Remembering D-Day - FDR Prayer

The way some news sources handle the issue, one could believe that religious belief and public prayer belong to the right and/or the Republican party. But if you look at our history this was not always the case. Certainly it would have been very difficult for any news outlet to claim he did not have religious feelings and beliefs after he gave a nationwide live radio address just before D-Day. The text below is the full prayer given by FDR, for and with the American people, on June 6, 1944. (As found on the FDR Library site.)

My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas -- whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

National Tradition Under Fire - Day of Prayer

Before and after our Constitution was written, continuing through this century, Congress, Presidents, and Governors have declared national/state days of prayers. Even President Thomas "separation of church and state" Jeffersion declared a state day of prayer as Governor of Virginia (he did not declare a national day as President). But today there are organizations fighting to remove such traditions. Oddly, these groups even want to eliminate state days of prayer because of "separation of church and state," a phrase quoted by these groups. That phrase was from a letter of Thomas Jeffersion, who clearly was NOT against state days of prayer.
Jay Sekulow has a good, brief article about this. You can find it here:

Legal Challenge Can’t Stop National Day of Prayer

Cross Declared Unconstitutional

The Mount Soledad Cross is back in the news again. The cross belongs to the American Legion and was erected 57 years ago as a war memorial. Part of the complaint in this case is that it exists on government land.

The First Amendment addresses religion and government, and prohibits the government from establishing a national religion to which citizens must adhere. Allowing the Legion to maintain this cross is hardly the same as establishing an official religion.

The complaint was brought by the ACLU on behalf of Jewish war veterans. And now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found the cross to be unconstitutional.

Certainly I sympathize with Jewish veterans who might feel "left out" when the see the cross. But a symbol erected by a private organization is not required to be all inclusive. And I can see that, if the Legion wishes a religious recognition, it would be difficult to do so without leaving out some group or other.

The Ninth Circuit decision in this case seems to ignore a U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of a different cross in the Mojave National Preserve. And it also seems to dramatically expand the meaning of the First Amendment.

Read more below:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=247701

And read this informative insight from the Heritage Foundation:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/09/resisting-accommodation-the-aclu-and-mount-soledad/

Now the Federal Reserve Bans Christmas

A bank in Perkins, Oklahoma, found out the hard way. They had some quotes appropriate for the Christmas season (assuming you think Christmas is somehow related to Christianity) within the bank and on their website. But the Federal Reserve said that is against its rules. Those sayings might be in conflict with their Regulation B, which can disallow things on this basis: "...the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication ... express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion."

Is the bank allowed to close on Christmas if they would otherwise be open on that day of the week? Would not that be a "policy of exclusion"? For that matter, if Christmas day fell on a Wednesday this year would the Fed's offices be open?

I have talked in the past about the "war on Christmas" and received comments that there is no such thing. Read the last several posts on this blog and see what you think. Perhaps this particular incident is not a war on Christmas, but one has to wonder whether the Fed would have cracked down similarly if the bank used phrases that recognized a Muslim holiday during the appropriate dates.

Read more here:

Feds Force Okla. Bank To Remove Crosses, Bible Verse

Congress' Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1782

Do you think Thanksgiving started to thank the Indians (as some textbooks claim)? Or to sell stuff at Best Buy?

Here is what the Library of Congress says about the proclamation for Thanksgiving by our Congress in 1782:

Founders Give Thanks
Following the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress recognized the need to give thanks for delivering the country from war and into independence. Congress issued a proclamation on October 11, 1782:

By the United States in Congress assembled.

PROCLAMATION.

IT being the indispensable duty of all Nations, not only to offer up their supplications to ALMIGHTY GOD, the giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of his providence in their behalf: Therefore the United States in Congress assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of divine goodness to these States, in the course of the important conflict in which they have been so long engaged; the present happy and promising state of public affairs; and the events of the war, in the course of the year now drawing to a close; particularly the harmony of the public Councils, which is so necessary to the success of the public cause; the perfect union and good understanding which has hitherto subsisted between them and their Allies, notwithstanding the artful and unwearied attempts of the common enemy to divide them; the success of the arms of the United States, and those of their Allies, and the acknowledgment of their independence by another European power, whose friendship and commerce must be of great and lasting advantage to these States:----- Do hereby recommend to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of THURSDAY the twenty-eight day of NOVEMBER next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies: and they do further recommend to all ranks, to testify to their gratitude to GOD for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience of his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.

