally wrong with being a patriot, because that is a philosophical debate for another time. What matters here is that you are expected to pray for your country. Not your god, your family or friends. Your country. Now, respect? Hm, what respect does this have for constitutional values? 



Reznor said:


> I don't think that it shouldn't be done away with. That's not what I'm saying.
> 
> My question is why are atheists leading the charge, rather that a faith that actually feels marginalized by it?



Now this is the question religious people should be asking themselves. Why is the government interfering with your faith, hm? Question this law.


----------



## hammer (Oct 6, 2008)

Amaretti said:


> *You *probably didn't get the memo, I d*are*say. What I mean is that next year, *a* godless hoarde of *troll*s will rise up and spread rationality and enlightenment by the sword.
> 
> Sorry, I do believe my bold button is broken.



 nice

oh btw BI



> No, it's because atheists are not at all oppressed for their lack of belief. God haters are argued against for their disbelief in God as well as their attack on America's religious and Godly heritage.



athiest cant begod hatersif umm THEY DONT BELIVE HE EXSISTS.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 7, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> No one believes in a FSM.



Oh, I get it.

No one believes in a Jesus.



> Well if that's true then the Supreme Court must be wrong. But I'll bet that you're just incorrect about the court's ruling.



Fuck you. Why do you think that you know better than the Surpreme Court? Next time I'll just torture and murder people for fun because I make my own interpretations of the laws in my country... Who cares what the judges say.



> Then why are they tax exempt? Fail. Why is the oath of office sworn on a Bible? Double fail.



Because that's unconstitutional and as you said it's tremendous fail.

Besides, if I remember correctly, all the religions are tax-exempt. While I still don't agree with it, it is constitutional as it does not favor one religion over another.



> First of all, you're citing a court case that ruled in favor of a law that allowed taxpayer money to fund transportation to religious schools. So it is actually a ruling that you would probably disagree with. Second, this is nothing but one man's slightly incorrect opinion on the establishment clause. His word is not law. The government can endorse whatever religion they want, just so long as they are not given money or special rights.



This is what the first amendment has always been regarded as. I don't care about your shitty opinion. Once you become a surpeme court justice, others might give a darn about your interpretation of the constitution. But until then I proved you wrong, so GTFO, troll.


----------



## drache (Oct 7, 2008)

A quick point, the oath of office isn't necessarily sworn on the bible, rather it's sworn on the holy book of that person's religion or if that isn't applyable then it's sworn on (I believe) the consitution or the books containing they laws they are swearing to uphold.

I could be wrong about the second part but i know I'm right about the first part.


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 7, 2008)

lava said:


> Im sure the athiests would love it if there was a designated day just for their religion. YEs its a religion dont give me that bull shI*T!. If anyone wants to pray they can pray. No matter what they believe in. If u believe in sata,Jesus,alah and into other gods then pray its called freedom of religion . The athiets are getting out of control , their trying to stop other people from believing in what they want, and force their own sH*!t on others. What a disgrace .



Atheist is just a term that is used, there really isn't even a need for it, it simply means being free of religion and spiritual believe.

So no it not a religion.


----------



## GrimaH (Oct 7, 2008)

drache said:


> I could be wrong about the second part but i know I'm right about the second part.



Classic.


----------



## Gecka (Oct 7, 2008)

What idiots.


----------



## drache (Oct 7, 2008)

GrimaH said:


> Classic.


 


fixed, that's what I get for posting with little sleep.


----------



## lava (Oct 7, 2008)

PharaohAnubis said:


> Atheist is just a term that is used, there really isn't even a need for it, it simply means being free of religion and spiritual believe.
> 
> So no it not a religion.



What a bunch of bull sh*t . If its not a religion *cough cult cough* then why do they try so hard to stop everyone from believing in what ever people wanna believe ? thats exactly what the nazi did aka terrorits , if u dont agree with their idiot views , ur #1` shot or #2 silenced . These are the same guys (well most of them) that meet in little houses and do satanic rituals , talk about hypocrisy . Just look at Saufsoldat, the guy hates CHristians so much he even dares to make an avatar , that has satan making out with jesus, tell me thats not a cult? I willing to put down 100 bucks the guy stabs little pigs and eats their hearts LOL *chokes laughing* Yes make sigy also shows hate , u can say its a cult. accept I have a valid reason for not supporting Obama, not because his black but because of the issuis he stands on.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Oct 7, 2008)

i don't agree with going as far as a lawsuit but remind me why we need a national prayer day again? i mean what? they can't pray at home or pray silently to themselves somewhere.


----------



## tinhamodic (Oct 7, 2008)

Look, some atheists even complain about the "moment of silence" so a Day of Prayer must be galling.


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 7, 2008)

tinhamodic said:


> Look, some atheists even complain about the "moment of silence" so a Day of Prayer must be galling.



I enjoy the moment of silence. It's a golden opportunity to fart loudly.


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 7, 2008)

Playmaker said:


> And I didn't say we founded it, I said America was built on prayer, God.




Thomas Jefferson:


"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."


----------



## Zephos (Oct 7, 2008)

> If its not a religion *cough cult cough*



You don't know what either of these words mean.



> then why do they try so hard to stop everyone from believing in what ever people wanna believe ?



1. What does this have to do with religion.
2. You don't know what a religion is.
3. Your stupid.
4. There is no "they" you dumbass.
5. You don't know what a religion is.



> thats exactly what the nazi did aka terrorits



No that's not exactly what nazi's did you blubbering retard.
Nor were Nazi's terroists. You don't know fuck all about anything.

Quick, describe bread accurately. Do something right, anything.



> , if u dont agree with their idiot views , ur #1` shot or #2 silenced .



Name a single incident outside your imagination where any of this is remoteley true/let alone PLAUSIBLE.
Athiests aren't in power anywhere in the US. How the flying fuck, even in your fantasy world, could they operate on a level of the third reich.



> These are the same guys (well most of them) that meet in little houses and do satanic rituals , talk about hypocrisy .



Are you seriously this fucking stupid??
You don't even know what an athiest is do you.
There's no such thing as "satanist rituals" taking place in peoples houses, and even if thier were *why would people who disbeleive in god and the bible be taking part in rituals regarding the christian mythos*.

I can't stress how stupid you are enough.



> Just look at Saufsoldat, the guy hates CHristians so much he even dares to make an avatar , that has satan making out with jesus, tell me thats not a cult? I willing to put down 100 bucks the guy stabs little pigs and eats their hearts LOL *chokes laughing* u can say its a cult.



STOP POSTING

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ANY OF THE WORDS YOUR USING MEAN.

YOU BELIEVE IN A FANTASY CARTOON VERSION OF REALITY.



> accept I have a valid reason for not supporting Obama, not because his black but because of the issuis he stands on.



What issues? Is it that's he's a homosexual reptilian muslim?

Yes it probably is.

You are a delusional retard who makes BI and Diamed look downright awesome.

If the mods had any sense you would be permanently section banned.
Especially considering your next post will be you running away from the argument to hide in your fantasies away from the mean rational people.


----------



## tinhamodic (Oct 7, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> I enjoy the moment of silence. It's a golden opportunity to fart loudly.



Guess it's better than "silent but deadly" kind


----------



## Mintaka (Oct 7, 2008)

Respect?

RESPECT!?  Respect is earned not given.  I'd respect your opinion alot more if you used the word correctly in the first place.  Yeah peoples opinions should be respected....however as far as I am concerened the instant oyur beleifs enter public ears there subject to scrutiny.  No one shouldn't be an ass about it but don't take critism of them to be an attack which you clearly are doing.  I simply cannot stand people who claim to be religous coming up to me and telling me "to respect there beleifs" when they not only disrespect mine but say it in that "holier than thou u can't no go disrepectin mah beweefz cuz mah beweefs sad not to" way they do.

Edit:  post was to harsh and not conveying what I wanted.  Caffine and a lack of sleep due to construction didn't help when I stumbled upon the idiocy in that post.




> It's stuff like that that make the religious people jump on your backs.


Trolling you aring I?  I know that but I couldn't resist.  It's just amusing to me.  I'll put a warning under it.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 7, 2008)

lava said:


> What a bunch of bull sh*t . If its not a religion *cough cult cough* then why do they try so hard to stop everyone from believing in what ever people wanna believe ? thats exactly what the nazi did aka terrorits , if u dont agree with their idiot views , ur #1` shot or #2 silenced . These are the same guys (well most of them) that meet in little houses and do satanic rituals , talk about hypocrisy . Just look at Saufsoldat, the guy hates CHristians so much he even dares to make an avatar , that has satan making out with jesus, tell me thats not a cult? I willing to put down 100 bucks the guy stabs little pigs and eats their hearts LOL *chokes laughing* Yes make sigy also shows hate , u can say its a cult. accept I have a valid reason for not supporting Obama, not because his black but because of the issuis he stands on.



