National Day of Reason
Today’s news will be filled with events commemorating the National Day of Prayer, but I wonder how many of us know about the National Day of Reason?
There won’t be a Presidential proclamation for the National Day of Reason (although the National Day of Prayer gets one), although Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) issued one recognizing the day from the House floor:
“The National Day of Reason celebrates the application of reason and the positive impact it has had on humanity,” Stark said last Friday. “It is also an opportunity to reaffirm the Constitutional separation of religion and government.”
“Our nation faces many problems—bringing our troops home from Afghanistan, creating jobs, educating our children, and protecting our safety net from irresponsible cuts,” he continued. “We will solve these issues through the application of reason. We must also protect women’s reproductive choices, the integrity of scientific research, and our public education system from those who would hide behind religious dogma to undermine them.”
Who could have problems with that? There are groups all over the US commemorating the National Day of Reason, mostly engaged in community and civic service projects. This kind of commemoration is hopeful — sending the message that you don’t have to indulge in showy (and frequently empty) religionism in order to participate in the civic life of your community:
“In times of great conflict and worry, people want to look to a higher power, and I am sympathetic to that,” said Paul Fidalgo, communications director at the Center for Inquiry. “But our day puts the focus back on people and what we can do for ourselves. We are trying to make a better world on our own by emphasizing good works and good deeds on the day.”
To that end, local groups of nontheists will hold blood drives (Groton, Conn.) training in lobbying politicians (Raleigh, N.C.) and voter registration drives (Flagstaff, Ariz.), as well as marches, rallies and social gatherings. One group in Putnam, Conn., is holding a “science for reason” book exchange — turn in a Bible and receive a free copy of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, among other titles.
I don’t know of any local events for the National Day of Reason, but maybe this will inspire someone to start a few next year.
Separation of church and state is a Jeffersonian ideal. Jefferson who worshiped at Christ Church in D.C. if I’m not mistaken. Said Church having a gay priest last time I took communion there in ’02.
Please show me the words in the constitution that say Separate Church and State? I will happily stand corrected. This seems to be a meme used by militant anti-christians and anti-theists to impose their beliefs on others by ‘banning’ any public display of deity based belief systems. Which ironically is using government to promote ‘their’ belief system.
Having said that, a National day of reason is a great idea. American exceptionalism to me means respect for all belief systems. YMMV.
The “No Religious Test” clause of Article VI Sec. 3, combined with the First Amendment does effectively create “a wall of separation between Church & State,” those words of Jefferson himself when he wrote to the Danbury Baptists. This was undoubtedly the intent.
Now, you have a confused view of what that means, and what modern secular activists mean by it. It does not mean that the religious cannot publicly display their belief systems. They are entirely free to, in both public and private. On the street, in parks, even in parades. Most definitely are they free to do so.
However, that does not mean our shared government—its institutions and officials in their official capacity, including schools and their administrators—can do the expressing for them, even if the people doing it are religious themselves.
Simply put: Civil institutions and civil officials acting in a civil capacity may not endorse religious belief. Government must remain neutral. Neutral.
Notice again I said neutral. That means un-religious, not anti-religious. The lack of religion is not holding a stance against religion. Thus, keeping religion out of government does not mean government is advancing the cause of the non-religious.
For the state to conduct blasphemy against any religion would be just as illegal under the First Amendment, since for practical purposes that is considered a “religious” act.
When secular activists start campaigning for the Pledge of Allegiance to say “under no proven god” or the government to proclaim a “national day of blasphemy” then you can rightly worry that government is promoting “their” interests.
Until then, appreciate that secularists are advocating not for their own interests, but for government to merely remain NEUTRAL, a secular value that benefits all citizens, religious and non-religious alike.
Fantastic response, Ed. Thanks for adding that.
@c “Who could have problems with that?”
Because when reason is properly applied, the belief in a higher power becomes an intellectual error.
THAT’s what’s wrong with reason.
@Ed “The lack of religion is not holding a stance against religion.”
But applying reason makes it a stance against religion.