Done in Congress, at Philadelphia, the eleventh day of October, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, and of our Sovereignty and Independence, the seventh.

JOHN HANSON, President.

Charles Thomson, Secretary.

Is 'In God We Trust' a New Concept

Some people object to the use of the word "God" in conjunction with our national identity in any way. As I have pointed out many times in this blog, there is a strong thread of religious faith and recognition in our history back to the earliest days. But, for example, one argument against such recognition is that the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's. It is very easy to be cynical of modern-day political activities. Adding God to the Pledge was indeed a modern change, but it was at least partly inspired by the words of President Lincoln in the 1860's.

Another action from around that time, specifically between 1861-64, is the addition of "In God We Trust" to our coins. As often happens, when people are facing strife they feel more of a need to turn to God. There was evidence of this after the attacks of 9/11/2001. Churches saw a large upturn in attendance. The same feeling existed during our Civil War. Salmon Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, received a letter suggesting the addition of such wording to our coins. Chase then wrote the following to James Pollack, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia. It said in part:

 Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

After that Congress created the proper acts and it became official. That stands through the current day.

Read more at the link to the U.S. Treasury below:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Congress Goes to Church

Having just take a little vacation time to visit some of our nation's historic sites, I was reminded about the marvel of our new country in 1789, electing a President of the United States... one chosen by the people. And of course a few years later that President handed over the power to our next President, also elected by the people. I was also reminded that in two years, our country will either elect a new President or will decide to keep the existing man for one more term. All this happens peacefully. It's no wonder that over 100 other countries have used our Constitution as an inspiration for writing their own versions.

Now go back in time to the inauguration of our first President, George Washington. There is at least one thing that has changed since that time. After Washington was sworn in on April 30, 1789, he and the Congress walked to the nearby Trinity Church and worshiped together. Can you imagine the uproar if that were to happen today? There is already a little disgruntlement about using a Bible to swear in the President. But having so many of our top government officials go together to church as a follow-on to the official ceremony... well, that's not likely to happen. We would hear about that not being allowed because of "separation of church and state." That phrase, we are told, sums up a provision of the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Is it possible that all these public servants, many of whom participated in writing and ratifying the Constitution, understood that document so poorly that they would violate its intention?

Read more about the historic Trinity church below:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/LM065.htm

In What Year Did the Federal Government Declare the Bible 'The Word of God'?

Seeing the question above, you might first think it's a trick question. It's got to be a joke, right? After all, we have a separation of church and state. But, no, it's not a joke. This actually happened. The words "separation of church and state" are just a metaphor that describes one aspect of our First Amendment. The actual Amendment intended that the Federal Government be prohibited from forcing people by law to give up their preferred religious practices.

Accepting that, you might answer that this must have happened during our early history, thinking it was influenced by very religious Founders like George Washington. That is a good guess, but not what I am looking for.

But I'm thinking of time later in our history. So might you guess it was in the middle 1800's, influenced by the man who brought us the concept of one nation under God, Abraham Lincoln.


Both those would be logical guesses, but they would be wrong. The year was 1982, less that 30 years ago. It came to us via Public Law 97-280 (October 4, 1982), a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress, signed by the President of the United States. The full text is below - notice the 2nd paragraph:

Joint Resolution authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the “Year of the Bible.”

Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;

Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States;

Whereas many of our great national leaders among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as the words of President Jackson that the Bible is “the rock on which our Republic rests”;

Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;

Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and

Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national “Year of the Bible” in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.
Approved October 4, 1982.

State Dept. Publishes Book Supporting Muslims, but No Other Religions?

Our own U.S. State Department has published a book called Being Muslim in America, which talks about the ways that the U.S. supports freedom of religion. It is, and should be, supportive of the right of Muslims to be Muslim. But the PDF document makes no mention of our Constitution and does not talk about the need for every religion to follow the laws of our land.

But a more interesting fact is that the State Dept. apparently publishes no book with any of the following titles:

• Being Buddhist in America
• Being Christian in America
• Being Hindu in America
• Being Jewish in America
• Being Sikh in America
• Being an Atheist in America

Does that mean that there is a particular need to assure Muslims, over any other faith, that their religion is welcome in the USA? Based on government statistics on hate crimes, there are more such crimes against Jews than Muslims when measured relative to their populations. So why do we not have a book assuring Jews that they are welcome here, and that their practices are OK in this country? There are about twice as many Jews in the USA as there are Muslims, but the hate crimes against Jews are 10 times as numerous as those against Muslims.