Stop posting, you're stupid.


----------



## Mintaka (Oct 7, 2008)

Xyfar said:


> Ignorant fool, the FSM is real, BELIEVE IT!
> 
> You can not prove me otherwise. BELIEVE IT!


I can.

BELEIVE IT!

The fsm doesn't exist becuz I said so.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 7, 2008)

Tokoyami said:


> I can.
> 
> BELEIVE IT!
> 
> The fsm doesn't exist becuz I said so.



 u must's be rite


----------



## Euraj (Oct 7, 2008)

The LULAC should have sued him for speaking in English too.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 7, 2008)

drache said:


> A quick point, the oath of office isn't necessarily sworn on the bible, rather it's sworn on the holy book of that person's religion or if that isn't applyable then it's sworn on (I believe) the consitution or the books containing they laws they are swearing to uphold.
> 
> I could be wrong about the second part but i know I'm right about the first part.



I went around the Houses of Parliment and they showed us they have texts from every religion for incoming MPs to be sworn in on, including a generic pledge to Queen and country for atheists.

I don't know if American Congressmen and Senators have to swear an oath but I imagien they do and there are several Jewish ones, so certainly there will be people swearing on a Torah too.


----------



## drache (Oct 7, 2008)

The Pink Ninja said:


> I went around the Houses of Parliment and they showed us they have texts from every religion for incoming MPs to be sworn in on, including a generic pledge to Queen and country for atheists.
> 
> I don't know if American Congressmen and Senators have to swear an oath but I imagien they do and there are several Jewish ones, so certainly there will be people swearing on a Torah too.


 
I would imagine so, I do know that the only Muslim in Congress took his oath on the Koran so it's  definitely not just the bible which was the point.


And yes any member of Congress must swear an oath of office (I don't know the details of the oath though)


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 7, 2008)

There's a Muslim Congressman?


----------



## Giorno Giovannax (Oct 7, 2008)

As a christian, I found the idea of a national prayer holiday to be fantastically retarded. Really, why do we need one?

Seriously, why do we need one? It makes no sense whatsoever to have one, especially when people already pray.:Laugh

I really am trying to see the substance and benefits of this holiday but I just can't. I mean it's not like having having one will increase the number of Christian converts. So what if the whole nation doesn't pray? Who gives a crap? It's not like I need a national day for me to pray, I do that on my personal time already. 

Just retarded and I actually don't mind the atheists suing it because I find the law to be ridiculous.

Wait a minute...does this mean I'm on the side of the atheists on an issue regarding religion? OH MY GOD!


----------



## Xion (Oct 7, 2008)

The Pink Ninja said:


> There's a Muslim Congressman?



Obama?


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 7, 2008)

II Xion II said:


> Obama?



He's a Senator.

And wow, not only did this Muslim win, he got more than twice as many votes as the Republican.


----------



## Xion (Oct 7, 2008)

The Pink Ninja said:


> *He's a Senator.*
> 
> And wow, not only did this Muslim win, he got more than twice as many votes as the Republican.



Yeah I know, joke wouldn't have worked too well though if I had to change that part of the quote.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 7, 2008)

I was expanding the joke, you white Anglo-Saxon you : /


----------



## drache (Oct 7, 2008)

The Pink Ninja said:


> He's a Senator.
> 
> And wow, not only did this Muslim win, he got more than twice as many votes as the Republican.


 
Not everyone or every place in America is so bigoted that they'll vote which every way the GOP tries to scare them.


----------



## INSTA-KILL (Oct 7, 2008)

Adonis said:


> This is the point I label you "an idiot not worth my time" and proceed to summarily ignore you. Thank you for making me aware of this in such a speedy fashion.



Thanks for your concession.
The Athiests fear it therefore they want to scream and complain about something they can't control.
Prayer has been here forever. They don't like it too bad that is what life is about. Now they need to move on.
Oh and God Bless everyone!!


----------



## videlbriefs (Oct 7, 2008)

It's true. People will sue over just anything these days from having a cup of coffee between their legs that spills to this. The USA was governed with religious beliefs for decades. Look at the pledge of alligance, the back of a quarter, and the use of a bible to swear people in before court.

A holiday is a holiday. There's no reasons to bitch or moan about it. It's not as if there's a fine print that demands everyone to pray or go to church on that day. There are several holidays that are in the US that some people celebrate and others don't based upon religion or views. People can sue all they want, it won't change the fact that everyone is different and until we all think, act, and look the same someone is going to have a problem. It's funny and quite sad.


I don't need a special day to pray, but what becomes a holiday does and that's the end of it. Really, in such a matter there's three usual options. 

a. Get over it and go on as if that day is any other day. 

b. Protest and cry about it, maybe even to compete against a child having a tantrum, while nothing changes because it's not interfering with any rights and annoy or embarrass those who share your original outlook (ex: nonbeliever), but doesn't get a rat's ass and wonders why others do. 

c. Flee the country in a big huff and find somewhere else that fits one's religious, or lack of it, views.

Really, suing is made so easily and the words "I'm going to sue you[r ass]" are so often used that in this case there's nothing really gripping about the reasons for the lawsuit. Are people that bored? it's one thing to excerise one's right and beliefs, it's another to try and sue people over it.


----------



## INSTA-KILL (Oct 7, 2008)

My points exactly.^^^
^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) need to stop complaining or move on or leave America.
But we Athiest are too scared to leave the country cause other countries won't go for our bullcrap.
LOLOlol Well shut up and live life like you want to
God Bless everyone.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 7, 2008)

Playmaker said:


> Prayer has been here forever. They don't like it too bad that is what life is about. Now they need to move on.



Nah, it isn't. My life has been 100% prayer free


----------



## INSTA-KILL (Oct 7, 2008)

Xyfar said:


> Nah, it isn't. My life has been 100% prayer free



You misunderstood my post. I meant life is about dealing with things we don't like.


----------



## drache (Oct 7, 2008)

videlbriefs said:


> It's true. People will sue over just anything these days from having a cup of coffee between their legs that spills to this. The USA was governed with religious beliefs for decades. Look at the pledge of alligance, the back of a quarter, and the use of a bible to swear people in before court.
> 
> A holiday is a holiday. There's no reasons to bitch or moan about it. It's not as if there's a fine print that demands everyone to pray or go to church on that day. There are several holidays that are in the US that some people celebrate and others don't based upon religion or views. People can sue all they want, it won't change the fact that everyone is different and until we all think, act, and look the same someone is going to have a problem. It's funny and quite sad.
> 
> ...


 

You truely are not only an idiot but ignorant of American history.

I suggest you go back to grade school history.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 7, 2008)

Playmaker said:


> You misunderstood my post. I meant life is about dealing with things we don't like.



Oh, well I enjoy everything in life 

But seriously, if you meant that you need to work on some structure in your arguments


----------



## videlbriefs (Oct 7, 2008)

drache said:


> You truely are not only an idiot but ignorant of American history.
> 
> I suggest you go back to grade school history.




Excuse me? Hopefully, there's some misunderstanding going on. What do you mean by your comment? Are you saying that the court systems don't use the Bible to swear people in? That there's no "in God we trust" on our coins? That there was no conflict about the pledge of alliance in schools, that a certain statement would fall under the keeping religion and state separate? 

Please inform me, oh knowledgeable one, about this history lesson I'm missing. 



I still don't see the point in this lawsuit, or rather an outcome that will make both sides happy because even if some people don't care about adding new holidays or celebrations there's going to be some that do, but it is something different aside from all the politics and the new spoofs for the elections.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 7, 2008)

videlbriefs said:


> Excuse me? What do you mean by that? Are you saying that the court systems don't use the bible to swear people in? That there's no "in God we trust" on our coins? That there was no conflict about the pledge of alliance in schools, that a certain statement would fall under the keeping religion and state separate?
> 
> Please inform me, oh knowledgeable one, about this history lesson I'm missing.
> 
> ...



The bibles you swear on at court are not necessary in the least bit, nor is the "In god we trust" on the coins.

Fact of the matter is, Government and Religion are supposed to be segregated. You cannot argue against that as that is arguing against the constitution. The USA government supporting any type of religion is prohibited. End of story, no discussion.


----------



## Fang (Oct 7, 2008)

Seperation of Chuch and State...I thought we had this in the Constitution?


----------



## videlbriefs (Oct 7, 2008)

Xyfar said:


> The bibles you swear on at court are not necessary in the least bit, nor is the "In god we trust" on the coins.
> 
> Fact of the matter is, Government and Religion are supposed to be segregated. You cannot argue against that as that is arguing against the constitution. The USA government supporting any type of religion is prohibited. End of story, no discussion.




