• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

apdst said:
Last time I checked, Rick Perry is a citizen of the United States. Also, politicians don't check their civil rights at the door, when they're elected. Unless Perry inacts some law, order, or legislation, he's nowhere in the neighborhood of violating the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you only check your rights at the door when you go through TSA.
 
RStringfield said:
Even Washington was careful about his displays of faith not just in his professional life, but in his private life, as well.
Click to expand...
Do you view this as a careful display of faith?

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:" NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then...
Click to expand...
George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789
 
Regarding the "no law was made" and the "he has rights too and they're not checked at the door" arguments. Please go back and read the earlier posts in this thread. You're rehashing arguments that have already been dealt with.
 
Taylor said:
Do you view this as a careful display of faith?


George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789
Click to expand...

Washington signed this proclamation (he did not write it) based on a resolution passed by congress. And guess what, there was debate against it and arguments that it violated the constitution.

Thomas Tudor Tucker (A, SC) made some pointed objections: he “thought the House had no business to interfere in a matter which did not concern them. Why should the President direct the people to do what, perhaps, they have no mind to do? They may not be inclined to return thanks for a Constitution until they have experienced that it promotes their safety and happiness. We do not yet know but they may have reason to be dissatisfied with the effects it has already produced; but whether this be so or not, it is a business with which Congress have nothing to do; it is a religious matter, and, as such, is proscribed to us.”
 
1Perry said:
I think there is much history both good and bad that has been overlooked for feel good stuff.
Click to expand...

I don't see any reason to believe it was overlooked for feel good stuff.

I don't believe his general values should be taught as such. I think his farewell address is a pretty important part of history that I'd venture a guess few have ever read.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as that important. The only real importance is that it signaled a peaceful transition in the head of state.

Washington was not a particularly deep thinker when it came to forms of government. His argument about parties and factions shows good intentions and incredible naivete. Parties are an inevitable part of democracy.

Saying that the good of the country can not be seperated from a religious belief is pretty much encouraging religion. You are perfectly free to disagree just as being a citizen also he had a right to note.
Click to expand...

It does not encourage a specific practice of religion. It's in general and came in his farewell address. A farewell address is less an act of government than is a day of prayer proclamation. It has no power and is clearly more like a statement from a citizen than it would be if it came during his term.
 
RStringfield said:
Washington signed this proclamation (he did not write it) based on a resolution passed by congress. And guess what, there was debate against it and arguments that it violated the constitution.

Thomas Tudor Tucker (A, SC) made some pointed objections: he “thought the House had no business to interfere in a matter which did not concern them. Why should the President direct the people to do what, perhaps, they have no mind to do? They may not be inclined to return thanks for a Constitution until they have experienced that it promotes their safety and happiness. We do not yet know but they may have reason to be dissatisfied with the effects it has already produced; but whether this be so or not, it is a business with which Congress have nothing to do; it is a religious matter, and, as such, is proscribed to us.”
Click to expand...
I don' t doubt that a minority may have had objections... I posted it because it seems like anything but a careful display of faith. That he did not pen it himself is not terribly relevant unless his secretary had some power over him to issue a proclomation with which he did not agree. Surely Washington read it and suggested any changes he thought appropriate.
 
Taylor said:
I don' t doubt that a minority may have had objections... I posted it because it seems like anything but a careful display of faith. That he did not pen it himself is not terribly relevant unless his secretary had some power over him to issue a proclomation with which he did not agree. Surely Washington read it and suggested any changes he thought appropriate.
Click to expand...

But again, what people have done in the past does not matter when it comes to the constitutionality of an issue.
 
SlackMaster said:
But again, what people have done in the past does not matter when it comes to the constitutionality of an issue.
Click to expand...
That depends on your legal philosophy, no?
 
Taylor said:
That depends on your legal philosophy, no?
Click to expand...

I guess... But by that same logic we shouldn't question slavery because it was supported by the founding fathers and we have been doing it for so many years.

I also cited case law earlier in this thread which supports this.
 
Last edited:
SlackMaster said:
I guess... But by that same logic we shouldn't question slavery because it was supported by the founding fathers and we have been doing it for so many years.

I also cited case law earlier in this thread which supports this.
Click to expand...
No, because it was abolished by the thirteenth amendment in 1865, so what happened before then does not bear the same relevance.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
No, because it was abolished by the thirteenth amendment in 1865, so what happened before then does not bear the same relevance.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was abolished. I realize this. My argument was that prior to the 13th amendment, someone could have made the same argument regarding slavery that you and others seem to making. That the founding fathers supported something, or that they did something, or that we as a country have been doing it for a while... has no bearing on the constitutionality of an action.

This argument isn't original to me. There is case law to back this up. I cited it earlier in this thread.
 
