President Franklin Roosevelt urged the nation to pray to the Lord continually.

[DOC]

Here is another example that the doctrine of separation of Church and State is a relatively recent phenomenon. The link below shows how president Franklin D. Roosevelt gave a national prayer to the Lord over the radio and also urged US citizens to pray continually.

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/fdr-prayer.htm

 

[Babbylonian]

Here is another example that the doctrine of separation of Church and State is a relatively recent phenomenon.http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/fdr-prayer.htm

No, it's an example of a US President praying, which has nothing at all to do with "the doctrine of separation of Church and State."

 

[DOC]

No, it's an example of a US President praying, which has nothing at all to do with "the doctrine of separation of Church and State."

Are you saying praying over national radio to the Lord and urging US citizens to pray continually has nothing to do with the Separation of Church and State?

 

[ehcks]

Are you saying praying over national radio to the Lord and urging US citizens to pray continually has nothing to do with the Separation of Church and State?

Dunno about him, but I say yes.

Even false hope can be better than none at all, when you're in the middle of the Great Depression.

Here is another example that the doctrine of separation of Church and State is a relatively recent phenomenon.

As for this, 1802 is not recent.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_dba.html

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

 

[Babbylonian]

Are you saying praying over national radio to the Lord and urging US citizens to pray continually has nothing to do with the Separation of Church and State?

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. A President speaking is not equivalent to passing a law. That this might be confusing to anyone is a bit disheartening.

 

[Dunstan]

ZOMG, guys! I just heard the President urge people to vote Democrat in 2012! That means we no longer have freedom to vote!

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. A President speaking is not equivalent to passing a law. That this might be confusing to anyone is a bit disheartening.

Oh.
[Emily Litella]
Never mind.
[/Emily Litella]

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here is another example that the doctrine of separation of Church and State is a relatively recent phenomenon.

No it isn't. The idea of separation of Church and State was one that predates FDR. It was an idea of the founding fathers--Madison in particular.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. A President speaking is not equivalent to passing a law. That this might be confusing to anyone is a bit disheartening.

And even if FDR had passed a law that entangled church and state, it would still not refute the evidence that the idea existed long before FDR.

 

[joobz]

And even if FDR had passed a law that entangled church and state, it would still not refute the evidence that the idea existed long before FDR.

This is why the OP fails.

 

[Babbylonian]

And even if FDR had passed a law that entangled church and state, it would still not refute the evidence that the idea existed long before FDR.

Agreed. There are definitely arguments to be made that the meaning and effect of the separation have changed (I would say "matured" or "improved") over time, but it's just as definitely nothing new.

 

[Mojo]

Here is another example that the doctrine of separation of Church and State is a relatively recent phenomenon.

They're separated, DOC, and there's nothing you can do about it. You have this thing called freedom of religion.

 

[Minoosh]

Even false hope can be better than none at all, when you're in the middle of the Great Depression.

I have no problem with presidents invoking God in such a context. There'd be a pretty easy workaround - like "we need to pull together, work hard and, if our consciences so dictate, pray to an Almighty God."

There are courts to weigh in on where the line is.

I'm glad there are atheist organizations scrutinizing government, but most people aren't atheists and are pretty much OK with using Him as a rhetorical device. Nothing sectarian or divisive, just the general idea.

 

[bruto]

Are you saying praying over national radio to the Lord and urging US citizens to pray continually has nothing to do with the Separation of Church and State?

Yes. The president is not the state. In case you had not noticed, presidents tend to be Christians around here, and atheism is not required of the leaders of a secular state.

 

[ehcks]

They're separated, DOC, and there's nothing you can do about it. You have this thing called freedom of religion.

As well as freedom from religion. I think that might be the part people have problems with.

 

[dafydd]

Here is another example that the doctrine of separation of Church and State is a relatively recent phenomenon. The link below shows how president Franklin D. Roosevelt gave a national prayer to the Lord over the radio and also urged US citizens to pray continually.

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/fdr-prayer.htm

It didn't do much good, did it?

 

[Minoosh]

Tried to add but failed:

My post failed to address the post re "false hope":

I don't think praying hurts, if praying is not a substitute for thinking/acting. In those circumstances "false hope" isn't harmful.

However I don't think prayer-related hope is necessarily "false," even if there's no God. When believers, even highly tepid ones, say "all we can do is pray," they are still saying, "Here is action we can take in the face of despair."

I'm not hostile to religion - what drives me nuts is saying, "FDR urged the nation to pray, which shows the separation of church and state is a recent phenomenon" - I sometimes ENVY people who can argue with this degree of dishonesty - it sounds so blandly conversational that it's easy to miss the obvious wait-a-second - it shows no such thing. "FDR urged the nation to pray" is evidence that he urged the nation to pray, or that presidents in general have urged the nation to pray but ...

... it speaks not at all to separation of church and state being a "recent" development. I am seriously almost jealous. My brain would never come up with that. In writing the oleaginous segue is fairly obvious but on TV or the radio it could whiz by even a skeptical audience. Where can I learn to be that manipulative?

 

[Minoosh]

Nnnnghhh - and saying "here is another example" - as if you were in mid-conversation - and "relatively recent," as if you were carefully weighing the statement. This is the sort of comment which, without reference to any ongoing conversation, could easily salt the Net with such pseudo-conversational manipulative drivel - NOT to say that happened here.

BTW here's another example showing the growing link between sororities and terrorism:
http://http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/01/us/anthrax-killer-case/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

OK got it!

 

[Resume]

DOC:

Read a little Jefferson why don't you.

pro tip: his letter the the Dansbury Baptists. Something about the non-establishment clause and a wall of separation.

 

[catsmate]

<snip>

Sigh. Another pathetic attempt by a god-botherer to strengthen his delusional beliefs by rewriting history.

Someone's faith must be weak.

 

[fuelair]

This is not new for Doc - but it is very boring - which is why I have not been to his sites in quite a while - same silliness, lack of comprehension and complete lack of evidence. By the way, all presidents have had faults - maybe FDR's was believing something religious - but at least he actually accomplished some things that truly helped the country. I can forgive him for the god silliness given his positives.

I am forced btw to wonder if he included in his private prayers a special thanks for Eleanor being gay?