*Spoiler*: __ 



So, let me get this straight and not come off as being a stubborn mule.  I can see if I'm from a different religion and wish to use a different holy book (dispute in North Carolina 2005) to be sworn in but isn't that an American custom to use the bible? After all, what was the original reason behind the bible being used in the court system originally? It wasn't just a random book someone picked up and asked to use. Just because something isn't unnecessary doesn't mean it's unavoidable or not seen. 

I understand the fact that the US wasn't formed or intended as a Christian country, though some laws were created from certain empathized rules which have been found in other religions, and I do agree that government and religion should be separate. I, however, didn't see the big deal in let's say the pledge, when it's not demanding or requesting someone or anyone to follow a belief or religion. 




I get that some people disagree with me on that, which is normal, and why I see that others don't like the prayer holiday even those who aren't atheist. It's not necessary because people will pray when they feel like it or wish to. A holiday really won't change things in the long run. But I think a lawsuit wasn't the best way to handle this disagreement.


----------



## drache (Oct 7, 2008)

videlbriefs said:


> Excuse me? Hopefully, there's some misunderstanding going on. What do you mean by your comment? Are you saying that the court systems don't use the Bible to swear people in? That there's no "in God we trust" on our coins? That there was no conflict about the pledge of alliance in schools, that a certain statement would fall under the keeping religion and state separate?
> 
> Please inform me, oh knowledgeable one, about this history lesson I'm missing.
> 
> ...


 
:sigh

None of what you said has any bearing on what this country was founded.

And that you didn't read the last 2 pages means you're not worth repeating myself.

The arguements are all there.


----------



## Surreal (Oct 7, 2008)

videlbriefs said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have you ever been a minority, religion wise?


----------



## videlbriefs (Oct 7, 2008)

Years ago when I was a kid, from what I recall, but not nowadays.


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 7, 2008)

TWF said:


> Seperation of Chuch and State...I thought we had this in the Constitution?



Listen to him.


----------



## lava (Oct 7, 2008)

Zephos said:


> You don't know what either of these words mean.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Lulz~ Zephos Zephos Zephos. If I hade no idea what my words meant (the words that I typed up) then I would never be able write anything that people would understand. U clearly understand what I am saying and that is why, my truth is burning ur eyes LOL And I never have ran away from an argument ur just in denial , no matter what! ur still my fave rival! pekpekpek

and yes I know my response is old, I just wanted to reply to Zephos that I dont run away! c I am back!


----------



## shirish (Oct 7, 2008)

Going by how things magnify with time, I'd give it 200 years till the government outlaws atheists.


----------



## Zephos (Oct 7, 2008)

> Lulz~ Zephos Zephos Zephos. If I hade no idea what my words meant (the words that I typed up) then I would never be able write anything that people would understand.



Well as long as your aware of your problem.



> U clearly understand what I am saying and that is why, my truth is burning ur eyes LOL



How old are you?



> And I never have ran away from an argument ur just in denial , no matter what! ur still my fave rival! pekpekpek



Your running away right now, this in within a retreat response.



> and yes I know my response is old, I just wanted to reply to Zephos that I dont run away! c I am back!



In a debate running away is running away from debating.

What your doing right now is nothing at all.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 8, 2008)

lava said:


> Lulz~ Zephos Zephos Zephos. If I hade no idea what my words meant (the words that I typed up) then I would never be able write anything that people would understand. U clearly understand what I am saying and that is why, my truth is burning ur eyes LOL And I never have ran away from an argument ur just in denial , no matter what! ur still my fave rival! pekpekpek
> 
> and yes I know my response is old, I just wanted to reply to Zephos that I dont run away! c I am back!



You didn't answer or reply to anything he said. You're avoiding questions and running away from him.

Comprehend what he said, and answer them.

And, no one understands what you say, really. No one. Like, I mean seriously, NO ONE understands what you say. It doesn't make sense. Your entire Quote on Quote Argument here didn't make sense. NO ONE UNDERSTANDS YOU AT ALL. You're a blabbering moron! 

YOU HAVE THE ENGLISH SKILLS OF A CHINESE GIRL THAT'S TRYING TO LEARN ENGLISH TO MOVE TO AMERICA. A THIRD GRADER COULD PRODUCE MORE COMPLEX, COHERENT SENTENCES THAN YOU!

You
do
no
make
sense.


----------



## lava (Oct 8, 2008)

Zephos said:


> Well as long as your aware of your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



#1 I dont have a problem.

#2 im 19

#3 I didnt run away , I cam back and replied , I guess ur the one that doesnt know the words that ur using.

#4 I never ran away. I always come back even if the thread is 2 days old

#5 what I am doing right now is replying to ur hate speach LOL. Dont u love it when someone uses the same words u throw at others?

and XyFar u fail. same quote goes to u too.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 8, 2008)

lava said:


> #1 I dont have a problem.
> 
> #2 im 19
> 
> ...



No, you're not 19. You're an 8 year old stuck in a 19 year old's body. You can't type, you can't spell, you can't create coherent sentences, and furthermore, you can't comprehend anything.

How well did you score on the S.A.T's, an IQ test, any test!!!

I'M HONESTLY CURIOUS if you passed 7th grade in Jr. High.

You are a blubbering buffoon that fails to type anything that makes sense. You can't, you have 206 soon to be 207, then 208... posts that will never make sense. I'm starting to wonder if you're "Smarterchild" from AIM and can't respond to some things in a manner that is comprehensible. 

Leave this place, take a couple English classes, and come back. Maybe we'll take you some-what serious then. Because no one here thinks you're even remotely intelligent. I can tell by your stupidity from the bar of red under your avatar that you didn't voluntarily get those negs.

I'm not kidding. Go away, you-are-unintelligent.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2008)

You can't really sue when there's nothing being forced on you...its a holiday. I can't sue because I don't like Martin Luther King Day or because I am a Jew and don't like Christmas. They need to just move on and drop the suit. They're giving the rest of their kind a bad name.

And separation of church and state, which has become the atheist battle cry, is just to make sure that there is no national religion or that any religion becomes favored and has influence over the government. Since most religions use prayer and anyone can pray or meditate...its not like anyone is being favored here and again *no one is being forced.*


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And separation of church and state, which has become the atheist battle cry, is just to make sure that there is no national religion or that any religion becomes favored and has influence over the government. Since most religions use prayer and anyone can pray or meditate...its not like anyone is being favored here and again *no one is being forced.*



Meditation=/=prayer

Prayer requires belief in a higher power, therefore theistic religions are favored over atheistic religions.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> Meditation=/=prayer
> 
> Prayer requires belief in a higher power, therefore theistic religions are favored over atheistic religions.



atheistic religion, sounds like a little bit of an oxymoron. Religion denotes a belief in the supernatural...whether there is a God involved or not. Atheism denotes a belief in nothing religious. So you can't couple the two together.

Many holidays favor one group over another, its not a reason to complain. Especially when you can just ignore it.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> atheistic religion, sounds like a little bit of an oxymoron. Religion denotes a belief in the supernatural...whether there is a God involved or not. Atheism denotes a belief in nothing religious. So you can't couple the two together.
> 
> Many holidays favor one group over another, its not a reason to complain. Especially when you can just ignore it.



*Atheism*-Noun

    * S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
    * S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

Source: 



It is in no meaning "belief in nothing religious". Just means you reject the existence of a god. There are plenty of religions out there that do not include a god.


----------



## GrimaH (Oct 8, 2008)

CTK said:
			
		

> Atheism denotes a belief in nothing religious.





edit:



			
				CTK said:
			
		

> post something actually usefu



Yeah like saying you're wrong when you are.
Oh wait I just did.
Next time you want to neg people for disagreeing, make an intelligent message.


----------



## lava (Oct 8, 2008)

Xyfar said:


> No, you're not 19. You're an 8 year old stuck in a 19 year old's body. You can't type, you can't spell, you can't create coherent sentences, and furthermore, you can't comprehend anything.
> 
> How well did you score on the S.A.T's, an IQ test, any test!!!
> 
> ...



Lets take a look at ur reply, and take it apart piece by piece shell we?

First ur doubting as to weather im 19( you claim i am an 8 year old stuck in an 19 year old body) then u go on about saying how "curious" you are weather I passed the 7th grade, so could u explain what an 8 year old does in a 7th grade? no u cant . FAIL

Then U go on about dissing my grammar and spelling , using big words like "comprehend" and as it turns out ur the one that doesnt even know what meaning of the word "comprehend" I understand enough to make a judgment of my own, that is far beyond ur grasping abilities.  I think for my self, ur follow ,ur a follower and that is what u are, nothing more. I dont need any English class's I dropped out( yes that is the cause of my bad spelling and all) but even though I dropped out , I still have a job far better then most of you here have.

