May 6, 2004
RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS REDUNDANT:
Bush to Appear on Christian TV for Prayer Day: Three-Hour Program Airs Tonight (Alan Cooperman, May 6, 2004, Washington Post)
Some civil liberties groups and religious minorities charged that the National Day of Prayer has lost its nonpartisan veneer and is being turned into a platform for evangelical groups to endorse Bush -- and vice versa."Over the years, the National Day of Prayer has gradually been adopted more and more by the religious right, and this year in particular there is such an undercurrent of partisanship because for the first time they are broadcasting Bush's message in an election year," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The event's organizers denied that it amounts to a tacit political endorsement.
"We're in an election year, and we believe God cares who's in those positions of authority," said Mark Fried, spokesman for the National Day of Prayer Task Force. "But we're not endorsing a candidate -- just praying that God's hand will be on the election."
The private task force, which operates from the Colorado headquarters of the Christian organization Focus on the Family, has encouraged the nation's churches to organize potluck suppers and pipe the ceremony into their sanctuaries. It will be taped in mid-afternoon in the East Room and re-broadcast during a three-hour, late evening "Concert of Prayer" featuring Christian music stars and other luminaries, such as Bruce Wilkinson, author of the best-selling "Prayer of Jabez."
"The feed is available to any network anywhere in the world free of charge, but only religious networks have an inclination to pick it up," Wright said.
Fried said this year's theme is "Let Freedom Ring." He described it as the evangelical response to efforts to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and keep the Ten Commandments out of public buildings.
"Our theme is, there is a small group of activists unleashing an all-out assault on our religious freedoms. They are targeting the Christian faith," he said.
The National Day of Prayer has been celebrated every year since 1952, when President Harry S. Truman signed a congressional resolution calling for "a suitable day each year, other than a Sunday" to be set aside for common prayer.
There's no reason Democrats couldn't revert to their Trumanesque roots and support religion. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 6, 2004 2:36 PM
Back up a moment. Shouldn't we first get religion to support religion?
I was vastly amused yesterday when a thick package of printouts was dumped on the editorial page editor's desk. Seems a local Christian had stumbled across the Web site of the biggest Protestant church on the island.
He was appalled to find that it was full of anti-Catholic slurs and prejudices.
Imagine! Someone dissing religion.
This is no small matter. The church has 10 branches and claims a membership close to 10,000 on an island with only 125,000 people.
I don't think Democrats are religion's problem. It's its own problem.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 6, 2004 2:57 PMGive the Democrats a religion that's non-traditional for the United States, and many of them have no problem with it. They're just angry at most of the standard sects in the country because they have too many Republicans subscribing to them (while the hardest core on the left will make Sharon and the Likud Party honorary Republicans so they can take their shots at Judiasm and Chrstianity with equal verve).
Posted by: John at May 6, 2004 3:30 PMHarry:
That's not a bug, it's a feature; they're too busy schisming to set up a theocracy.
Posted by: mike earl at May 6, 2004 3:33 PMDemocrats aren't a problem for religion. Religion is a problem for the Democrats, though.
Posted by: brian at May 6, 2004 3:36 PMSo God fixes elections as well as football games?
Posted by: Robert Duquette at May 6, 2004 4:56 PMNah, God won't smite down the Democrats for appearing too hostile to religion, but the voters might.
Posted by: brian at May 6, 2004 5:16 PMHarry: That's a non-sequitur. I have more respect for you than that.
Posted by: Chris at May 6, 2004 5:26 PMNon-sequiturs? Harry's got a million of 'em.
Posted by: jefferson park at May 6, 2004 5:34 PMI agree, mike. If they ever united they'd really be as formidable as Orrin believes they are.
I'm just pointing out that even if all the Democrats were translated tomorrow, religion would be no better off.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 7, 2004 2:58 PM