Protecting the National Day of Prayer by Celebrating the National Day of Prayer

Author: ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster

On Thursday, May 3, 2012, teachers, electricians, athletes, public officials, mothers, bankers, doctors, and indeed Christians from all walks of life will be seeking the face of God. On this 61^st annual observance of the National Day of Prayer, Americans across this nation will join the millions who have done so before, and will seek His guidance, His blessings and His will for our nation.

We at the Alliance Defense Fund encourage you to join with us, and the many others, in seeking Him on this special day.

Having a national day of fasting and prayer is as much a part of our national landscape as voting booths and majestic mountain peaks. In 1775, the Continental Congress asked the colonies to pray for wisdom in forming this infant nation. In George Washington’s very first address as president, so indeed the first every address by any president to this nation, he called this nation to a day of prayer. The call to prayer has continued throughout our history, including President Lincoln’s proclamation of a day of “humiliation, fasting, and prayer” in 1863.

In 1952, a joint resolution by Congress, signed by President Truman, continued this tradition and declared an annual, national day of prayer. In 1988, the law was amended and signed by President Reagan, setting first Thursday of every May as the National Day of Prayer.

According to the National Day of Prayer Task Force, lead by Shirley Dobson, “The National Day of Prayer has great significance for us as a nation. It enables us to recall and to teach the way in which our founding fathers sought the wisdom of God when faced with critical decisions. It stands as a call to us to humbly come before God, seeking His guidance for our leaders and His grace upon us as a people. The unanimous passage of the bill establishing the National Day of Prayer as an annual event, signifies that prayer is as important to our nation today as it was in the beginning.”

Unfortunately, this day has come under legal attack in recent times. Not everyone is proud of our religious heritage, and some wish to delete this day from our history books. A few years ago, the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a federal lawsuit seeking to strike down the National Day of Prayer. Unfortunately, the United States District Court for the District of Wisconsin obliged, and struck down the National Day of Prayer.

We at the Alliance Defense Fund defended the National Day of Prayer Task Force in this case, and argued that the practice of calling the nation to a day of prayer has been occurring since the country’s inception. How can calling the nation to prayer, a practice that was going on at the very time the constitution was drafted and ratified, and has continued to this day, be unconstitutional? Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit Court of appeals agreed with us, and reversed the District Court and we today still are able to observe a national day of praying.

If you are interested in protecting the National Day of Prayer, if you are concerned about the future of our nation, then the best way to protect the National Day of Prayer is toparticipate in the National Day of Prayer. So we invite you to find an event near you,http://nationaldayofprayer.org/about/find-an-event, or if one is not close, then by yourself or with another, join in the chorus of prayers this Thursday and let’s together seek His will for America.

This post originally appeared here.

Read more:

• Religious Freedom

Source

.

Freedom of Religion = Freedom of Worship?

By David Cortman , CP Guest Contributor

April 22, 2012|9:55 am

It may not have even caught your attention. It may not appear to be that different. But when people, especially the current president of the United States, intentionally replace the words "freedom of religion" with "freedom of worship," is it just a distinction without a difference, or is it a major change about which we need to be concerned?

In order to explain what amounts to tremendous differences between the two phrases, let me offer a recent example. In Colorado, a religious freedom amendment to the state constitution has been proposed that prohibits the government from "burden[ing] a person's or religious organization's freedom of religion" unless it shows a compelling interest – which offers the highest level of protection. In comparison, the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.

Compare that to the proposed language submitted by a far-left group which begins: "Religious freedom. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed." Sounds okay, doesn't it? Or does it? Did you notice that freedom of religion quickly became religious worship? But there is more:

In assessing whether government has burdened freedom of religion, a person's or a religious organization's right to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief is the ability to engage in religious practices in the privacy of a person's home or in the privacy of a religious organization's established place of worship.

Did you get that? There is no government burden on a person's free exercise of religion at all unless that burden occurs at home or at church. Let that sink in for a moment and you'll begin to appreciate how radical a change this is.

Let's see what that change looks like when applied to Scripture. The Gospel of Mark says, "Go into [only homes and churches] and preach the good news to all creation." Proverbs promises that "a generous man will himself be blessed for he shares his food with the poor [only when in his home or church]." Let's not forget Jesus' instructions when sending out the twelve to "heal the sick [only when you find them at home or in church]." And although I can continue, I'll end with one last example, Jesus himself. What was Jesus thinking when he ministered to the masses by feeding thousands and healing many while in public?

Like us on Facebook

Freedom of religion encompasses many beliefs and actions, obviously including worship. But this rhetorical shift of limiting freedom of religion to only worship embodies a dangerous ideology that is shared by the current administration. Ironically, the former Soviet Union – a self described atheistic country – allowed "freedom of worship" but not "freedom of religion." Not only have President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently repeatedly used the same "freedom of worship" rhetoric, but this administration has engaged in several other hostile actions that also show a disdain for the freedom of religion, including the following:

1. Requiring religious organizations to provide abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptives free of charge.

2. Requiring individuals to pay a surcharge to fund abortions.

3. Overturning HHS protections for religious health care workers not to be forced to participate in abortions.

4. Using a recess appointment to place radical homosexual activist Chai Feldblum as a commissioner on the EEOC-who recently stated that when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she has "a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

5. Refusing to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

6. Removing non-profit work that relates to "religious instruction" from the student loan forgiveness program.

7. Arguing recently at the Supreme Court that the government can interfere with the internal operations of religious organizations.

Religious freedom, our First Freedom, is part of what makes our country great. It allows us the freedom to practice our religion in the public square, not confined to home or church. But if the government takes away our right to practice our faith, whether by subtle shifts or by those that are more drastic, we forfeit what God has provided and what the Constitution has protected.

So the next time you see a shift in rhetoric, even if it appears slight at first glance, you may not want to brush it off so easily. Especially when it comes in prepared remarks by those who are very careful with their choice of words. We all need to stand up for freedom of religion to ensure that it is not whittled down to a nugget only tolerated in our own homes and churches (until they come knocking at those doors, too). I hear footsteps….

David Cortman is senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (www.telladf.org), a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Source