Obama defends, curtails National Day of Prayer

Source: Chicago Tribune

MADISON, Wis. - President Barack Obama is scaling back White House plans for Thursday's National Day of Prayer even as his administration defends the tradition in federal court in Wisconsin.

Obama's position has disappointed Christian conservatives, who want the president to do more to mark the day, and an atheist group that wants him to end the tradition.

The Obama administration has asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which claims the day violates the separation of church and state. In a rare alliance, 31 mostly Republican members of Congress and a prominent Christian legal group are joining the administration to fight the lawsuit.

Congress established the day in 1952 and in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations asking Americans to pray.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that Obama would issue such a proclamation Thursday but not hold any public events with religious leaders as President George W. Bush did.


Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-dayofprayer,0,7980566.story

others not so much, apparently.

I'm sure getting sick of the view from under this bus!

we had a president who was a constitutional lawyer, eh? ;)

I don't know why the executive branch is asking the judicial branch to dismiss the suit instead of hearing it. That's a crappy interpretation of checks and balances. "Please don't check on us, okay?"

part of the way suits were conducted in a common law system for centuries before America was a gleam in the Pilgrims' eye.

As long as the administration gets sued, shows up in court and the judge is free to decide whether or not the suit should be dismissed, the judicial branch is not being subverted in any way.

jeopardize national security? :wtf:

I hate to tell our President this, but you can't split the difference on everything.

he's probably doing the best thing.

Sometimes one side of an issue is right, and the other side is dead wrong. The "best thing" is ALWAYS, ALWAYS to do what's right.

Sometimes the most damaging ideologies push their agenda at any cost, while the more noble ideologies try to accommodate both sides, resulting in a game of push-back-hard, give-away-just-a-little, push-back-hard, give-away-just-a-little... a game that results in perpetual lost ground for the good guys, and perpetual gains for the bad guys.

Sometimes one side of an issue is either evil, destructive, mega-greedy, or absolutely f*cking insane.

We don't need some spineless arbitrator who is content to split the difference and walk the center line. We don't need some "Deep-Thoughts-By-Jack-Handy" politician who is driven by dorm-room poster poetry about "getting along" and "looking forward". What the country needs is a leader who will just do what's right and let the chips fall where they may. Because we're in a damned war here... and what's at stake is our liberty and our way of life. And we're losing badly.

So no... Obama isn't doing the "best thing". He seldom does. He does just barely enough to distinguish himself and the party from the other side - and that ain't much.

And speaking of dorm-room poster poetry... here's some I can actually believe in: "Obama... Better Than The Alternative And Not A Penny More"

I was simply objecting to your claim that universal dissent is a reliable indicator that a position is "best". Such thinking can be dangerous because it is based upon the premise that it is "best" to be positioned precisely halfway between good and bad, smart and stupid, right and wrong, educated and ignorant, or fact and fiction.

inside Obama's head.

What goes on in Obama's head is really none of my business and probably no one's business but his. His actions as POTUS vis a vis the Constitution, however, ae very much my business.

So far, we have his position on mixing of church and state, his position on FISA, his position on not prosecuting for violations of the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. I have not been bowled over by his stance or that of his D of J. So, I am going to reserve judgment.

You've been paying attention for the last 40 years, haven't you?

I think the Republicons get it too. Republicans become stronger (in numbers of voters) almost only when wedge and morality issues are in the forefront.

Rich people are great for mega donations, but each of them still has only one vote and politicians need both money and votes to win elections. Dick "Silent Majority" Nixon got this. Lee Atwater got this. Ralph Reed and other Republicans got this a lot more directly when they almost formally climbed into bed with the likes of Jones, Falwell and Kennedy in the late 70's, early 80's.

I think Obama got it, too, before he ran for the Illinois State Senate. And when he ran for the U.S. Senate, Rev. Wright--then not yet disgraced--campaigned alongside Obama. (Bill Clinton noted that when explaining Kerry's loss, as a follow up to his statement that politicians cannot ignore "cultural" issues.)

In any case, I think Obama's approach is to try to diffuse the religio-cultural divide, to stop letting the Repugns own God, family, flag, country, etc. I believe that the idea is to bring 'em back under the big tent.

I think the Republicans have caught on, too. And this is why we are now hearing from some of them that Republicans should start letting go of the choice and orientation issues.

Like you, I believe in doing things on principle. However, that position gets shaky when I contemplate the Permanent Republican Majority. On the other hand, I think time (not to mentioin sanity) is passing the Republicans by on the wedge issues anyway. So, I think we are giving up way more than we are losing when we compromise on the Constitution.

issue. Besides, that is one of the worst standards I can think of to evaluate anyone's actions.

And he's handling this on a political level. Is that so terrible?

2+2=4.5

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5602805&mesg_id=5602894

He receives no votes from the Christian conservative base.

