By horace

May 2, 2010 9:48 AM | Link to this

Yes they should appeal it. How about we get rid of Martin Luther King day? I don’t like him, we shouldn’t have a day supporting him. I understand he did some good and some bad things. I don’t want his name on my calendar any more and I don’t want to ride down his streets.

By Rocky

May 2, 2010 11:07 AM | Link to this

We can call it “National Day of Reflection” so we can include other Faiths and Agnostics. We are a nation of diverse people now

By taxpayer

May 2, 2010 11:25 AM | Link to this

Put this Federal Judge in JAIL…………

By Paul McHone

May 2, 2010 11:29 AM | Link to this

“Prayer” - what does it do? Shouldn’t we spend our time and tax dollars of things that actually help people instead of Bronze Age myths and superstitions? Prove to me that “prayer” does anything in the real world and I’ll vote for it.

By Philman

May 2, 2010 2:13 PM | Link to this

Congress opens every session with Prayer, always has , why do the Godaphobes have a problem with tolerance of their fellow man? why can,t they just respect their friends& family and bow their head for a moment of Prayer, they can be thinking of other things, but at least show some respect.IS that to much to ask. it doesnt cost a red cent.

By Amber Dayton Ohio

May 2, 2010 4:13 PM | Link to this

Of course they should appeal it! Its our right!! If I want to set aside a day to pray then I should be able to! You know its sad that the sorry government it taking our rights and freedom away!

By Mike Clinch

May 2, 2010 4:28 PM | Link to this

If the far-right Christians that sponsor the National Day of Prayer will agree to interdenominational prayers only, and bring along Muslims and Jews as well, then I’d agree to an appeal. If they want to keep their own narrow, exclusivist focus, then the National Day of Prayer is clearly unconstitutional.

By Ricardo

May 2, 2010 4:42 PM | Link to this

Let’s call it “A national day of not bashing the crap out of what my friends & neighbors believe day” - no one could be against that, could they? Oh wait, the ACLU will want to weigh in on this…

By Ted

May 2, 2010 5:59 PM | Link to this

Perhaps World History means nothing to people. America was formed as a result of the “State” in England oppressing religious freedoms. His our forefathers wisely provided for separation of Church and State. The only reason people want church or religion sanctioned by the state is to later down the road… further their own personal belief of what God and who’s God should is acceptable for “the people”. TO PROTECT ALL OF OUR CITIZENS…WE AND OUR COMMON GOVERNMENT MUST NOT PROMOTE, SUPPORT OR ENCOURAGE ANY GOD. We know God exist and will hold us accountable. But we/mankind are not GODLY enough to keep our sinful ways from injuring our brothers and sisters (all Gods children). I’m sure the Church’s and Governments during the spanish inquisitions and the British religious soverignty that led to these United States… thought that their government know what was best for the citizens. PRAYER IS FOR EACH AND EVERYONE OF US, ALONE … WITH GOD. Different, the same or together by individual choice. Our Government, nor President, nor legislator should be so misguided as to endeavor to breech that separation of church and state. Remember… your religion could just as easily find it’s ideals and truths…along with what you believe to be the one God to be outlawed by those in power. Of course, they’d claim it’s for your protection. History and realities of current day religious beliefs around the world should tell you one thing for certain. BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU WANT. IT MAY SOMEDAY BE USED AGAINST YOU AND YOUR GOD, REGARDLESS OF THE TRUTH.

By Common Cents

May 2, 2010 7:08 PM | Link to this

How is this taking away anyone’s freedom? You must not be too faithful of a person if you need the government to set aside a day for you to pray

By bob

May 2, 2010 11:50 PM | Link to this

Sigh. Here we go again. Nowhere, repeat NOWHERE in the First Ammendment do the words SEPERATION, CHURCH or STATE appear. Read carefully: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF…” end of story. The federal judge is a complete and total idiot.

By bob

May 2, 2010 11:53 PM | Link to this

typo:separate…

By TRS

May 3, 2010 12:29 AM | Link to this

One assumes folks like Ted want words like “nature and nature’s God” and “inalienable rights endowed on us by the creator” eliminated from the constitution as they might construe them as promoting religion. As a nation, our history has a strong faith tradition. It is true the founding fathers incorporated into the constitution that there be no state sponsered religion and that is a good thing; yet, they also spoke freely and openly about faith within the halls of government. If their intent had been strict seperation, wouldn’t it be logical they would not have been so open or even bold in their faith advocacy? To remove faith from the public discourse and make it an entirely private matter as Ted suggests is to assume that there is some neutral, totally objective reality to go to; but, that is not the case. What is left is irreligious opinions and there is no problem with that for it is part of free speech; but why should these ideas have free access and those of religion not? If one wants to look at history, lets take a peak at the 20th Century, one of the most secular on record. Between Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and others who sought to eliminate religion from the their cultures and societies, over 100 Million people were killed, far worse than any other century. That would suggest that eliminating religion from the discussion does far more damage that including it. In sum, the founders made clear that government should be responsible to a higher authority for they knew if left to the devices of man alone, there would be great corruption. Sound familiar?

