Can a Simply Word Harm Freedom of Religion?

During more recent references to the U.S. rights as spelled out in our Constitution, both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have been changing one word in a phrase that has previously been taken for granted. Instead referring to "freedom of religion" they have used the phrase "freedom of worship." It may be worth watching this development.

I have pointed out many time in this blog about the use of "separation of church and state" instead of the actual wording of our Constitution's First Amendment. The Amendment says Congress may not interfere with the free exercise of religion. The Founders debated the wording for quite a while and there were several drafts. They did not take words lightly.

I have spoken often about the misuse of the phrase "separation of church and state," which was used once by Thomas Jefferson in a letter describing one protection of the First Amendment. But in his letters to the Founders who were writing the Constitution (Jefferson was in France at the time) he used the phrase "freedom of religion" to say why the First Amendment was so necessary.

Does one little matter? Have you noticed how those who favor keeping abortion legal in almost all circumstances do not talk about killing a baby in the womb. The term "fetus" has come to be used for decades. Aborting a fetus has a somewhat different ring that terminating the life of a baby. But if a "pregnant couple" goes through a miscarriage, they never talk about losing a fetus. That same entity is considered a baby by the couple who wants it - but the person who does not want it calls it a fetus. In the Roe v. Wade decision, I can find no mention of the word "baby" but 20 or so of the word "fetus."

Religious people have expressed concern over the change from "religion" to "worship" in the speech of such high-level officials. Does it mean anything? Will it result in fewer rights for religious exercise? Time will tell.

Read more here:
http://catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=37390

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

Prayer Throughout Our History

Surely we have learned in history class about the significance of the Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads being joined with a Golden Spike ceremony, marking our first transcontinental railroad. This event, as with so many others, was marked by prayers of gratitude to God.

Before the final spikes were driven home, a prayer was offered. The transcript of the message sent at the time said:

At about half past 12, the telegraph sent the following message:

To everybody. Keep quiet. When the last spike is driven at Promontory Point [Summit], we will say "Done!" Don't break the circuit, but watch for the signals of the blows of the hammer. Almost ready. Hats off; prayer is being offered.

How interesting it is to contrast such events as this, which is documented on the official U.S. National Park Service website, with the efforts today to abolish our days of prayer, which happen in all states and federally once a year. Prayer in all situations is part of our history. It was a practice of our Founders, who wrote the very Constitution that lawsuits would have us believe prohibit such actions.

Read the conclusion of the Golden Spike event here:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gosp/clr/clr2g.htm

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