the blizzog @ jamiegaines.com

I think this is a great idea!

I'll bring the kool-aid...

Look on the bright side. Thanks to the economy, the country's obesity problem will be a thing of the past.

Especially if we do this fasting thing.

Flaws in your commentary:
First, the proposed bill does not "decree" that its people pray to God. There is no "Worship (insert diety of choice.) Or else." clause nor lawful enforcement of a "decree" but rather a declaration of day of prayer, fasting and reflection for those who are encouraged and then choose to participate.

Additionally, I am amused that you sound shocked that such a bill was even proposed in the United States. However, this type of declaration has been made repeatedly in American history through some of American’s most respected leaders like Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln. You’re right that this country was founded partly on religious freedom, however, the First Amended of the Constitution has been widely misconstrued. The founding fathers of this country did not want freedom from religion but rather freedom of religion. What they wanted to prevent was a reoccurrence of England’s Conventicle Act of 1665 wherein the public was forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was enforced by imprisonment and/or torture. That certainly is not how the current U.S. Government treats or views non-Christians though the radical lefties may disagree. To say that this bill, in nature, is like England’s historical practice of religious oppression is to profess your ignorance of American history and principals. I daresay the opposite often happens – the voice of the Christian is quickly and loudly criticized by liberals who are blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

I challenge you take the time to learn more about first amendment of the U.S. Constitution before you again tackle the topic which I surmise is your basis of your diatribe. Try reading the U.S. Constitution and its amendments; Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802 (the source of the phrase "separation of church and state" which is NOT in the first amendment); John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (MI: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 243.; M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5; John Witherspoon, "Sermon on the Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men" May 17, 1776.

Awesome. My very first flame!

First of all, Kris, thanks for reading. I'm curious to know how you found out about the Blizzog. Do I know you?

Wow. Where do I start? I guess this is what I get for dashing off a quick rant without doing a lot of proof reading.

What can I say? You got me on the choice of the word "decree", which according to Dictionary.com means "An authoritative order having the force of law." It was a poor choice of words on my part. I did not interpret the bill to mean that all people would be forced to pray and fast on a given day. I do recognize that the bill was meant to set aside a day for these purposes, nothing more.

The real thrust of my argument and irritation with this bill is that it is just another example of blowhard Congressmen speaking to hear themselves talk while doing absolutely nothing to help the American people. This is really no different to me than the asinine "Freedom Fries" issue. I don't understand why we have to pay tax money so these people can waste the country's time on things that do not improve the American condition.

The religious aspect of this particular bill was of secondary annoyance to me, but I can see now in re-reading it how it didn't really come across that way. But since that's what your comments were about, Kris, we can talk about that too.

I am a big believer in a person’s right to practice whatever religion they choose or to practice no religion at all. I think that in general most faiths have something to offer their believers in terms of teaching morality, self-discipline, and generosity, and I would never argue that this is a bad thing. At the same time, I have a huge problem with people – and more to the point a government - that actively promote one religion as "better" than another and try to cram their beliefs down the throats of others. One’s religion is an intensely personal matter and I don’t feel that anyone should tell you what you should or shouldn’t believe.

As for the First Amendment and how it relates to this issue, thanks for your cut-and-paste quotes from "The Myth of Separation of Church and State" as well as your "challenge" that I read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I’ve read it. Thanks.

As your "Myth" article correctly asserts, the framers of the Constitution did intend that the government be prevented from establishing a national religion, though not necessarily be kept from favoring one over the other. Indeed, Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) states, "'Probably, at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation." It would seem then that the original object of the religion clause was not to prevent general Government encouragement of Christianity, but prevent religious persecution and the establishment of a national church.

If you know as much as you profess to know about the Constitution, then you will know that it is often referred to as a "living document". This means in part that the exact enforcement and interpretation of the document is shaped by the years of laws and court cases that have come and gone since its original creation. Even a cursory review of the court decisions made since the creation of the Constitution will show that the Court has all but abandoned this original interpretation of the religion clause being meant only to prevent the establishment of a national religion.

One of the earliest examples of this point is the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case in which the Court said, without dissent that "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."

It is this "prefer one religion over another" that I have a problem with when it comes to bills like this. When the bill says things like "Whereas, on June 28, 1787, during the debate of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin, convinced of God's intimate involvement in human affairs, implored the Congress to seek the assistance of Heaven in all its dealings;" and further asks the people "to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings" I see a huge Christian bias here. This to me seems to be an example of the "prefer one religion over another" problem that the Supreme Court has said is un-Constitutional.

Again, this was not really my main problem with the bill but since you think I was saying that the bill "is like England’s historical practice of religious oppression" (I wasn’t) and professing my "ignorance of American history and principals" I thought I would state my position more clearly.

I hope this helps you see a bit more clearly where I was coming from. Thanks again for the good old-fashioned flame. It’s nice to know that someone is at least reading this. Now I need to go catch up on my American Idol research.

I now understand from your rebuttal that you were not necessarily saying that the religious aspect of the bill annoyed you as much as the slant toward Christianity did. Of course you are entitled to your opinion (how gracious of me, I know) that prayer and fasting will do "absolutely nothing to help the American people." I, as I am sure you’ve concluded, disagree.

Nevertheless, I would like to point out a few flaws in your latest refutation.

When has the government promoted Christianity as the "better" religion? From my observations, politicians are so skittish whenever approached about religion that to have one flat-out say that Christianity is "better" than other religions or attempt to "cram their beliefs down the throats of others" would have every liberal lobbyist burning their photos on the evening news. If you believe the proposal of that bill was equivalent to cramming beliefs down the throats of others, you and I also have a differing definition of cramming. Also, nowhere in the language of the bill did it state that Christianity was "better" than any other religion (and thus is your beef, I’m sure.) It is, however, every politician and citizen's right to express their own view. If that means a majority of them are Christian, then so be it. Christians are entitled to benefit from the first amendment, too.

As for the "Myth of Separation of Church and State", kudos on your use of a search engine. (I hear FOX is hiring background researchers. Perhaps you should submit your curriculum vitae?) I often check with www.noapathy.org for information and articles. At the expense of doing some cramming of my own, I encourage you to check it out. All of the statements and beliefs are backed by scripture – which would only matter if you believe in the Bible and I have no idea if you do or not.

I digress. It is the paragraph referring to the Constitution as a "living document" that got my flame going once again.

If the Constitution is a "living document" then what is the point of having it on paper? Do you not see the danger of having law which can be changed and interpreted differently through time depending upon the direction of current politicians? Even Chief Justice Rehnquist said that "Our recent opinions, many of them hopelessly divided pluralities, have with embarrassing candor conceded that the ‘wall of separation’ is merely a ‘blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier,’ which ‘is not wholly accurate’ and can only be dimly perceived.’" (And that only pertains to decisions relating to the establishment clause - not to mention all of the other Constitutional issues which are reviewed and decided upon.)

All of that to say, that if you had a court with a majority of liberal or conservative Justices (as appointed by the President), the Constitution’s meaning and interpretation can be changed at any time to something completely different than what the very authors intended? And, if that is the case, why not just repeal the Constitution as it holds no real worth today as it has undergone a metamorphosis that the founding fathers never intended?

"If the Constitution can be changed on a whim or with the blowing of political winds, it no longer serves its function as the baseline and becomes just another bureaucratic hurdle for the desires of those in power at the moment." Tad Hayworth

That’s something of which we should all be wary.

P.S. In the case you sited, Everson v. Board of Education, the court ruled in favor of the Defendant.