Im sure u think everyone is unintelligent if they dont agree with ur socialistic views . I am not gonna leave this place, because I have the right to be here just like any of you.


----------



## Taco (Oct 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> atheistic religion, sounds like a little bit of an oxymoron. Religion denotes a belief in the supernatural...whether there is a God involved or not. Atheism denotes a belief in nothing religious. So you can't couple the two together.
> 
> Many holidays favor one group over another, its not a reason to complain. Especially when you can just ignore it.





You got it!

And to the people saying stuff like:



			
				TWF said:
			
		

> Seperation of Chuch and State...



The government is *not* enforcing a national religion. The government is *not* forcing everyone to be religious. This day is for those people that *do* pray. Me, I think everyone "prays," even if it isn't to a higher being. If you want something to happen, you keep on asking for it in your thoughts, going like "Please, if only so and so would happen, I would be so happy."

Praying has two definitions. The obvious one is praying to God/a god(s). There's also:



> To make a fervent request or entreaty.



Which is what I kind of mentioned above.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2008)

Xyfar said:


> *Atheism*-Noun
> 
> * S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
> * S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)
> ...



Not sure about that, many religions may not call it God, but there is usually a higher power involved somewhere. It doesn't even have to be all knowing (because some gods aren't). People who believe that higher power comes from within or comes from nature. 

Its still a belief in a higher power.


*Spoiler*: __ 



*Atheism*, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.


Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere; and some religions, such as Jainism and Buddhism, do not require belief in a personal god.


The term _atheism_ originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion. With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists.




I think that the broader definition is what I am using, meaning I'm not wrong. So as I was saying, some would consider what you said and *oxymoron*.


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 8, 2008)

Taken from the American Atheist.

"Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."

"Weak Atheist" is the term used for the ones who only don't believe in a god, but believe in super natural beings, such as ghost or spirits.

I myself am a true Atheist, and trust in almost all scientific discovery with good evidence.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 8, 2008)

lava said:


> Lets take a look at ur reply, and take it apart piece by piece shell we?



Kay.



> First ur doubting as to weather im 19( you claim i am an 8 year old stuck in an 19 year old body) then u go on about saying how "curious" you are weather I passed the 7th grade, so could u explain what an 8 year old does in a 7th grade? no u cant . FAIL



Never said you were eight, I said you were an eight year old trapped in a nineteen year old's body.  A nineteen year old can graduate from 7th grade. 

Fail.



> Then U go on about dissing my grammar and spelling , using big words like "comprehend" and as it turns out ur the one that doesnt even know what meaning of the word "comprehend" I understand enough to make a judgment of my own, that is far beyond ur grasping abilities.  I think for my self, ur follow ,ur a follower and that is what u are, nothing more. I dont need any English class's I dropped out( yes that is the cause of my bad spelling and all) but even though I dropped out , I still have a job far better then most of you here have.



No, comprehend is not a big word, and I know what it means. I won't look it up in the dictionary for you either, I'll just give you a broad definition of it: to understand the validity or meaning of something. 

What am I following?

LOL, you should really go back to that English class. It will help you in life.

Hmm... you're not very patriotic for dissin' the English language... I suspect you of Terrorism 

Yeah, I'm sure your job is great, but that doesn't have anything to do with this.



> Im sure u think everyone is unintelligent if they dont agree with ur socialistic views . I am not gonna leave this place, because I have the right to be here just like any of you.



Socialism deals with economic issues. Stop using words that you don't know what they mean. No, I think many people are smarter than I am here. I may not agree with CardboardTubeKnight on a religious level, but I'm sure she's smarter than I am in many aspects. I am sure Saulsofdat is smarter than I am, Pilaf, Grimah, the list goes on. 

But what I am sure is that you have an IQ of Brick from Anchorman.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 8, 2008)

This lawsuit strikes me as being the legal equivalent of trolling in an internet forum


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2008)

PharaohAnubis said:


> Taken from the American Atheist.
> 
> "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
> 
> "Weak Atheist" is the term used for the ones who only don't believe in a god, but believe in super natural beings, such as ghost or spirits.



All of a sudden, the lesser definition is more appropriate so they fall back on it. There's pretty ridged rules for what I am so I can't deny it really, but I was pretty sure going into this argument that atheism usually was meant to include all supernatural belief. 

That's how Atheist Agenda defined it, that's how the American Atheist defined it and that's one of the definitions on Wikipedia. I think that leaving room for belief in witchcraft, Buddhism and other religions that don't include God make you something else, not an atheist.

*@Lava:* Look kid, I don't know you or what you're about. I have seen you posts a handful of times. You're either really short sighted or a troll. Your views on the election, your methods of arguing...just stop because you need to come with something more conclusive and less frantic. You don't want to come off like BI or worse...Diamed.


----------



## Taco (Oct 8, 2008)

Xyfar said:


> Kay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can you guys please stop talking about whether or not he is intelligent? Lol.


----------



## Gooba (Oct 8, 2008)

> "Weak Atheist" is the term used for the ones who only don't believe in a god, but believe in super natural beings, such as ghost or spirits.


Strong vs Weak Atheist is about how much faith they have in their claims.  A Strong Atheist says there is no god, and he is sure of it.  A Weak Atheist says there is probably no god, but there is no way to be sure.  An Agnostic says there could be anything.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> All of a sudden, the lesser definition is more appropriate so they fall back on it. There's pretty ridged rules for what I am so I can't deny it really, but I was pretty sure going into this argument that atheism usually was meant to include all supernatural belief.
> 
> That's how Atheist Agenda defined it, that's how the American Atheist defined it and that's one of the definitions on Wikipedia. I think that leaving room for belief in witchcraft, Buddhism and other religions that don't include God make you something else, not an atheist



Lack of belief in gods makes you an atheist. It's as simple as that. Jainism, Buddhism and any religion that I make up on the spot lack belief in gods, therefore they are not theistic religions and praying makes no sense for them.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Not sure about that, many religions may not call it God, but there is usually a higher power involved somewhere. It doesn't even have to be all knowing (because some gods aren't). People who believe that higher power comes from within or comes from nature.




Well we are getting very nit picky here (The both of us). I'll just stop and say that a National Prayer Day shouldn't be supported by the government. Quite frankly there are many religions that don't use prayer in them, and other groups that do not have a "religion" or "belief in prayer" or  anything like that. 

What they could really do is get an agreement amongst the religious leaders themselves and mandate a National Prayer Day, or World Prayer Day for those who agree.

Personally I'm not affected by this at all, and doubt I ever will be.





> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I suppose I get your drift. We agnostics and atheists tend to be picky with words 



Forbidden Truth said:


> Can you guys please stop talking about whether or not he is intelligent? Lol.



I'm not talking, I'm stating.. as in it is a fact.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Strong vs Weak Atheist is about how much faith they have in their claims.  A Strong Atheist says there is no god, and he is sure of it.  A Weak Atheist says there is probably no god, but there is no way to be sure.  An Agnostic says there could be anything.



Well he didn't get it wrong, that site did then, right?


----------



## GrimaH (Oct 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Well he didn't get it wrong, that site did then, right?



Yes.
Calling oneself "American Atheist" doesn't mean it can make up a definition different from the official one, and use it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> Lack of belief in gods makes you an atheist. It's as simple as that. Jainism, Buddhism and any religion that I make up on the spot lack belief in gods, therefore they are not theistic religions and praying makes no sense for them.



That's just one definition obviously. 



Xyfar said:


> Well we are getting very nit picky here (The both of us). I'll just stop and say that a National Prayer Day shouldn't be supported by the government. Quite frankly there are many religions that don't use prayer in them, and other groups that do not have a "religion" or "belief in prayer" or  anything like that.
> 
> What they could really do is get an agreement amongst the religious leaders themselves and mandate a National Prayer Day, or World Prayer Day for those who agree.
> 
> ...



I guess I can see where there would be a problem, but even then there are loads of holidays I don't support, I just ignore them. But I can sit here all nice and play definition look up with you guys. We might as well decide to let the definition part go and continue the argument and all.


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 8, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Strong vs Weak Atheist is about how much faith they have in their claims.  A Strong Atheist says there is no god, and he is sure of it.  A Weak Atheist says there is probably no god, but there is no way to be sure.  An Agnostic says there could be anything.


Actually your using Agnostic for the definition of "Weak Atheist". 

Truth is though, Weak Atheist and Agnostic are near the same thing.

You can be either Athiest or Weak Atheist/Agnostic, I also made a mistake in my post, I meant *can* believe in super natural beings.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 8, 2008)

The difference that some seem to draw here between a strong and weak atheist seems *very similar* to a distinction I have heard used amongst Christians to differentiate themselves from other Christians.  There are the ideological ones, and there are the cultural ones.  