Read more below.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/08/hilllary-clintons-state-department.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+DougRossJournal+(Doug+Ross+%40+Journal)

Just How Broad IS the First Amendment?

This blog is mostly about the First Amendment, and also has many posts about court decisions that turned the original meaning of the First Amendment on its head. Perhaps it will be useful to look at a recent circuit court decision on another part of the First Amendment, the free speech provision. Here is the entire text of the First Amendment (underlining added):

"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 peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's simple enough.  The underlined portion is the free speech clause. We all want free speech, right? As with the religion clauses, we would hope to understand the intention of the Founders in order to properly interpret the Amendment in court. Is free speech unlimited? Free honest speech is, and I'm sure that was part of the intent. Free political opinions are protected, and that may have been one of the primary motivations for the clause. But it also seems reasonable that the Founders did not intend people to get away with dishonest speech. We don't accept libel or slander. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Etc.

The recent case, decided by the 9th Circuit Court by 2 to 1, is about a Federal law that makes it illegal for someone to misrepresent his/her own military valor. The case is about a man who claimed to have won the Bronze Star, a very high honor for military members. This man, probably for political advantage, claimed to have won that award even though that is not the case. The court said the Federal law violates his free speech rights because his lie does no harm.

So the voters are left to think, by his own claims, that he is a man of different character. He also diminishes the honor of those who have actually won the award (if anyone can claim it, then it will not strike people as much of an honor to say, even honestly, that one earned the award). Would it be a logical extension to say that the military's uniform regulations, which allow the wearing of only awards actually received, is unconstitutional? Does that do any actual harm to the others in uniform?

What about perjury? If the false testimony does not change the outcome of the case, is it illegal? How about lying about my age on an application of one kind or another? Lying about my age to get into the military? Lying about my age to be able to make that Presidential run I've been secretly planning? Isn't it my free speech right to "embellish" my resume, even to the point of outright lies?

Do we want courts interpreting the Constitution this way? How much of this kind of interpretation will it take before the Constitution becomes meaningless?

Read more details below:

http://www.military.com/military-report/court-rules-stolen-valor-act-illegal?ESRC=miltrep.nl

Courts aren’t the final arbiter

Folks who argue for the left on matters of separation of church and state proudly point to Jefferson, who have us that little metaphor. As I have pointed out, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but was not present at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. He was in France. He wrote to the Founders with opinion and advice, though. In those letters he did not use the phrase "separation of church and state" but rather used the phrase "freedom of religion." No matter. People who believe the whole "separation" idea as it has been applied by recent courts will largely ignore Jefferson's actions and word that might argue against the kind of separation the courts have mandated today.

It is instructive to look at some of Jefferson's other writings regarding the way we have allowed the courts to become the "last word" on the Constitutionality of laws and actions. He spoke often about the danger of the judicial branch if they chose to take on too much power. He clearly thought they should have no more power than the other two branches.

He also thought that even the federal government as a whole could not be the last word. If the feds take on too much power or overstep their boundaries, the states and the people still have the final word. We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Remember in the New Testament how Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man; man was not made for the Sabbath. In the same way, the Constitution was made for the people, not the other way around.

Below is a link to an article that examines Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and the concept of nullification of federal actions. It is not very long and makes for interesting reading:

Courts aren’t the final arbiter

Pastor in Michigan Denied Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech

Imagine a man who immigrated to the U.S. because of our freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Imagine this man came from Sudan, and wanted to be here in order to share the word of Christ with Muslims (which could get him in serious trouble in some countries). That sounds like part of our American story, doesn't it?

Now add to this story a federal judge who prohibited him from distributing his pamphlets to at Dearborn, Michigan's annual Arab Festival. Can't happen here, right? Wrong. It did happen to Pastor George Saeg. According to his lawyer, "He's never caused any disturbance to the public or any disturbance to the festival." Nevertheless, a federal judge did not think he had the right to distribute his literature.

Fortunately for Pastor Saeg the 6th U.S. Circuit Court issued an emergency order allowing him to proceed. I'm sure the case will be litigated further, but for now he can follow his usual practice.