By fortressdayton

May 3, 2010 8:39 AM | Link to this

We are NOT a Christian nation. That bis precisely what out founders feared would be said one day. A national day of prayer is fine as long as you don’t ask the govt to sponsor or recognize it. Most of our founders were deists, not Christians, and they wrote the first amendment for as reason. Religion and morality do not logically follow, and non-believers are not somehow less human or moral because they do not share your superstitions. You are free to pray -just don’t ask OUR (yours AND MINE) govt to respect your beliefs. That is exactly was a govt sponsored day of prayer is. The Taliban would be proud of you all…

By TRS

May 3, 2010 9:49 AM | Link to this

fortress-I’m really surprised at your entry, normally your pretty rational - the Taliban?? 1st, your statement that the founding fathers are diests is a contested fact. Many of their writings reflect differently. http://www.practicalmanliness.com/were-our-founding-fathers-deists/. 2nd, it would be nice to discuss your assertion that religion and morality do not follow for I would contest there can be no morality without religion - that humankind’s morality has no basis other than consensus which can be changed by those same humans. Finally, I would add that belief in God is no more superstitious than non belief or belief in another life path. Each requires a degree of faith and reason. Where was it said in the Prayer proclamation or anywhere else that non believers are less human or moral? That seems to be an assumption you have taken upon yourself rather than any reality. By your use of the word superstitution, aren’t you elevating yourself to a position of higher morality by demeaning others to get there?

By a naturalized citizen

May 3, 2010 10:11 PM | Link to this

If we have earth day, we should have a National Day of Prayer.

By julyaugustus

May 3, 2010 10:31 PM | Link to this

No. The government should just keep out of the personal lives of people. They should not dictate a day for people to pray. Leave religion alone, Government! If I want to pray on a certain day, then that’s my business. That’s why there’s separation of church and state.

By Philman

May 4, 2010 6:26 AM | Link to this

The only Constitution with the phrase Seperation of church & state is , the United Soviet States of Russia, for those of you that need help, that would be USSR< article 125 of their 1965 Constitution I believe..maybe you should think about moving if you embrace that philosophy so much

By Lea

May 4, 2010 10:47 AM | Link to this

National, whatever. I pray when I feel like it. GONNA STOP ME? Like to see the atheists try. And since they do not believe, why do they care what I believe? Garbage.

By Pharrell

May 4, 2010 12:03 PM | Link to this

No one’s trying to stop anyone from praying and the judges’ decision was not based on a supposed separation of church and state clause. Her opinion is freely available online if you want to look it up.

By Squirrellygirl

May 4, 2010 12:50 PM | Link to this

Paul, tho an angel appear to you and perform miracles you would still not believe. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Those that come to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who dilligently seek him. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. It is impossible to understand the Word unless the Spirit gives you understanding, for the Word is spiritually discerned. Those that worship God must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. Read the whole Bible and pray to God for understanding, Paul. What a lously life it would be without God in your life. As long as you have breath, there is hope for you.

By Squirrellygirl

May 4, 2010 12:55 PM | Link to this

The progressives have turned protection of religious freedom into prohibiting freedom of religion. All of our forefathers believed in God, it’s on our money, and they handed out Bibles to Congress until the progressives stopped it (I believe back in the 1930’s). When they took God out of our schools, they went to hell. Our country is leaving the faith based beliefs and now we watch as it slips away from us. If we can’t stand up and say we’re not ashamed of God, then He won’t stand up for us on that day of reckoning. God is real. I wouldn’t wish a Godless life on my worst enemy.

By Squirrellygirl

May 4, 2010 12:59 PM | Link to this

Only a fool has said in his heart that there is no God. (it’s from the Bible)

By Pharrell

May 4, 2010 1:14 PM | Link to this

You are a Christian because you were born in the 20th century to a western culture where that’s the predominate faith. That’s what determined your religion. You’d believe something else if you were born in another place or another time. That alone would make be question the validity of it all.

By TRS

May 4, 2010 1:27 PM | Link to this

Sorry Pharrel - I can’t see the logic of your argument. History reflects alot of folks who became Christians born in cultures that were not. Currently the greatest growth in Christianity is occurring in places like China, Africa and South America who cultures are greatly diversified.

By Pharrell

May 4, 2010 2:40 PM | Link to this

There are converts, sure, but for the vast majority of people, it’s location, location, location. It’s certainly true 100% of the time before the rise of Christianity - 200,000 years or so of human existence, or in areas unreached by Christians, like the North America of 500 + years ago. As for the growth of Christianity now, it’s a combination of a missionary doctrine not present in (many) other faiths, and wealthier, free nations influencing poorer, less free nations. Neither of these validates the faith.