The cultural ones do it because they grew up with it and are used to it--they don't make it a serious facet of life, and shrug at any incongruities between the ideology and the action.  Their adherence to the ideology outside of the internet or anywhere else where they have to articulate it is *mostly unconscious*.  The ideological ones* consciously* interpret, evaluate, and interact with their world in light of their claimed ideology.

This would settle the distinction quite nicely--but for the tendency of the internet to magnify peoples' claimed adherence to a cause beyond what it would be absent the net.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I guess I can see where there would be a problem, but even then there are loads of holidays I don't support, I just ignore them. But I can sit here all nice and play definition look up with you guys. We might as well decide to let the definition part go and continue the argument and all.



Lulz, I stole your font somehow by accident in the last post 

Anyways, Ignoring things doesn't always bode well. There are things that should be ignored, and things that shouldn't. 

Do I believe this is an issue that shouldn't be ignored? I'm not even sure myself. The people who sued the president probably are just in it for the money, but if this continues, what's stopping the government from going to the next step and making a national *insert religion here* day? Then following up to the next step? 

It's indirectly discriminatory.


----------



## GrimaH (Oct 8, 2008)

Never mind, right thread, I was just slow.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Not sure about that, many religions may not call it God, but there is usually a higher power involved somewhere. It doesn't even have to be all knowing (because some gods aren't). People who believe that higher power comes from within or comes from nature.
> 
> Its still a belief in a higher power.
> 
> ...



CTK, religion isn't necessarily a belief in a higher power.



			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.



In before whining about Wiki.
But you won't because you used wiki for your definition of atheist also.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 8, 2008)

GrimaH said:


> Never mind, right thread, I was just slow.



I c whut u did thar


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 8, 2008)

Every fall, millions of Turkeys die for a very unconstitutional reason


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2008)

GrimaH said:


> Never mind, right thread, I was just slow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Supernatural could be seen as a higher power.


----------



## Nekko-Sama (Oct 8, 2008)

tinhamodic said:


> C'mon, is this really necessary? I mean the lawsuit?



I'm all for it!  It is unconstitutional.  Simple as that.


----------



## GrimaH (Oct 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Supernatural could be seen as a higher power.



Just like the Earth could be seen as the Sun's testes. 
Doesn't mean it is, right? 

Point is, *supernatural does not include only higher powers*. So being atheist (rejection of higher power) does not mean you have to be anti-religious (anti-supernatural), proving what you said about atheism here



There, something useful.


----------



## Juanita Tequila (Oct 8, 2008)

People actually need to have their own day to pray?!

I thought praying was an everyday routine for religious people. :X


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2008)

Juanita Tequila said:


> People actually need to have their own day to pray?!
> 
> I thought praying was an everyday routine for religious people. :X



Nonsense! You only pray when you need something like a bigger penis or a fast car


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 8, 2008)

Or when there's a delicious young antelope lying wounded just within your view on the windswept Serengeti


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's just one definition obviously.



No, that's *the* definition, and the only one which includes all definitions of atheism.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 8, 2008)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Every fall, millions of Turkeys die for a very unconstitutional reason



Which is?


----------



## SSJ5 (Oct 8, 2008)

Okay, America is a country based on God's word and the Bible lmao what did they expect? I mean in court they make you swear on the damn Bible. I think that is just ignorant really, they didn't say anyone had to pray nor did they force them too. Not everyone in the country believes in God, but most do. isn't it right to have the most popular religion as the base of the country?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 8, 2008)

SSJ5 said:


> Okay, America is a country based on God's word and the Bible lmao what did they expect? I mean in court they make you swear on the damn Bible. I think that is just ignorant really, they didn't say anyone had to pray nor did they force them too. Not everyone in the country believes in God, but most do. *isn't it right to have the most popular religion as the base of the country?*



No, not if it's a republic with a constitution that strictly seperates church and state. There are a lot of people like you who have the false impression that the USA is a pure democracy in which the majority has the absolute power and can completely disregard minorities or human rights.


----------



## Vandal Savage (Oct 8, 2008)

I'll agree that this day isn't needed but neither is this lawsuit.


----------



## Pretty Good Satan (Oct 8, 2008)

Excellent.


----------



## Boom Burger (Oct 8, 2008)

What a fucked up reason to sue.


----------



## GrimaH (Oct 8, 2008)

Yeah, I mean, protecting the Constitution is so fucked up.


----------



## lava (Oct 8, 2008)

Xyfar said:


> Kay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No such thing as an eight year old stuck in a 19 year old body. *FAIL*

"Hmm... you're not very patriotic for dissin' the English language... I suspect you of Terrorism " 
I suppose you think the kinder garden students also terrorize the English language right? FAIL

Show me an 8 year old in 7th grade, I want actual evidence , not ur usual typed up horse manure . 

"Yeah, I'm sure your job is great, but that doesn't have anything to do with this.
" To bad it does , ur to stupid to realize it. An unintelegent peson would never have a good job, and if he somehow got the good job, it wouldnt of been to long before he would of got fired for his "unintelegents" according to you.  AGAIN FAIL 

Oh and Saulsofdat? LUlz~ the very same guy that stabs little pigs and eats their hearts for his ritual? LAWL what a joke.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 8, 2008)

lava said:


> Oh and Saulsofdat? LUlz~ the very same guy that stabs little pigs and eats their hearts for his ritual? LAWL what a joke.


sigged


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> No, that's *the* definition, and the only one which includes all definitions of atheism.



You mean the most convenient for this argument? 

You do realize that several people have posted sources saying that the definition is wider to include all religion right? Doesn't matter what you think the only definition is, people out there are using a wider one all of the time. 

Just because the roots of the words that make up the term mean one thing, doesn't mean it only means that. Words evolve, they're changing all of the time as new things are discovered or new beliefs come into being. 

Could it be that the word is western in origin and that when it was made the only religion to be against were based on deities...doesn't matter, it still includes them.


----------



## Toby (Oct 8, 2008)

I just deleted a whole tl;dr post because this was getting too long. 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> ...*its not like anyone is being favored here* and again *no one is being forced.*



Two bolded statements, and what really pisses off anyone who is either atheist or in favour of the secular principles of the Constitution. 

Quite frankly, I think the group that really is being offended here are the religious. Their faith is the only thing which is intruded upon since it is a private institution which , in the mindset of the Constitution that is. But as long as they are fine with it, it shouldn't bother anyone, unless they don't like the mix of politics and religion, which this law clearly proclaims. But if they don't invoke their rights, the law-suit will have little sway in the court as an offensive law as regards atheists et al.

I think that if people are to pray for the country, then it should be because it is on the national holiday, and because people want to do so voluntarily. Which they do already, so I don't see the need for a new holiday like this. That doesn't meant their law-suit is pointless though, since they're actually going up against the law itself. It's serious business.


----------



## Zephos (Oct 8, 2008)

SSJ5 said:


> Okay, America is a country based on God's word and the Bible lmao what did they expect? I mean in court they make you swear on the damn Bible. I think that is just ignorant really, they didn't say anyone had to pray nor did they force them too. Not everyone in the country believes in God, but most do. isn't it right to have the most popular religion as the base of the country?



How the fuck does anyone grow up thinking this is even remotely the basis of the USA.


----------



## Toby (Oct 8, 2008)

I'm curious. Does American television feature people swearing on the Bible more frequently than people swearing by the Constitution? I'd think so, since the latter only happens every four years, and only then is it a single event.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 8, 2008)

lava said:


> No such thing as an eight year old stuck in a 19 year old body. *FAIL*
> 
> "Hmm... you're not very patriotic for dissin' the English language... I suspect you of Terrorism "
> I suppose you think the kinder garden students also terrorize the English language right? FAIL



 You fail to see the hypocrisy, and false assumption of my sarcasm. 



> Show me an 8 year old in 7th grade, I want actual evidence , not ur usual typed up horse manure .



 You fail to understand the meaning of a figure of speech, I.E. "-- year old stuck in a -- year old's body." You definitely failed english class.

And you fail to provide what I said correctly, never once said that 8 year olds are in seventh grade.



> "Yeah, I'm sure your job is great, but that doesn't have anything to do with this.
> " To bad it does , ur to stupid to realize it. An unintelegent peson would never have a good job, and if he somehow got the good job, it wouldnt of been to long before he would of got fired for his "unintelegents" according to you.  AGAIN FAIL



Garbage men make tons of money, are they unintelligent? Sorry, but I assume this is what you are, that or a terrorist 



> Oh and Saulsofdat? LUlz~ the very same guy that stabs little pigs and eats their hearts for his ritual? LAWL what a joke.