If I learn more of this case I will post it here. Read more at the link below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1056354

Is Praying in Public a Right? Keep an Eye On This Story.

According to news stories, a group of Christian school students were visiting Washington, D.C. on May 5, 2010. While they were in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building, the gathered in a circle to pray. An official told them what there were doing was illegal and they would have to move on. The children were from Arizona, a junior high school American History class at Wickenburg Christian Academy.

The Marshal of the Court said they will look into to the matter, and that "the Court does not have a policy prohibiting prayer." Well, one would hope not.

The Alliance Defense Fund is helping by representing the students' rights.

When our Founders wrote the Constitution, they were well aware of the desire of the people to have freedom of religion. That is a reason some of our earliest settlers came here. There was debate during the Constitutional Convention about whether we needed the Bill of Rights, because all those 10 amendments did was emphasize what the Constitution already said. Do we need to say that Congress can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion? "No," some said, because the Constitution gave Congress no rights in that area in the first place. Nevertheless, the amendment was added to clarify what Congress may not do. But does it matter that Congress supposedly may not make such a law if officials assume they have the right to push their own ideas of enforcement on helpless students?

DISCLAIMER: this story is not well filled out yet. Perhaps it was all a misunderstanding or is being reported incorrectly. We shall watch and see what develops. But the actions reported are not at all hard to believe, given other documented examples already mentioned in various posts on this blog.

Read the story here:
Students Ordered to Stop Praying Outside Supreme Court Building

National Park Service Prayer Display

I have previously posted the prayer used by President Eisenhower before his inaugural in this entry:

http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2009/03/president-eisenhowers-1st-inaugural.html


I point out today that this prayer is currently on display at the National Park Service's website, here:

http://www.nps.gov/history/museum/exhibits/eise/President/Presidency/EISE8530_prayer2.html

This is a display maintained by the Federal Government using tax dollars, and it is quite "religious looking." It is typeset very much like old hand-created editions of the Bible. While such displays might raise the eyebrows of some today who throw around the phrase "separation of church and state," there is no denying that such things are indeed part of our history. In this case, it is a rather attractive display.

The text of that prayer is:

"Almighty God, as we stand here at this moment my future associates in the executive branch of government join me in beseeching that Thou will make full and complete our dedication to the service of the people in this throng, and their fellow citizens everywhere.

"Give us, we pray, the power to discern clearly right from wrong, and allow all our words and actions to be governed thereby, and by the laws of this land. Especially we pray that our concern shall be for all the people regardless of station, race, or calling.

"May cooperation be permitted and be the mutual aim of those who, under the concepts of our Constitution, hold to differing political faiths; so that all may work for the good of our beloved country and Thy glory. Amen."

ADF Defends National Day of Prayer

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is in the news again. This time they brought a lawsuit against the National Day of Prayer, in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama.

This particular annual recognition of our religious roots began in 1952. However, the tradition actually started even before our country was officially born and has been there throughout our history since our founding. In fact, all 50 states have also issued proclamations for a day of prayer.

The Continental Congress in 1775 called for such a day of prayer, which was recognized. But "Wait!" you say - that was before our Constitution was written. People objecting to the day of prayer now claim that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. I suppose one could argue on either side of what the Establishment Clause means, but if we take the word of those who wrote it, there is no justification for the current lawsuit. The same Congress that debated and ratified the Constitution almost immediately called upon President Washington to declare a national day of prayer and fasting (which he did). After risking life and property in a tough war, and after countless hours of debate in crafting the words of the Constitution, are we to assume that one of their first acts violated our primary legal document? That's not an assumption I would make.

Read more about the case here:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=5337

Abandoning the Concepts of Rights from Our Creator

If you watched much television in late June you may have seen the hearings for Elena Kagan as a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. There weren't too many surprises here. People expected President Obama to appoint a liberal person and she seems to have a record that would support that.

However, I found it a bit disturbing when a senator pressed her on the Declaration of Independence as an influence on her presumed future decisions. We are used to hearing such nominees duck many questions, and that is what she did here. Ms. Kagan did not affirm that the Declaration is a guideline for our system of government.

But our own United States Code says that the Declaration of Independence is one of the four documents that defined the organic law of the United States. And what is special about the Declaration? Simply that it states clearly that our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not come from the government, but rather are given to us by our Creator. If we ignore that guideline, then the government can take away those rights by simply passing a law.