By TRS

May 4, 2010 5:32 PM | Link to this

In Old Testament early times, it is true the nations and tribes weren’t likely to reach out to each other; but, since Christ that changed dramaticallyl yet, all the missionaries, wealth or influence in the world does not explain why people like the Chinese, Arab and African Christians risk their freedoms and lives for the sake of their faith. For many of them, its not just a simple decision. If it was just a matter of location, there is no reason to take such risks. I’m not quite sure what you mean regarding validating the faith; but, if you are referring to intellectually or phylosophical evidence, it stands up well to any other explantions out there. At the end of the day, I cannot prove the truths of Christianity; yet, neither can you disprove them. Thats why each must choose their own paths, carefully I would hope.

By Pharrell

May 4, 2010 7:30 PM | Link to this

People in other lands and cultures convert to Christianity, sure, just as Christians here convert to other faiths - Cassius Clay and Sammy Davis Jr just to name two obvious examples. But your time and your place are certainly the most influential parts of the decision. The ancient Egyptians didn’t worship Jehovah. Neither did the people of pre-Columbian America. And today, there are billions of people across the globe who aren’t Christian, most often because it’s not the prevailing faith where they live. And no, there’s certainly no way to prove what’s right, which is why I don’t subscribe to any faith. I believe “The One True Faith” (TM) would be known to us. Why play games with we mere humans?

By TRS

May 4, 2010 8:02 PM | Link to this

Pharrel - Tell me, if that one true faith were made known, would it be your expectation that you would have to ability to accept it or reject it?

By Pharrell

May 4, 2010 8:18 PM | Link to this

Sure, why not? But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Why did you choose to believe in your particular brand of religion? Was it the same faith held by your family and community?

By Mamma J

May 4, 2010 9:44 PM | Link to this

It is a sad day in the USA when a judge can say that a national day of prayer is illegal and all of the people have to abide by one judge’s opinion.

By Diane

May 4, 2010 11:28 PM | Link to this

What does a national day of prayer do anyway? At best, it seems like people surround themselves with like-minded individuals and ask God for requests to fix the world according to their limited viewpoint of what is correct. At worst, people will fight like crazy because (heaven forbid) it has the word ‘Prayer’ in it, and then they’ll forget about it when it actually rolls around. I agree with other comments. What’s wrong with praying every Sunday? Or praying every day? What makes a national day of prayer any different?

By TRS

May 5, 2010 12:59 AM | Link to this

People’s belief systems and worldviews are what guides them. No one can say they do not subscribe to any faith for everyone has a worldview. For example, some may chose intellectualism as their “god”. By stating a lack of any particular faith, they are stating their belief system. By the way, to answer your question I was agnostic for a long time. I chose Christianity because I believe that is where hope and truth reside. Back to the discusssion, we would both argue that our belief systems are correct; yet, you suggest that the tests applied to your belief system should only be “ordinary” while the tests for mine need be extraordinary. Why? Why is it that evolutionary naturalists can advance unproven speculations about the origins of the earth and species (Dawkins has advanced the theory that aliens were involved in creation) and we are to accept these theories using only ordinary evidence while Christianity’s claims must be proven to an extraordinary level? Both relate to serious matters about the universe, life and its meaning, etc. I don’t see the logic in requiring a higher test as both should be looked at on their merits. As to your response to my question, it wasn’t meant as a trick question but to illistrate a point. If one knows the true faith then they would know truth and why would anyone want to reject truth? God isn’t playing games. He has given us free will to choose because he prefers we chose Him freely rather than be his slave.

By Pharrell

May 5, 2010 9:49 AM | Link to this

I’m not asking for a separate set of rules. I have no knowledge of god or gods or lack thereof. The argument that this in itself constitutes a faith is an old one that’s often advanced by the religious but it doesn’t hold water. “I have no idea” is no faith, and as a former agnostic, you of all people should understand this. Per my earlier point - you yourself converted to the prevailing faith in the U.S. And even if you’re not from here, your position that some people choose a faith that goes against their social norms and even at great personal risk is a small sample fallacy that does not counter my position that the great majority of people are influenced by where and when they live. (I’m going against the norm myself, but I recognize that I’m in the minority.) As for free will, I think I’d prefer a god that tells me what to do versus one that would allow me to “choose incorrectly” through no fault of my own and suffer eternal consequences.

By TRS

May 9, 2010 3:07 PM | Link to this

Couple of thoughts. You state you have no knowledge of god. You cannot go through life without some sort of basis for a worldview so you have to put faith in something, be it God or something else. Faith is faith. In y discovery as a former agnostic, I found I put my faith in self, be it absorbtion or accomplishment. As you might expect I disagree with your thesis RE sample fallacy - seems to me an estimated 40M Chinese Christians is hardly a fallacy, particularly in the face of a regime that persecutes and prosecutes them for their beliefs. Finally, I really find it hard to understand that someone who has mulled over these matters and chosen freely would prefer not to have to think at all and be ordered around. That is slavery. At the end of the day, we will simply have to agree to disagree but I’ve enjoyed the discussion.