Let's Make this the Final National Prayer Breakfast
By Rob Boston
I came into the office early this morning so I could watch the National Prayer Breakfast on C-SPAN. I wish I had stayed in bed.
As I noted the other day, this confab takes places every year. It’s sponsored by a group called The Fellowship Foundation (also known as The Family), a right-wing fundamentalist Christian outfit that has taken on the job of evangelizing the wealthy and powerful.
Americans United has some serious concerns about the Fellowship Foundation. The group runs the infamous “C Street House” here in D.C. and is known for its secrecy. It also has ties to extremist groups overseas.
Nevertheless, every year leading elected officials troop to the Washington Hilton for this exercise in political piety. It’s plugged as an opportunity for unity. Politicians may not agree on policy, organizers say, but they can get along for an hour or two in prayer.
Please. We all know that the men and women who talked nice over their ham and eggs this morning are even now right back to attacking one another on the floors of Congress, in the media and any other venue they can find. The Prayer Breakfast is now 60 years old, and politics is more of a blood sport than ever. Why are we pretending otherwise?
In fact, the breakfast has only fueled these divisions. The event is predicated on a mentality of “us” (good, godly Americans who embrace faith, preferably the conservative Christian kind) and “them” (everyone else).
One of the speakers this morning was Eric Metaxas, a writer and apologist for fundamentalism who unleashed a string of lame jokes (Eric, don’t quit your day job!) interspersed with ridicule aimed at those of us who have expressed concerns about the Fellowship Foundation.
Metaxas seems to think we’re engaged in conspiracy-theory-based fear mongering. Actually, it’s not a conspiracy theory if it’s true. The Fellowship Foundation has a lot of money, has a far-right political agenda, woos politicians and avoids public scrutiny. We are concerned that so many of our political leaders have cozied up to this sketchy group. Any questions?
Also, culture-war politics often rears an ugly head at the gathering. During his remarks, Metaxas criticized legal abortion and same-sex marriage, actually implying that those who hold right-wing views on these questions are somehow being discriminated against. Same tiresome line there.
President Barack Obama followed Metaxas at the podium. Like a lot of Americans, I admire the president’s rhetorical skills, but today he seemed off his game. To his credit, Obama took pains to point out that important ethical principles are found in all religions and philosophies. The rest of what he had to offer was pretty much election-season boilerplate. Obama even bragged about his “faith-based” initiative, a policy program inherited from George W. Bush that many church-state separationists wish would simply go away.
In a country of hundreds of religious perspectives, it is becoming increasingly difficult to pretend that there is a common theological glue that binds us all together. The organizers of the National Prayer Breakfast try to pretend that the event is open to all, but speakers are generally drawn from conservative Christianity and the political rhetoric that works its way into the event tends to come from the right side of the equation.
The Prayer Breakfast celebrated its 60th anniversary this year. The best thing the organizers could do to mark that milestone is make sure there’s never a 61st. In our increasingly diverse society, this event is an anachronism that long ago outlived whatever thin value it ever had.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
You're giving some mixed signals AUSCS. Is it that the political rhetoric comes from the right side of the equation or that there is political rhetoric at all? Would you truly be satisfied with a prayer breakfast that represented all political and religious positions or should religion be left out all together?
I'm of the opinion that since you can't stop it, you're simply going to cry foul over them not at least allowing your left side of the equation political views at the podium. If you get no response, maybe you can get those two Kansan pastors to call for all their resignations for acting unchristian like and then there will be no representatives to attend it and cancelled by default.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
It's funny how you can read through an article that lists specific concerns about the event, and all you can come up with to respond is concern-trolling about "mixed signals." I've got no respect for someone who fails basic reading comprehension.
Something even funnier than me seeing through the crap is that the last time you used the word troll in a comment to me, it was due to your lack of reading comprehension. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/air-force-academy-retreats-christmas-charity?page=9
I have no respect for someone who has no self respect, so I guess we're even.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
"I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem." --Christopher Hitchens
So, you waste time going through a dead thread just to dredge up a misunderstanding created solely through OV's craptacular comment threading which makes it needlessly difficult to determine what "reply to" and "instead of" actually refer to.