But I'll bet that some conservative Dems in congress do!

vey much in play these days. I think Democrats are in a position to pick up churchgoer votes, as obama did in 2008, or to lose them, as Gore did in 2000 (mostly bc of Clenis, IMO) and Kerry did in 2004. (I don't want to get into another stolen vote discussion, so everyone please note that I am talking only about churchgoer votes, not the entire popular vote.)

A lot of the Democratic base are poorer people and minorities and many in both those groups are churchgoers, be it the Catholic Church for Hispanics, Italians, Irish, etc. or Protestant and evangelical churches for African Americans. After the Kennedys and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I think only God (or the Devil, depending upon your perspective) could have shaken African American votes loose from the Democratic Party, especially the less affluent. Yet, they began leaving.

Now, those who are BOTH hardcore religious AND hardcore neocon may never vote Democrat, but I think Democrats are not aiming at them. They are aiming to solidify their own 1970's (pre Roe v. Wade) base and hopefully pick up the Sermon on the Mounttype Christians, while not letting go too much of choice and equality. In other words, they are treading water as fast as they can, but it ain't easy.

That's my take anyway.

BTW, I don't think he's doing much of a straddle, just because he personally isn't hooking up with Rick Warren while the economy swirls.

Here in Ohio that year Kenny Hackwell and his handler Kkkarl did their best to divide the Dem vote by getting the marriage amendment on the ballot. They blitzed the black churches like crazy.

A few left but far less than they hoped for I'll bet.

marriage amendment tactic, though, is a very good example of the dynamic and strategy that I was trying to describe in my post.

obvious context and all that... ("Congress established the day in 1952" & "1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations asking Americans to pray" - Reagan was president at the time)

vestiges of McCarthyism

I totally see the connection between the Salem Witch trials and McCarthyism. I honestly don't see any connection, though, between a National Day of Prayer and accusing everyone under the sun of being a Communist and a traitor.

pushing a (narrow) view of what an American is and isn't, of attacking anything labeled as different, of scapegoating and vicious lies & bigotry that destroyed people - it was also a time of pushing christianity...such mentalities lump patriotism (as they define it) with christianity. Remember, an aspect of McCarthyism was to wrap oneself up in "god" and "country"

To assert the nation as a Christian nation with Christian values - since a favorite talking point in rallying people's fears was/is "communists are godless"...and how can anyone be against prayer? (how can anyone not be against terrorism?)

Also, don't forget the (early) cold war (45-52) influence either....the primary influence being fear, fear, fear.

So I see a connection between a national prayer day popping up in 1952, during the McCarthy era, because of the environment created by his witch-hunts as well as the fear generated by the cold war.


and "under God" became part of the pledge in 1954 - still the McCarthy era, though during its decline

I think when the whole picture is looked at from that time it is easy to see how Congress was (and why they were) motivated to enact a national day prayer in 1952

I also see a lot of parallels between that time and Bush's war on terror, patriot act , war, war, war, terror, terror, terror, torture push.

Think of all the fear driven, I'm afraid I'll look soft on terror (I'm afraid I'll look soft on communism) bullshit laws/actions that came to be.

The Bushies said they were full of prayers. I guess if prayer worked then, and is working now, that we would be in a whole lot worse shape if it hadn't been going on. Just saying...

I believe in the power of prayer, just private prayer for guidance.

without a Presidential Proclamation. The extent to which the Establishment Clause of our Constitution limits government is on trial.

However I feel Obama should've let the lawsuit playout rather then request a dismissal.

with his football team, is way over the line, IMO.

We are not a theocracy. The President does not have the right to proclaim that everyone should pray. And no one needs a Presidental proclamation in order to feel free to pray, either silently anywhere and at any time, or aloud on property that is not public.

I am not for Obama's gratuitously antagonizing religious folk. However, this lawsuit gave Obama a wonderful, graceful opening to at least change the day to a Day of Reflection or some such or to abolish it in order to settle the suit and avoid this distraction while the economy is foundering. He should have done that ASAP, before all these parties got involved. (I'd be very surpised if the plaintiff did not give him the opportunity to settle before they filed.) That way, he would not have risked this getting to the Roberts Court, aka 5 to 4 land, and setting a bad precedent for a very long time..

Meanwhile, Obama's far too busy with the economy to let his D of J investigate Bushco's murders, torture and rendtion, but not too busy to have his D of J fight the Freedom from Religion folk on some honorary day issue? I'll retire to Bedlam.

(And I am putting a pot of fragrant coffee on for those who truly believe that Holder's actions never have anything whatever to do with his employer's wishes.)

I landed on Faux News for a few minutes and could not believe the level of vitriol being spewed by Michelle Malkin over this issue. For people who are supposed to be love others, they sure do a lot of hating. As a christian I support the president in his stance.