HEY! I can play the baseless assumption game too!

Oh lava... You hang and lynch black people and sacrifice them to your KKK catholic god. You also bomb and drive planes into buildings in terroristic acts.

Sorry but baseless assumptions are fail, and that's what you use in your arguments.

Oh! And you never told me who I was following on this forum. Please, tell me whom.

You are stupid, stop posting.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2008)

Toby_Christ said:


> I just deleted a whole tl;dr post because this was getting too long.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see what you mean there really and I never thought of it like that. It doesn't offend me because I don't see them having any governing power over that or the Catholic Church. 



Toby_Christ said:


> I'm curious. Does American television feature people swearing on the Bible more frequently than people swearing by the Constitution? I'd think so, since the latter only happens every four years, and only then is it a single event.



Well in court shows all of the time. But even then why have them swear on anything? I think that there doesn't need to be a book involved or a document.


----------



## Taco (Oct 8, 2008)

Xyfar said:


> You fail to see the hypocrisy, and false assumption of my sarcasm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can *both* of you stop posting nonsense?


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 8, 2008)

Forbidden Truth said:


> Can *both* of you stop posting nonsense?



Not until he leaves the forum.

Quit the goody goody game too, it's rather pathetic.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 8, 2008)

Forbidden Truth said:


> Can *both* of you stop posting nonsense?



Who died and made you a mod?
If you can't handle seeing a discussion(how silly it may be),gtfo


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2008)

Xyfar said:


> Not until he leaves the forum.
> 
> Quit the goody goody game too, it's rather pathetic.



It's really not fair for you guys to beat up on someone who is so obviously unarmed when it comes to wits...


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's really not fair for you guys to beat up on someone who is so obviously unarmed when it comes to wits...



we don't discriminate


----------



## Toby (Oct 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I see what you mean there really and I never thought of it like that. It doesn't offend me because I don't see them having any governing power over that or the Catholic Church.



Well, they don't, legally speaking, yet here they are, acting like they do. Only the church can decide what is a holy day for their religion, and if they do so, they can pass a motion or appeal to the legislature to recognise it as a national holiday. Over time, these things tend to happen sooner or later. For example, in European countries in general, shops and businesses are closed on Sundays. Final. Christian law originally, dictated by scripture that it is the holy day, right? Well, since then it has simply become traditional. I don't see atheists complaining about it over there, if you catch my drift. But the way it happened is an example of how it ought to be done, in my opinion. The religions in the US should have been the ones pushing for this, not the government. 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Well in court shows all of the time. But even then why have them swear on anything? I think that there doesn't need to be a book involved or a document.



I'm afraid that there must be a standard of honesty in the US court-system, simply because it is the traditional way of doing things and it is too late to change it. If it was to change, it would be because there are fewer practising Christians, because they are the ones who think the Holy Bible (well, really The Ten Commandments) are the statute of morality, and lying is a sin, well, in some cases, according to The Bible.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2008)

Toby_Christ said:


> Well, they don't, legally speaking, yet here they are, acting like they do. Only the church can decide what is a holy day for their religion, and if they do so, they can pass a motion or appeal to the legislature to recognise it as a national holiday. Over time, these things tend to happen sooner or later. For example, in European countries in general, shops and businesses are closed on Sundays. Final. Christian law originally, dictated by scripture that it is the holy day, right? Well, since then it has simply become traditional. I don't see atheists complaining about it over there, if you catch my drift. But the way it happened is an example of how it ought to be done, in my opinion. The religions in the US should have been the ones pushing for this, not the government.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that there must be a standard of honesty in the US court-system, simply because it is the traditional way of doing things and it is too late to change it. If it was to change, it would be because there are fewer practising Christians, because they are the ones who think the Holy Bible (well, really The Ten Commandments) are the statute of morality, and lying is a sin, well, in some cases, according to The Bible.



If they want something people believe in they should have them swear on a stack of money


----------



## Toby (Oct 8, 2008)

Diceman said:


> Who died and made you a mod?
> If you can't handle seeing a discussion(how silly it may be),gtfo



This. Seriously. People discuss the news in here. What else do you expect?


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's really not fair for you guys to beat up on someone who is so obviously unarmed when it comes to wits...



 Why not!?


----------



## lava (Oct 8, 2008)

Xyfar said:


> You fail to see the hypocrisy, and false assumption of my sarcasm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



#1 How the hell do u tell if one is being sarcastic , when u cant even hear their voice?( yet alone when the guy is retarded ) dont make it to hard on ur self bro. U fail once again LAWL.

#2 Again I dont know weather it was figure of speech or just plain stupidity. FAIL

#3 I am not a garbage man , I Real Estate thank you very much. Fail

#4 you follow ur cult. 

#5 nice baseless assumption . To bad im not even catholic , I dont hang black people as my brother in law is black. Nice try though. FAIL

Oh and bw. Why is it that you wont stop until I leave the thread? I wasnt the one that started the argument. I believe it was Zephos. Then u partnered up with him, and starting dissing me, or at least "tried" to diss me.

I can no longer enjoy ur endless Failing lol


----------



## Zephos (Oct 8, 2008)

I love how completely incomprehensibly stupid your sig is.
Your simultaneously accusing Obama of communism, nazism, and extremist islam.

Three things that completely contradict each-other and historically fought.

I think at this point your just Beleive It's Id, expelled after heavy duty meditation.


----------



## Adonis (Oct 8, 2008)

lava said:


> #1 How the hell do u tell if one is being sarcastic , when u cant even hear their voice?( yet alone when the guy is retarded ) dont make it to hard on ur self bro. U fail once again LAWL.



Alex, I'd like to solve the puzzle: What is context derived from surrounding text?



> #3 I am not a garbage man , I Real Estate thank you very much. Fai



The fact you still believe "fail" is a cool comeback rather than lame 4chan weeaboo lingo is indicative of your maturity/intelligence.



> #4 you follow ur cult.



If you want to play games with semantics, by definition, your religion is much closer to a cult if not outright a cult. 



> #5 nice baseless assumption . To bad im not even catholic , I dont hang black people as my brother in law is black. Nice try though. FAIL
> 
> Oh and bw. Why is it that you wont stop until I leave the thread? I wasnt the one that started the argument. I believe it was Zephos. Then u partnered up with him, and starting dissing me, or at least "tried" to diss me.
> 
> I can no longer enjoy ur endless Failing lol



This is the point where both you and Xyfar, as opposed to just you like usual, became incoherent and I stopped caring.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2008)

Lava should give it up.


----------



## abstract (Oct 8, 2008)

officially the dumbest holiday ever btw- 


but at the same time, how gay on the atheists part. 

Seriously, it's a stupid holiday that most people don't even know about.  suing over bullshit is something that I would expect out of the conservative right.


----------



## lava (Oct 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Lava should give it up.



LOL Ill give up because of youpekpekpek


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You mean the most convenient for this argument?




No, I mean the only definition of atheism which encompasses all the others. Seriously, didn't you learn reading comprehension in school?



> You do realize that several people have posted sources saying that the definition is wider to include all religion right? Doesn't matter what you think the only definition is, people out there are using a wider one all of the time.



It's not the only definition, but the most general one. All the others are somehow specified (strong atheism, weak atheism, gnostic/agnostic atheism). If you just say atheism, you must assume that it's a very general definition which must of course include the otherss



> Just because the roots of the words that make up the term mean one thing, doesn't mean it only means that. Words evolve, they're changing all of the time as new things are discovered or new beliefs come into being.
> 
> Could it be that the word is western in origin and that when it was made the only religion to be against were based on deities...doesn't matter, it still includes them.



Oh, so if I start defining christianity as mormonism, that would be alright, too? Language evolves, after all, so if I get a few people to define christianity as mormonism and put it on the internet, it'll be a valid definition and I can use it in any discussion. YAY!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 9, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> No, I mean the only definition of atheism which encompasses all the others. Seriously, didn't you learn reading comprehension in school?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually my definition encompasses all others, your encompasses only thing about godlessness. Remember? 

Just like Christianity includes Mormonism.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Actually my definition encompasses all others, your encompasses only thing about godlessness. Remember?
> 
> Just like Christianity includes Mormonism.



If you lack belief in a god, that includes every other definition of atheism  If you are a gnostic atheist and claim knowedge that there is no god, you still lack belief in him. A definition of atheism which doesn't deal with gods is just completely nonsense and would be more like defining christianity as islam.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 9, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> If you lack belief in a god, that includes every other definition of atheism  If you are a gnostic atheist and claim knowedge that there is no god, you still lack belief in him. A definition of atheism which doesn't deal with gods is just completely nonsense and would be more like defining christianity as islam.



