President Barack Obama has decided to scale back the White House’s involvement in the National Day of Prayer; the first Thursday in May is set aside every year for the President to make a proclamation for the people to pray for the country. I guess Obama doesn’t see the need this year. Read more, see photos and video below.
President Obama
In 1952, congress established the National Day of Prayer; in 1988 they set aside the first Thursday in May as the day when it would be observed. Tradition has been for the President to make a proclamation asking Americans to pray on that day, this year it will be a little different.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama would issue the proclamation but would not meet with religious leaders or hold any National Day of Prayer events at the White House. Former President Bush always met with various religious leaders and attended functions related to the National Day of Prayer.
Obama’s decision, while not surprising, drew ire from the National day of Prayer Task Force, a group that promotes prayer events around the country. The group estimates that there were over 2 million Americans who attended 40,000 events marking the day last year.
Gibbs went on to say that the President would mark the National Day of Prayer in private as he does every day. That’s fine, and I hope he does pray daily, but I think at a time when the country needs guidance and strength, the President would want to make a public display that he is seeking higher council and that he has a little humility. You would think, if he really were a man of faith as he claims to be, that he would certainly observe the National Day of Prayer as his predecessor’s did.
Controversy over the National Day of Prayer has been ongoing for some time now; a group called Freedom From Religion Foundation has taken the matter to a Wisconsin court trying to have the day abolished. They claim that the National Day of Prayer violates the separation of church and state.
For his part, the Obama administration has asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit pending in the Wisconsin court.
President Obama Photos
Obama National Day of Prayer Video
Photos: Photos: www.wenn.com
May 6th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Matthew 6:5-6: “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men….when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret….”
I think there’s something else about, judge ye not, or something like that?
May 6th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
that same quote is being posted by dem toadies all over the place … i guess the toadies got their dem talking points early
May 6th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
the funny part is that the white house did not cancel the day of prayer, they just are down playing it. they actually already released the video of it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAvlimEYEpQ
May 7th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Arch, its
Judge not lest thou be judged.
I didn’t judge Obama, I just made the suggestion that in these critical times, the American people might like to see their President seeks a higher power.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:50 am
This reminds me of people getting all upset about removing the reference to God in the pledge of allegiance. They like to portray this kind of stuff as long-standing American traditions, deeply woven into the fabric of our people.
Ummm, no. Both the “under God” phrase and the national prayer day were instituted in the 1950’s; five decades ago, in a country that has existed for 230-odd years. It was nothing more than a McCarthyist reaction to those godless commies when the cold war was at its height.
Making this stuff government-sponsored was a propagandist, unconstitutional ploy to begin with. I see nothing wrong with trying to correct that course as we move forward.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:01 am
The national day of prayer is more about:
Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the LORD your God, and cry unto the LORD,
Joel 1:14
Not taking a quote from Matthew out of context.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:09 am
The national prayer day is completely about government sanctioned religious activity; it doesn’t make any difference what verses people quote. Joel, Matthew, whatever. Like I said above, it is also an artificial and illegal institution tacked onto our national consciousness hundreds of years after our government was formed. Just like the “under God” line in the pledge.
If religious organizations want to declare a day of collective prayer, and millions of people want to observe it, great. More power to them. It just shouldn’t be something our government is involved with.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:44 am
From St. Teresa of Avila…You remind us that there is no need to go rushing off to the monastery or the mosque. We are not required to consult the oracle or recite the invocation. No one is insisting that we clear customs or obtain written permission from the bureaucrats. You instruct us simply to close our eyes and go within. Slip into the center of our souls….(to) the only place in the universe the Beloved wants to be. Inside us.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:54 am
Wow, Arch, don’t you ever get ashamed at the way you misuse the Bible to try to advance your anti-Christian agenda? You wish Christians would be so only in secret, leaving the public arena to the likes of you! The Bible has tons of examples and exhortations to group prayer, even in public (See 1 Timothy 2, or just read the book of Acts). And certainly the government needs God’s wisdom, although this administration kind of believes they can rely on their own strength. We will see how that ends.
In the meantime, just know that Jesus was condemning the use of public prayer as a way to promote your own reputation, where “to be seen” was obviously more important than having the prayer answered. On the same sermon you quoted, Jesus also said: “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” Please read the Bible with understanding, otherwise you run the risk of plucking your eye out.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:57 am
certainly the government needs God’s wisdom
This is patently untrue, as the first amendment makes clear.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Rhayader, if the first amendment says or not otherwise, it does not mean that my statement is untrue (it only means you wish it was untrue), just like writing an amendment to say that 2+2=3 does not make it true either.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:39 am
if the first amendment says or not otherwise
I don’t understand this clause, please clarify. Are you saying that the actual law isn’t relevant? I would hope not.
Actually, let me re-state that. If, in your world view, the constitution is irrelevant in the face of scripture or God or whatever, hey that’s your viewpoint. I have no beef with that. What bothers me is when people attempt to superimpose that view on the rest of us, despite the clear constitutional directives against it.
Private citizens have every right to believe and preach whatever they want. I’m just saying, let’s keep the government out of it.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Rhayader, what I am saying is that I have not studied the first amendment to assert or deny what you say about it.