I don't know about you, the reader, but I know that I would very much like our highest court to acknowledge that we have rights from God. Those are "above" the government. Read the posts in this blog and you will find ample acknowledgment by our Founders that they were grateful to God for our many blessings. The recognized this in writing and in oratory.

Read a little more about organic law here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_law

Supreme Court Affirms Christian Roots In Our Laws

Most people know that the USA does not allow polygamy, and some even know that was because of a Supreme Court Case that disallowed the Mormon practice of having multiple wives for one husband. The case that established was the 1890 case of The Mormon Church v. The United States. It said, in part:

"The organization of our community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization, which Christianity has produced in the Western world. The question, therefore, is whether the promotion of such a nefarious system and practice, so repugnant to our laws and to our [Christian] civilization is to be allowed to continue by the sanction of 
our government."

But isn't is unconstitutional to use a Christian belief to control interpretation of our laws? That is a fairly common belief today. But consider the 1890 case of Davis v. Beeson. Here the court confirmed that outlawing bigamy and polygamy was constitutional because they were "crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian nations."

Today the standard justification to explain why we don't allow polygamy is that it would be somewhat harmful to our society. But the court used the specific logic that Christian principles may come into play in such complex decisions.

Follow the two embedded links above to read the two cases cited.

Congress Prays in Time of Crisis

Our nation has relied on prayer since before we became the USA. In times of trial especially, prayer is a comfort, a hope for guidance, and perhaps a hope that the Lord will help our side more than the "bad guys'" side. (As Lincoln said, both the Union and Confederacy prayed to the same God.)

About a year ago Washington, D.C. was shocked by a fatal commuter train crash. Not surprisingly, the opening prayer for Congress asked for comfort in the aftermath. Here is the Chaplain's prayer from June 23, 2009, given by Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin:

Lord the summer solstice has already passed.
So quietly and relentlessly daylight grows shorter.
The full expression of family joy on a weekend holiday or a brief summer vacation is abruptly ended with the news of a Metro train crash. The bright light is suddenly dimmed when the cloud of fragile life passes by.

Lord, we lift up in prayer all those who died or were injured in yesterday’s tragedy here in Northeast Washington. Be with their families, neighbors and friends.

As You restore confidence and peace to the fragile systems of routine in our work–a–day world, Lord, we bless You and praise You for all of the good days and the good times, we try to hold onto as best we can, because they carry us through the times that are not so good.

Lord of the ages, it is You who hold all together and oversee the seasons of everyone’s life, even as summer days grow shorter. Both now and forever. Amen.

Found on the website of the Chaplain of the U.S. House

First Official Prayer of Congress

Our nation truly started to form into the United States of America when the Continental Congress began to meet. The first session was on September 7, 1774, and the first action was the opening prayer. We read on many web sites and hear stated on the news that our nation was not founded by Christians, but rather but a bunch of deists. But that's hard to believe, given the prayer that was offered that day. Surely these smart folks know the kind of prayer Christ Church's Reverend Jacob Duché would likely give. Here is the complete text:

O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.

Amen.

Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.

As found on the Office of the Chaplain, U.S. House of Representatives website:
http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/continental.html

No Tax Breaks for Ministers?

Michael Newdow is in the news again. He might quite a stir a few years back when he sued over the phrase "under God." Now he is campaigning against the practice of giving tax breaks to ministers.

It's an interesting topic. Normally I look back at practices early in our history, but in our early history there was no IRS. However, in general it seems the Founders did not want to burden churches. After our Constitution was ratified, many towns still supported their ministers with town funds, including paying their salary. Ministers were considered a common good for the community.

And even before the Constitution, tax revenues supported ministers. Look at this article (scroll down to the "Role of religion" section):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Colony

We can also look to Thomas Jefferson, who brought the phrase "separation of church and state" that we so often mis-use today. As President of the United States, Jefferson signed the treaty that used Federal money to pay for a priest to spread the Gospel to the Kaskaskian Indians:
http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2009/04/christian-nation-or-not-what-would-john.html

It seems to me the Founders would not have had much heartburn about tax breaks to ministers, but that is a difficult point to prove absolutely. It's interesting to ponder, though.

Read more about Newdow's action here:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2009/10/20/the-under-god-atheist-takes-on-irs.htm