Earlier it was said that not all religions had a God, now all of a sudden lacking a belief in God includes not believing in those same religions. Are you changing your stance or...what?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Earlier it was said that not all religions had a God, now all of a sudden lacking a belief in God includes not believing in those same religions. Are you changing your stance or...what?



I'll make this very simple: Saying atheism means rejecting all religions is nonsense. People are either theist (believe in gods) or atheists (anything else). By claiming atheism means not having a religion, you are saying that Jainists are neither theists nor atheists. Care to tell what Jainists are in your opinion?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 9, 2008)

Never even heard the word, so I won't bother looking it up and just sprouting that off. I have no opinion on it. But I know what most atheist groups I have seen tend to say they believe.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 9, 2008)

I don't care what the other kids say. You know that it is nonsense, so stop using their definition.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 9, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> I don't care what the other kids say. You know that it is nonsense, so stop using their definition.



It's on Wikipedia and another atheist website. You're going to have to agree to disagree with me.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Never even heard the word, so I won't bother looking it up and just sprouting that off. I have no opinion on it. But I know what most atheist groups I have seen tend to say they believe.



You claim ignorance on a point that he has, say you won't bother looking it up, when it really backs up what he is trying to say in full. 

I took the liberty of looking up what Jainists are and it would seem that they have no belief in a god, yet it is indeed a religion. So what would you call those? 

Certainly aren't a theist in any manner.

EDIT: How do you ignore someone by the way? I really would like to learn how to avoid stupid posts in the future.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 9, 2008)

Xyfar said:


> You claim ignorance on a point that he has, say you won't bother looking it up, when it really backs up what he is trying to say in full.
> 
> I took the liberty of looking up what Jainists are and it would seem that they have no belief in a god, yet it is indeed a religion. So what would you call those?
> 
> ...



I didn't look it up because he asked what my opinion was on the matter. I don't have one.  But what I am saying is that, even an atheist would differ from Jainism in most cases if it is indeed a religion. (after looking it up, it seems they believe in souls and other stuff atheists don't) 

To ignore...you go to the person profile and click on the user list part and then click on it. The last one should be Ignore List.


----------



## GrimaH (Oct 9, 2008)

> they believe in souls and other stuff atheists don't



.
Didn't I clear this up?


----------



## GrimaH (Oct 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Never even heard the word, so I won't bother looking it up and just sprouting that off. I have no opinion on it. But I know what *most* atheist groups I have seen tend to say they believe.



There's your problem.
Most atheists =/= all atheists.


----------



## Xyfar (Oct 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I didn't look it up because he asked what my opinion was on the matter. I don't have one.  But what I am saying is that, even an atheist would differ from Jainism in most cases if it is indeed a religion. (after looking it up, it seems they believe in souls and other stuff atheists don't)
> 
> To ignore...you go to the person profile and click on the user list part and then click on it. The last one should be Ignore List.



Well that's where we would get to actually placing the group. Would they be placed under atheism in some sort? Because of the varying degrees of atheism it surely could fit in there somewhere.  

The main thing that makes a theist actually a theist is a  belief in a god. Rejecting the existence of a god makes you an atheist. If your religion does not include a god, it surely would make you an atheist. But again, that's where you get into the varying degrees of atheism.

*ahem* and thanks for clearing the ignore function for me, twas very helpful and I think I am safe from my brain exploding.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 9, 2008)

Xyfar said:


> Well that's where we would get to actually placing the group. Would they be placed under atheism in some sort? Because of the varying degrees of atheism it surely could fit in there somewhere.
> 
> The main thing that makes a theist actually a theist is a  belief in a god. Rejecting the existence of a god makes you an atheist. If your religion does not include a god, it surely would make you an atheist. But again, that's where you get into the varying degrees of atheism.
> 
> *ahem* and thanks for clearing the ignore function for me, twas very helpful and I think I am safe from my brain exploding.



Yeah, I am going to go ignore lava so I don't have to go slam my dick in the door...again.


----------



## Qrαhms (Oct 9, 2008)

In my country, every religion get its own holidays, to note that the constitution recognize the country as being multiracial. In other words, we get to get holidays from other religious celebrations, which means that even if it is not your religious celebration, you will get a break as well. In short, more religious holidays, more breaks. And no discrimination. You can either attend open houses or mind your own business.

Atheists should get a day of for something, but again, atheists are atheists. That's what they are, what they believe in. Thing is, unless if they can think of an excuse for anything, they can't request for a day break for a celebration or whatever kinda crap, because they don't have any.

And if you don't have any, why bitch?


----------



## Jello Biafra (Oct 9, 2008)

We're bitching because it is a fundamental principle of the US Constitution to not make any legal, government endorsed distinction among religious faiths. 

But why care? It's only the rule of law...


----------



## Qrαhms (Oct 9, 2008)

lol Then my post is only legit if what happened at your place happens at my country.

Our country's constitution was different, I should have looked into this earlier.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Oct 9, 2008)

Qrαhms said:


> lol Then my post is only legit if what happened at your place happens at my country.
> 
> Our country's constitution was different, I should have looked into this earlier.



It's a forgiveable mistake. Don't worry about it. A large number of my country men don't realise it either.


----------



## Xion (Oct 9, 2008)

GrimaH said:


> There's your problem.
> Most atheists =/= all atheists.



Even the atheists seem to have their extremists.


----------



## drache (Oct 9, 2008)

I really don't get what's so hard to understand here CTK, *not all religions pray or even believe in prayer*.

That alone should show you that this idea is baised in favoring some religions over others.

The rest of your arguement seems mere semantics trying to pull away from the above point which is all that really matters.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 9, 2008)

drache said:


> I really don't get what's so hard to understand here CTK, *not all religions pray or even believe in prayer*.
> 
> That alone should show you that this idea is baised in favoring some religions over others.
> 
> The rest of your argument seems mere semantics trying to pull away from the above point which is all that really matters.



And I don't see what's so hard about seeing that all people aren't Irish, but we still have a Saint Patrick's Day, not everyone is a Jew or a Christian yet Christmas and Hanukkah are specifically marked off for them on our calenders.

 In other times the government has moved holidays for asinine reasons, like they did with Thanksgiving before.

Despite all of the argument it doesn't matter, the atheists in this case, whether they believe in just no God, or if they are against all religion are wasting tax payer money and the government's time prosecuting a case that really doesn't harm them in any way or force them to do anything unsavory. 

As offensive as I find fucking Stephanie Meyer day (the woman who wrote Twilight) I'm not going to sue her because of it. I'm sorry but being offended isn't enough for a lawsuit. 

And whether this is unconstitutional is arguable because frankly, as I said before, this isn't them endorsing a religion. That's all that passage in the constitution means. At the same time, prayer doesn't have to be made to a God, it can be made to any object of worship, whether you worship God, or a country or anything. 

You guys have this argument *based *on semantics and don't realize that really prayer and meditation can be considered closely related. All it takes for this to be a prayer is someone saying in their head, "I hope our nation comes through this." 

Oh my God, that's so unconstitutional. Let's go sue Bush and waste a shit load of money that our country can't afford to.


----------



## drache (Oct 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And I don't see what's so hard about seeing that all people aren't Irish, but we still have a Saint Patrick's Day, not everyone is a Jew or a Christian yet Christmas and Hanukkah are specifically marked off for them on our calenders.
> 
> In other times the government has moved holidays for asinine reasons, like they did with Thanksgiving before.
> 
> ...


 

Look at all that text and yet so little substance.

Let's clear something up Christmas as it's celebrated isn't religious. St. Patties though a great excuse to get drunk isn't religious as it's celebrated.

And niether holiday was established by the goverment, it was the goverment recongizing a holiday that a very large majority already celebrated.

Now unless you're prepared to argue that praying is a once a year event and everyone just happens to pray on the same day you've got nothing.

This act is clearly unconsitutional, you've been provided with a number of religions that don't believe in prayer and you're got no example of the goverment doing soemthing like this previously.


I will repeat myself once last time though, mediation is not nor will it ever be comparabe directly to prayer. A mediation can be a prayer but a prayer can not be a mediation. Thus you are wrong.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 9, 2008)

drache said:


> Look at all that text and yet so little substance.
> 
> Let's clear something up Christmas as it's celebrated isn't religious. St. Patties though a great excuse to get drunk isn't religious as it's celebrated.
> 
> ...



If meditation isn't comparable to prayer, how come it so often is? And you can declare someone wrong all you want, but you still didn't address the fact that this is yet another frivolous law suit and a waste of time. 

And that this has nothing to do with separation of Church and state since as I said before this isn't an endorsement of one religion or a government religion being called out. 

