What some people refuse to understand about the separation of church and state.

When it comes to religion, there are certain things upon which we can all agree.   We all agree that there's a God.  We all trust him.  No decent American taxpayer would be offended by a "non-sectarian" prayer.  And, of course, we all know that's why "in God we trust" and "one nation, under God" are in the Constitution.

And if you've been paying attention, you'll know that the first paragraph is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

I just read a little article in the LA Times.  Take a look.  Then, think about it again.  This is all based on the notion that monotheistic, Judeo-Christian religious views are the only ones acceptable in this nation.  It's also based on the idea that atheists, polytheists, and other non-Judeo-Christian groups are not worthy of the same consideration.  You may think I'm taking it a bit far, but consider this: 

When your leaders are spending their public time - on your tax dollars - promoting prayer and "non-denominational" activities, are they actually doing their jobs?  Is it possible to fairly represent all religions in government without causing unconstititional offense to those whose religions differ in their absolutely basic, fundamental premises? 

No, and no.

Look at this article's discussion of the Bible verse suggested for use with the National Day of Prayer (a government-sanctioned event): 
But the Scripture verse the group recommended to the governor is neither an open nor a veiled endorsement of right-wing politics -- or of Christianity, for that matter. The verse, from Psalm 28, says: "The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusted in Him, and I am helped." That passage is similar to the non- sectarian sentiments expressed in prayers offered before sessions of the U.S. Congress or the exclamation "God save the United States and this honorable court" with which the Supreme Court begins its sessions.
 

Does that seem offensive to you?  Well, if someone else wants to pray it on their own time, I wouldn't care either way, but when my elected officials are reciting it in the halls of Congress on MY time, then yes, I find it offensive.  I don't agree with the statement, nor the source.  The gender-association of God as a "man" is a concept I find offensive, so the use of the pronoun doesn't sit right with me.  I don't agree with that verse's use of the term "Lord."  More to the point, I find the attitude of the quote to be offensive - in my belief, we should not cling to deities as a shield and a source of help - deities manifest within and through the natural world, and WE are the ones responsible for our own fates within this world.  Anything less is offensive.  And then, naturally, the idea of relying on any god for shielding and strength would be considered ludicrous or offensive by an agnostic or atheist. 

What would the chance be that our government would EVER permit a Pagan to offer an opening prayer or benediction?  I mean, hell, there was ONE Hindu who offered a prayer, ONCE, in Congress last year, and his words were met with shouting from protesters and disrespect from our elected representatives... and having read the text of the Hindu's prayer, I'd say that was the closest thing to a true non-denominational prayer I'd ever heard from Washington DC.

So, why must this stuff be pushed into the public eye by our government officials?  That's the thing about Separation of Church and State:  It CAN'T be a wishy-washy sort of blurred line.  It's impossible to have it both ways.  Personally, I'd love to hear the Preamble to the Constitution recited before each session of Congress.  I'd love to hear the Declaration of Independence recited before important events.  I'd love for our elected officials to get down to business, instead of trying to placate their constitutents with the empty promise of "I prayed."  As the article later states:
"Pushed to its logical conclusion, such 1st Amendment fundamentalism would forbid presidents of the United States from invoking God in their speeches or participating in the National Prayer Breakfast,"
I couldn't agree more.

A prayer given in a "display" of faith seems to me to be empty and arrogant.  I see no sincerity in the prayers of Washington.  I see hypocrisy and vanity.  I see people putting on a display that exists in direct contradiction to their other oaths and actions.  I see a waste of time and effort.  I see people who pray to their God, and who invoke their God's name to denounce others and to push their version of morality on others, but who don't actually follow their God's alleged morality themselves.  Even if I were a Christian, I'd find their use (and yes, I mean USE) of God offensive.

Now, that's not to say that I don't believe in the power of prayer.  Truly sincere prayers, in my opinion, do have an effect.  They help to influence the state of mind of the person praying, and when you change the state of your mind, and when you focus your intentions, you can have a real impact on your reality.  I also believe in absolute religious freedom of free individuals in this country, and I would fight to the death to defend your right to practice your religion, insofar as you do not use your beliefs to bring harm to others.  I AM NOT DENOUNCING PRAYER.  I AM NOT DENOUNCING RELIGION.  I am denouncing the notion that government-sanctioned prayer belongs in the United States of America.  Until the day comes when people of every religion, and of no religion, are given equal time at the podium before Congress to offer a profession of belief or non-belief, then we are violating our Constitution.  And until Congress becomes SO efficient that it can get all of its work done, balance the budget, and have spare time left over, then I think our elected officials have more important things to do than to pass religious resolutions, endorse the National Day of Prayer, and bicker over prayer-time.

*** Feel free to debate and discuss this issue.  The rules are as follows:
1. Do not insult anyone's personal beliefs.
2. Do not come into this discussion with the assumption that your religion should take legal precedence.  (You can certainly believe that your religion is RIGHT, but we're talking about legaltiy, not faith.)
3. No cussing at people.  You can cuss (I do all the time), but not AT people.  (You should know the difference.)
4. Make sure that you know the Constitution before you allude to it.
5. If you don't live in the United States, your opinion is still valid to the discussion.  In fact, I'd love to hear your opinion.
6. You are always entitled to disagree with me, but please debate with logic.