Of course law is relevant; that’s why it’s so important to make sure that they protect what is correct.
If it bothers you those who superimpose their view in the rest of us… isn’t it the same you do by using the first amendment, imposing your view on me, saying that I can’t have my government publicly honor God and prayer?
And about keeping the government out of beliefs… then how would the government decide what goes into law, if it does not believe in anything? Or how do you determine right from wrong, to make sure the laws are appropriate? Is agnosticism a viable form of government? Are you willing to stop declaring your believes, because it amounts to a form of pressure to have the government enact laws that fit your worldview, becoming therefore an imposition on the rest of us? Sorry, I’m not that gullible.
May 7th, 2009 at 8:17 am
I am not “imposing” anything on you by quoting the first amendment. I didn’t make that up, it has been around since the Constitution was ratified. To “have [your] government honor God and prayer” is explicitly prohibited by the laws of the nation. A reversal of that law would require a new amendment. This is not me imposing anything, this is just how the Constitution is written. Go ahead and disagree, but the law is on my side.
Also, there are plenty of sources for belief and morals beyond religion. Besides, I am not saying it’s wrong for the people of our country to enact laws reflecting religiously-derived values; if enough people support a law, and it doesn’t violate the Constitution, I don’t care where the inspiration comes from. But the law should be passed because the people say it should; not because any holy text or religious idol says it should.
Oh and by the way, I find it incredible that an American (you live in Puerto Rico, if I remember correctly) is unaware of what our first amendment says. Here’s a starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amendment
Of particular relevance to this discussion is the section on “establishment of religion”.
May 7th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Ray,
I find it disturbing that you don’t understand the 1st amendment. It says, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’
It does not say that the governement can’t acknowledge God, it says the governement can’t tell you what religion to practice or to make a certain religion the only religion you can practice. At that time the states could establish a state religion.
So if the President of the United States attends a prayer breakfast, does that mean he is breaking the law? If so, what law is he breaking?
The freedom of and from religion works to protect believers and non-believers both.
You are reading more into the 1st amendment then is there. You are part of the generation that has been taught ’separtion of church and state.’ You have been taught it incorrectly. There is no such thing but there are some that wish it were.
I know you will quote Thomas Jefferson. But have you ever read his letter to the Danbuy Baptist? The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature – as “favors granted.” Jefferson’s reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion – only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause (1st Amendment) that we use today: “Separation of church and state.”
Here is the letter.
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
May 7th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Hey George, ok first of all let’s not get into that “your generation” stuff. My age is irrelevant, as is yours.
So if the President of the United States attends a prayer breakfast, does that mean he is breaking the law?
No, of course not. The President can worship however he sees fit. However, if he decides to sanction that prayer breakfast with official government sponsorship or endorsement, he has stepped over the line. There is a difference between an elected representative’s personal beliefs and his official duties.
The freedom of and from religion works to protect believers and non-believers both.
See, to me it isn’t about “protecting” or preserving either group; it’s about non-intervention. As the text itself says, the government should make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibit the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about preserving (or, of course, eradicating) a religion. They should simply keep their hands off the entire realm of spirituality.
(NOTE: The obvious corollary to this is that, in the case where one’s rights to practicing his own religion are being actively violated, the government should protect those basic rights.)
At that time the states could establish a state religion.
I assume from your wording that you are aware that the incorporation doctrine has been used by the Supreme Court to restrict individual states from forming any official religion.
There is no such thing [as separation of church and state] but there are some that wish it were.
Even though the phrase iteslf is not used in the amendment, it’s clear that this separation is exactly what is intended. So, unless someone directly attributes that phrase to the Constitution (which I didn’t do), they have not been “taught it incorrectly”. Like you said yourself, it’s colloquially used as short-hand for the establishment clause.
I’ll close by offering this scenario. Say Obama happened to be a muslim, and supported an effort to change the phrase “under God” to “under God and Allah” in the pledge of allegiance. Would you really be OK with that? Or is there something wrong with a president officially endorsing a religious viewpoint like that?
May 7th, 2009 at 10:29 am
[...] Obama: National Day of Prayer Scaled Back » Right Pundits [...]
May 7th, 2009 at 11:14 am
What a godless man Obama is. The thought that this man is now leading my nation makes me sick.
We truly need prayer now more than ever before!
May 7th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Generation makes a big difference. We have lived more and seen more and you could lean a thing or two from the older generation.
Attending and declaring a day of prayer by the President is not an endorsment of a certain religion. That is the whole purpose of the 1st amendment. If he or Cogress said if you live in this country, you have to be ***name your religion***, then they have destroyed the basic foundation of our country.
The freedom of and from religion works to protect believers and non-believers both.
See, to me it isn’t about “protecting” or preserving either group; it’s about non-intervention. As the text itself says, the government should make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibit the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about preserving (or, of course, eradicating) a religion. They should simply keep their hands off the entire realm of spirituality.
They did. it is the 1st amendment. They have not made that move so far.
At that time the states could establish a state religion.
Hello. Are there any states today that have a state religion?
There is no such thing [as separation of church and state] but there are some that wish it were.
Even though the phrase iteslf is not used in the amendment, it’s clear that this separation is exactly what is intended. So, unless someone directly attributes that phrase to the Constitution (which I didn’t do), they have not been “taught it incorrectly”. Like you said yourself, it’s colloquially used as short-hand for the establishment clause.
No it is not. You are implying intend where there is none. It says that religion is not to be a concern of the government. It does not say that the government should pretend that there is no regilion. It simply states it is not of the governments business.
As for Obama wanting to change God to Allah or God and Allah, that would be a problem for me because our country and it’s laws are not based on Muslim law and because that would be a true violation of the 1st amendment.
The fact that we mention God in the pledge and have God on our money is our acknowledgement that God (however you worship) has blessed America above and beyond what she derserves. It is not an establishment of religion.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Again, spare me the “you have a lot to learn from us” crap. I was trying to be polite about it before, but it is a bogus argument that carries absolutely no merit. Ageism is no more valid than sexism or rac!sm. It is the points being discussed that matter, not the personal details of those of us taking part in the discussion.
Attending and declaring a day of prayer by the President is not an endorsment of a certain religion.
Well, I have no problem with the attendance, but the declaration is different. A “day of prayer” may not express a preference for one specific religion over another, but it absolutely implies a preference of religion over non-religion. That is illegal under the fist amendment, as confirmed by Supreme Court precedent.
Also, I will never understand how naming Allah in the pledge would be “a true violation of the 1st amendment”, while naming God is “not an establishment of religion”. That is total hypocrisy. Beyond the specific details of the two religions, what exactly is the difference?
I am as opposed to the idea of God as I am to the idea of Allah. Neither make sense at all to me, and the inclusion of either in the pledge (or money, or whatever) is offensive to me. The only distinctions are philosophical differences between the two religions, which mean absolutely nothing to someone like me. In terms of the relationship between worship and government — which is the real issue addressed by the first amendment — it is the exact same thing.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Again, spare me the “you have a lot to learn from us” silliness. I was trying to be polite about it before, but it is a bogus argument that carries absolutely no merit. Ageism is no more valid than se*ism or ra*ism. It is the points being discussed that matter, not the personal details of those of us taking part in the discussion.
Attending and declaring a day of prayer by the President is not an endorsment of a certain religion.
Well, I have no problem with the attendance, but the declaration is different. A “day of prayer” may not express a preference for one specific religion over another, but it absolutely implies a preference of religion over non-religion. That is illegal under the fist amendment, as confirmed by Supreme Court precedent.
Also, I will never understand how naming Al*ah in the pledge would be “a true violation of the 1st amendment”, while naming G*d is “not an establishment of religion”. That is total hypocrisy. Beyond the specific details of the two religions, what exactly is the difference?
I am as opposed to the idea of G*d as I am to the idea of Al*ah. Neither make sense at all to me, and the inclusion of either in the pledge (or money, or whatever) is offensive to me. The only distinctions are philosophical differences between the two religions, which mean absolutely nothing to someone like me. In terms of the relationship between worship and government — which is the real issue addressed by the first amendment — it is the exact same thing.
[NOTE: For some reason I got moderated for this at first, so I added asterisks.]
May 7th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Ray,
You have not vaild argument with me since you admit you are opposed to the idea of God. And if is evident from your post that you have no place for God or religion. If you did, you would understand the 1st amendment.
The elders among us have the great advantage of experience and the perspective of years. They can bring into any discussion, into life itself, views and wisdom not influenced unduly by excited passion or momentary impulse. Youth needs that kind of balance.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
So your stance is that since I am not religious I have no capacity to understand the 1st amendment. Wonderful; someone should tell our founding fathers. They probably wouldn’t have written it if many of them had no understanding of it.
And I completely respect folks older than I am, until they disrespect me for the offense of being young.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I never said being young was a bad thing. I wish I was young again. What I am saying is that being young lacks the wisdom of elders. Sometimes youth could avoid mistakes if they learned from the ones that have gone before them.
Our founding fathers wrote it out very clear. They did not cloud the issue. They did not say,’there must be a wall between us and church. God should never be mentioned in public or by a government offical.’ They did not say, ‘everyone must be a christian and attend a baptist church to be an American.’
They did not say any of that.
They said, ‘We are not going to establish a particular religion or a particular denomination. We will allow for people to worship or not worship as they choose. It is a personal choice.’
But that is not good enough for some. Not only do they have the right to not worship any god, they don’t want any of us to do that.
I know there are people that give all religion a bad name, but the same can be said for teachers, police, parents, kids, the list go on.
I see your points, I just think you are off base on this. I don’t want to attack you personally. I bet if we were talking in person, we would understand each other better. I think we both have a quick sharp humor and it is often taken wrong.
May 7th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
It inspires confidence that the current leader of the free world is showing a little humility (unlike his predecessor) and is using reason and diligent hard work to solve problems.
The last one seemed to think he had some special connection to universal forces and that they spoke to him directly in some Theistic manifestation. How frighteningly arrogant.