RStringfield said:
I don't see any reason to believe it was overlooked for feel good stuff.
Click to expand...

No, I also imagine it was because of the religious references.

I don't see it as that important. The only real importance is that it signaled a peaceful transition in the head of state.
Click to expand...

No, I don't suppose you do.

Washington was not a particularly deep thinker when it came to forms of government. His argument about parties and factions shows good intentions and incredible naivete. Parties are an inevitable part of democracy.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it doesn't take thinking that's all that deep.

It does not encourage a specific practice of religion. It's in general and came in his farewell address. A farewell address is less an act of government than is a day of prayer proclamation. It has no power and is clearly more like a statement from a citizen than it would be if it came during his term.
Click to expand...

The day he was sworn in he demanded that it by on the Bible. There was a delay until the Bible was rounded up. A proclamation of prayer has no power either. Do it or not.
 
SlackMaster said:
But again, what people have done in the past does not matter when it comes to the constitutionality of an issue.
Click to expand...

You are right. It doesn't.

So what some judges have interpreted as to this establishment clause does not matter in determining the constitutionality of the issue.
The amendment says "congress shall pass no laws respecting the establishment of religion" Nowhere does it say that an elected official cannot encourage those who are religious to pray.
 
SlackMaster said:
I guess... But by that same logic we shouldn't question slavery because it was supported by the founding fathers and we have been doing it for so many years.

I also cited case law earlier in this thread which supports this.
Click to expand...

We also had to pass a Constitutional Adm to change that.
 
SlackMaster said:
Regarding the "no law was made" and the "he has rights too and they're not checked at the door" arguments. Please go back and read the earlier posts in this thread. You're rehashing arguments that have already been dealt with.
Click to expand...

You keep saying please go back... But I have not seen anything that shows he signed a passed bill into law that respects the establishment of religion.

Encouraging religious folks to pray is not passing a law.
 
madman said:
LOL, silly :lamo

'Massive heat wave' on way; Okla. tries prayer - Weather - msnbc.com

In the thick of the heat wave is Oklahoma where Gov. Mary Fallin asked Oklahomans to pray for rain this Sunday.

"The power of prayer is a wonderful thing, and I would ask every Oklahoman to look to a greater power this weekend and ask for rain," Fallin said in a news release on Thursday.
Fallin on Thursday also issued a ban on outdoor burning for the western half of the state because of the extreme drought conditions.

---
Prayer does not work, never has, never will. There is ZERO scientific evidence. it only give people that warm fuzzy feeling.
Click to expand...

This guy thinks Global Warming and Climate Change are a myth....As a shill for big oil, he has done more to smear and muddy real climate science.

inhofe-dope-okie.jpg


As bad as I feel for the people of OK... they voted for him.
 
Caine said:
You are right. It doesn't.

So what some judges have interpreted as to this establishment clause does not matter in determining the constitutionality of the issue.
The amendment says "congress shall pass no laws respecting the establishment of religion" Nowhere does it say that an elected official cannot encourage those who are religious to pray.
Click to expand...

Once again, you've made an argument that was brought up earlier in this thread. Please go back and read the rest of the thread.
 
Caine said:
You keep saying please go back... But I have not seen anything that shows he signed a passed bill into law that respects the establishment of religion.

Encouraging religious folks to pray is not passing a law.
Click to expand...

It was stated numerous times that it doesn't have to be a law to be an establishment clause violation. There is plenty of case law to support this.
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
This guy thinks Global Warming and Climate Change are a myth....As a shill for big oil, he has done more to smear and muddy real climate science.

inhofe-dope-okie.jpg


As bad as I feel for the people of OK... they voted for him.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares.... take it to a thread on climate change....

Moving on...
 
SlackMaster said:
It was stated numerous times that it doesn't have to be a law to be an establishment clause violation. Ther is plenty of case law to support this.
Click to expand...

And they are all wrong.
Because I said so.
 
Taylor said:
I don' t doubt that a minority may have had objections... I posted it because it seems like anything but a careful display of faith. That he did not pen it himself is not terribly relevant unless his secretary had some power over him to issue a proclomation with which he did not agree. Surely Washington read it and suggested any changes he thought appropriate.
Click to expand...

He added third, to the date. Congress had a power over him. He could have vetoed it but that would not have gone over well politically and probably would have been passed over his veto.

Yes, it is careful. No mention of Jesus which is common of all Washington's work. Unless you credit him with the Treaty of Tripoli, which was written under his administration.
 
SlackMaster said:
Regarding the "no law was made" and the "he has rights too and they're not checked at the door" arguments. Please go back and read the earlier posts in this thread. You're rehashing arguments that have already been dealt with.
Click to expand...

Your arguments are just as erroneous now, as they were then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom