Am I missing something?

**lewisipso** · 04-24-10, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by berserk

In the case at hand, I don't think it's quite as black and white as "shall" vs. "may." The government is issuing an annual proclamation in support of religion in general, which has the effect of setting the religious above the non-religious.

I disagree. The concern here is that there has been no law enacted. I will concede that the wording of the proclamation regards religion by prayer specifically but I, personally, do not have issue with the government supporting something that has been entrenched in our culture since the inseption of our country. Even before. Again I would have issue should this become madatory either for or against. There is no doubt for me that the first ammendment does not just represent a freedom from religion but also freedom of religion. Now I am somewhat back to my previous question. If it was ok then why is it not ok now?

**lewisipso** · 04-24-10, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by berserk

Even if we play that game, and pretend like the proclamation is calling to all religions equally, what about atheism?

As I understand it atheism isn't considered a religion. Atheism is a stand against religion with a belief there is no God and or supreme being.
Your points are respectfully taken. The National Day of Prayer is still a proclamation not a law. However if just a governmental proclamation designating a day for prayer is a bad thing then I worry how much of a problem it is that God and Creator are mentioned in the Declaration. jmho.