There is no one Church involved here or even a religion named and once again *no one is being force to pray. *


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If meditation isn't comparable to prayer, how come it so often is? And you can declare someone wrong all you want, but you still didn't address the fact that this is yet another frivolous law suit and a waste of time.
> 
> And that this has nothing to do with separation of Church and state since as I said before this isn't an endorsement of one religion or a government religion being called out.
> 
> There is no one Church involved here or even a religion named and once again *no one is being force to pray. *



 What did I say? What did drache just say? IT FAVORS THOSE RELIGIONS WHICH BELIEVE IN PRAYER OVER THOSE THAT DON'T. How hard is that to grasp?

Besides, a lawsuit about the direct violation of the constitution by the government is a waste of time? Well I guess most of the surpreme court cases are just as much of a waste of time then.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 9, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> What did I say? What did drache just say? IT FAVORS THOSE RELIGIONS WHICH BELIEVE IN PRAYER OVER THOSE THAT DON'T. How hard is that to grasp?
> 
> Besides, a lawsuit about the direct violation of the constitution by the government is a waste of time? Well I guess most of the surpreme court cases are just as much of a waste of time then.



Okay...so what you are saying is that it favors those religions. 

Alright government gives religion tax breaks right, but it only favors those who actually use money or even would have taxes to begin with. At times religious institutions are given protection orders that keep certain businesses away from them for some many hundreds of feet, but that only favors ones that have buildings. 

The problem that some atheists have is they can't pick their battles wisely. So people see them as petty. This is one of those occasions. This isn't some huge upset where you're being forced to pray in schools or herded in front of a monitor and told to listen for daily prayers. 

This is a holiday being brought up, one that already existed I think, and one that favors some religions over others. Everything favors something or someone over the other. But this is a waste of time. 

If the government tries to tell you that all Church must worship on Sunday, or that you've got to close for a religious holiday because its required by that religion, or if they try to name a religion as their official one, then you can get all up and arms and people will see why. 

This is petty and silly, frankly. And still I don't think its unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's often interpret's the consitution. I doubt they will have any trouble with this since its nothing being forced on any one. 

This could be fixed with someone just ignoring it and not worrying about something so silly and stupid. You live in a country where most people believe in some kind of God. And while its not fair for that God to take a presidence over your life, it isn't here. You're making something out of nothing.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Oct 9, 2008)

well this is what i say. Just because something is a holiday national or otherwise doesn't mean you HAVE to celebrate it. Just like creationists don't HAVE to watch a tv program on evolution, or I HAVE to listen to country music. There are probably hundreds of people who don't celebrate christmas or halloween.


----------



## drache (Oct 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If meditation isn't comparable to prayer, how come it so often is? And you can declare someone wrong all you want, but you still didn't address the fact that this is yet another frivolous law suit and a waste of time.
> 
> And that this has nothing to do with separation of Church and state since as I said before this isn't an endorsement of one religion or a government religion being called out.
> 
> There is no one Church involved here or even a religion named and once again *no one is being force to pray. *


 

Because mediation can be and is often so much more then just prayer

When I mediate as a Buddhist I am not invoking any higher power nor am I asking for anything.

If you can't understand that then you can't understand the fundmental arguement against this.

And as has been already ruled by the courts even a preference where noone is physically forced to do anything is still unconsitutional.

If you want to pray go do it on your own time just like I wil mediate on my own time.

I would never demand that others be made to set aside thier own time for my religious beliefs. That's selfish and here it's unconstitutional


----------



## lava (Oct 9, 2008)

Star Spangled Banner


                                   I pledge allegiance 
                                       to the Flag 
                          of the United States of America
                                  and to the Republic
                                 for which it stands,
*ONE NATION UNDER GOD* 
                                       indivisible,
                                      with liberty 
                                  and justice for all.

We also have  a huge load of bumper stickers that say "God Bless America"

and the star spangled banner  . I just took the last part of the lyrics. HERE ya go 

"Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"   OWNED! even our money says in God we trust.


----------



## Adonis (Oct 9, 2008)

lava said:


> Star Spangled Banner
> 
> 
> I pledge allegiance
> ...



Does being this Goddamn stupid cause you physical ailment?


----------



## hammer (Oct 9, 2008)

Adonis said:


> Does being this Goddamn stupid cause you physical ailment?



Even though it pains me to say this lava has a point.(OMFG I SAID IT) those things shouldnt be in there infact people REFUSE to say the pelge because of the god part.


i agreed with lava i need to get my head examend


----------



## drache (Oct 9, 2008)

hammer said:


> Even though it pains me to say this lava has a point.(OMFG I SAID IT) those things shouldnt be in there infact people REFUSE to say the pelge because of the god part.
> 
> 
> i agreed with lava i need to get my head examend


 
No he doesn't because what Lava either doesn't know or doesn't say is none of those things were originally there.

They were added ~1950s at the hieght of McCarthyism.


----------



## hammer (Oct 9, 2008)

drache said:


> No he doesn't because what Lava either doesn't know or doesn't say is none of those things were originally there.
> 
> They were added ~1950s at the hieght of McCarthyism.



at the very least shouldnt we remove in god we trust from are money?


----------



## drache (Oct 9, 2008)

hammer said:


> at the very least shouldnt we remove in god we trust from are money?


 
We should, but the truth is the evangalicals hold so much power right now that it would never fly.

Maybe one day the county will be different but it's not, I mean look at this thread with so many saying that it's no big deal if this law favors some religions over others they'll just have to cope.

Sadly the damage the religious right has done to our country and as well as McCarthyism will not be undone over night.


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 10, 2008)

hammer said:


> at the very least shouldnt we remove in god we trust from are money?



I do...I mark through it with a sharpie on every dollar bill I get. And yes I am aware that's a federal crime.


----------



## Nekko-Sama (Oct 10, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If meditation isn't comparable to prayer, how come it so often is? And you can declare someone wrong all you want, but you still didn't address the fact that this is yet another frivolous law suit and a waste of time.
> 
> And that this has nothing to do with separation of Church and state since as I said before this isn't an endorsement of one religion or a government religion being called out.
> 
> There is no one Church involved here or even a religion named and once again *no one is being force to pray. *



Of course not.  The Christian Coalition had their fingers on the pulse of National Prayer day, the wife of the C.C. leader headed the staffing and volunteer coordination group for the National Holiday Events.

There was a big hub bub because the volunteers were asked to complete a package of papers, one page being about how the volunteer "accepts Jesus Christ into their heart".  No one if forced to pray, they aren't forced to be excluded by their own society with a holiday.

From the perspective of an atheist, a great number of the people around them are delusional and crazy about some imaginary friend.  The horror of this is that so many of those people are in our government and participate fully.  The atheist is a minority in the government.

National prayer day is a nice holiday, but the government still broke it's own law in creating it.  On a day like that, an atheist is going to work and having to deal with co-workers (who may not know of the atheists beliefs).  No one is forced to participate or tell anyone about their religious or non-religious beliefs.  It is just made to apply social pressure.  NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT RIGHT?  When it comes to government actions, lawsuits are not frivolous things.  Any one who says they are, obviously doesn't care that much about their government.


----------



## Taco (Oct 10, 2008)

Toby_Christ said:


> This. Seriously. People discuss the news in here. What else do you expect?



Yeah... To me, one person saying "you're dumb" and the other saying "I'm not" back and forth is not news. It's annoying and a waste of space.

I'm not playing a "goody goody game" by telling you both to stop acting like idiots..


----------



## Aina (Oct 11, 2008)

I'm an atheist, but the lawsuit is a bit to much. 

But, anything against Bush is always fine with me.


----------



## Nekko-Sama (Oct 11, 2008)

Sometimes what seems to be a trivial lawsuit, is really a landmark in which in the future you can trace the legal mapwork of someone somewhere having their rights taken from them and having to fight to get it back.  This lawsuit is merely a footnote to something larger.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Oct 11, 2008)

hammer said:


> at the very least shouldnt we remove in god we trust from are money?



because in america money is god


----------



## iLurk (Oct 11, 2008)

"One nation under the Christian God, if you're not Christian, prepared to be assimilated/hated against."



Jagon Fox said:


> because in america money is god



No, the USD is worth shit.


----------



## ?verity (Oct 11, 2008)

Its got nothing to do with believing in God. Isnt it just an issue of separation of church and state?


----------



## DemonAbyss10 (Oct 12, 2008)

I say it is time to make like lelouch in code geass and destroy the government, for the sake of humany 

but really, I dont have much time to go thru the many many pages in this thread (work and social life >>> anything, but hopefully some people here remember me )

My belief on this as follows: Creating this as a federally endorsed holiday means the government is favoring religion itself, which in turn =/= serparation of church and state, thus, it is unconstitutional. simple logic. if you cant understand, well then, i cant pity you because you are fellow human beings that have been brainwashed by other fellow human beings that i want to wipe from the face of the universe >_>


----------

