Oresta

fromtheright,
Bush may not be officially the "head of the religious right", and the NY Times may not be empowered to give Bush that title, but Bush sure as hell has set himself up as a religious leader, exploiting the Executive Office to do so. Declarations of National Prayer Day and proclamations such as this one - reeking with religious allusions - are inappropriate for his secular office. He was elected to a secular office, not ordained. If he wants to lead us spiritually, he should resign the presidency and open a storefront church somewhere.
This is not an attack on Christianity. It is an expression of my irritation with the conservative posture toward the First Amendment. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Ysabella

Well, this is just a proclamation of a National Day of sorts, not even one to shut the banks down, just along the ranks of Chewing Gum Week and Secretaries' Day. Just a bunch of words.

So I harbor a hope that the wording about the unborn was put in there to placate some of the rabid foaming types who are so interested in my personal life choices and medical decisions, and not some prelude to actual legislative moves.

Wish I had a car, so I could put a "U.S. Out Of My Uterus" sticker on it.

Toto

Fromtheright: I found a current reference to Bush as head of the religious right <a href="http://www.theglobalist.com/nor/richter/2002/01-20-02.shtml" target="_blank">here.</a>

fromtheright

Oresta,

Scary stuff, huh? Almost as bad as that Christian Righter George Washington's calling for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving.

By the way, I am puzzled at you atheists' apparent horror over Christians' opposition to Roe v. Wade and abortion in general. It is not strictly or necessarily a religious or Christian position, as evidenced by Doris Gordon, an atheist Randian of Libertarians for Life. Even as an atheist myself some years ago, I was opposed to abortion as (1) it is the duty of government to protect human life from the aggression of another, (2) what seems to be overwhelming medical opinion that the fetus is a human life/person, and therefore (3) that it is government's duty to outlaw abortion. In a constitutional/federal order I think this should be on the state, rather than federal level and I understand that political compromise means that there will almost certainly not be an absolute prohibition of it. Though I disagree with its position, though, I respect the Supreme Court's authority but hope that its decision will be overturned and this issue sent back to the states, which I must admit will probably be much more evenly divided on this issue than pre-Roe. I think that many of you understand that it is not necessarily a religious/Christian issue but to hear the vitriol spewed by some this is not a universal understanding.

PopeInTheWoods

Directly compared, I'd have to say that you're right, Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation is even more blatantly unconstitutional. But GW wrote his stuff back when almost all of the American populace was either xian or deist, and well before the Supreme Court issued its many important state/church rulings. One would expect a modern President to know better.
I really don't want to rekindle the whole abortion debate. It's obviously possible for non-theists to be anti-abortion rights (you'll forgive me for taking your testimony as a prior atheist - but obviously not a "real" atheist - with a grain of salt), as shown by the atheist vs. atheist abortion debate archived somewhere on this site. But most of the "vitriol spewed" in the abortion "debate" is by self-righteous religionist bigots who take it on themselves to verbally and physically harass (often illegally, and often with the impunity granted by a "knowing wink" from sympathetic law enforcement officers) both the women exercising their legal rights and the licensed providers of those medical services. Pro-choice atheists and theists alike reserve their vitriol for those cretins.

Andy (PITW)

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: PopeInTheWoods ]</p>

PopeInTheWoods

Oh, yeah, I forgot. The nice pro-lifers who bomb clinics, shoot doctors, and propogate anthrax hoaxes somehow also tend towards theism. Consider my vitriol spewed upon them as well.

Andy (PITW)

bonduca

er...fromtheright, this is a rather puzzling statement. Can you tell me where to reference unbiased medical sources that show conclusively the fetus (especially in the early stages of gestation) is indeed to be considered a fully functioning sentient "person?" That would seem to cancel out the necessity of spending time in the womb to begin with. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Beelzebub

To fromtheright- Maybe you could inform the Shrub that the declaration of independence is not a governing document, while the 14th amendment (born or naturalized) is.

Oresta

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by fromtheright:
Scary stuff, huh? Almost as bad as that Christian Righter George Washington's calling for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PopeInTheWoods:
Directly compared, I'd have to say that you're right, Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation is even more blatantly unconstitutional. But GW wrote his stuff back when almost all of the American populace was either xian or deist, and well before the Supreme Court issued its many important state/church rulings. One would expect a modern President to know better.

I could find nothing on President Washington's proclamation, but here is a contemporary objection to to President Adams' Proclamation for a National Day of Prayer and Fasting. In its March 23, 1798, edition,the Aurora General Advertiser, a Philadelphia newspaper, said of President Adams’ proclamation calling for a day of “solemn humiliation, fasting and prayer…”

[quote]The other papers of this city have chosen to be silent this day, because the president has recommended a fast. We do not follow their example: Because there is nothing in the constitution giving authority to proclaim fasts… Because prayer, fasting, and humiliation are matters of religion and conscience, with which government has nothing to do…And because we consider a connection between state and church affairs as dangerous to religious and political freedom and that, therefore, every approach towards it should be discouraged.[quote]
American Aurora, Richard Rosenfeld, p. 113

BTW, the editor of the newspaper, Benjamin Franklin Bache, had inherited it from his grandfather. Yes, that Benjamin Franklin.

Edited for typos.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]</p>

Oresta

Oh, and about abortion. What PITW said.