This instead of actually explaining where you get off slyly referencing "seeing through the crap." But then again, you've demonstrated time and again that any perception or opinion of yours is filtered through an astonishing set of mental filters, so I'm eagerly awaiting how you'll articulate this latest nugget.
"Go put your creed in your deed"--Ralph Waldo Emerson
You've been here long enough for me to see that what you would have for others doesn't apply to you, and if I hadn't wasted the time to go through a dead thread to show it, I ran the risk of being called a liar...again. Your excuse for it is more crap I see through and I will articulate it for you because the placing of my comment had absolutely nothing to do with it.
My comment to CRW..."Yes, I know what oxymoron is. Do you know what hypocrisy is, since you decided to feed the troll instead of making the reply to methodskeptic?"...could have been mistakenly placed on an entirely different thread by OV and you would have still responded to me with..."Care to explain how any of my comments constitutes "trolling?" Just because you don't like what I say doesn't mean you get to make veiled insults.".
I don't know why you would expect me to expand on the mixed signals from the supposedly apolitical organization to you when you say that you have no respect for me because you can't see what I see in the article...oops, I mean for apparently having no reading comprehension...just like you.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
I’m going to explain this in small words so you’ll be sure to understand: there are no mixed signals here. Separation of Church and State isn't JUST the law, IT’S ALSO A GOOD IDEA. Organizations like The Family, which seek to mix church and state to further their own doctrine, are BAD. Just because they’re adhering to the letter of the law doesn’t mean that they aren’t stomping all over the spirit of the law and aren't diligently working to subvert the law.
NO MIXED SIGNALS. Only your disregard for what’s said in plain English. That’s what loses my respect, not that someone doesn’t understand, but that person deliberately WON’T understand, by choice, because they’re looking for an excuse to be hypercritical. (Where continually dragging up old, dead arguments falls in that line is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Hmm, what's in plain english and not the spirit of the article? You do know where that ones going to lead, don't you? If you want to talk about the spirit of the constitution, which I didn't see here even in plain english, there's a comment awaiting your response on the thread where they did address that spirit specifically. In case you forgot which one that is, its the one where you called me a liar and walked off seemingly out of answers.
If you want to talk about why they seem more concerned with the leanings of the political rhetoric at the breakfast than just about anything else, I'm all ears. If you want to explain why they mock the speaker for pleading to representatives over a legal procedure while they plead to representatives not to attend a legal prayer breakfast, I'm open to that as well, because these are the things that are as plain as the nose on your face in this article here.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Get over yourself. Articles roll off the current list of articles and eventually you move on to other conversations. I was right though, even though I've never once said the Prayer Breakfast ought to be challenged in court, it never has been.
Now, to address your points directly: the political leanings of the breakfast? The assault on separation comes from the right wing, no mixed message there.
"Mocking the speaker for pleading to representatives over a legal procedure while they plead to representatives not to attend a legal prayer breakfast." Sorry, I have no freaking clue what you're talking about. I'm used to it though, it's not the first time you've taken a position so baffling and so far removed from reality that it's all I can do just to figure out what your objection is.
You think someone other than you is concerned about or interested in whether or not you respect me, yet I'm to get over myself? Give me a break. You find it important enough to reply to all my comments that are an affront to the spirit of the constitution, but let one go where I'm being schooled on the subject? How about another break?
Perhaps the articles roll off so fast that you only have time to see what you want to see in them. Luckily, I'm here to help you see a couple recent challenges to the "spirit" of separation that you've missed, and AUSCS turned a blind eye to.
From the thread about Orrin Hatch attacking president Obama for quoting Jesus at the prayer breakfast: "Speaking to a group of conservative politicians, who often invoke God, at the annual National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, President Obama quoted the bible to push for fairer taxes for Americans. Obama said: “For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required."
How does AUSCS refer to what the president said here on their thread? "The rest of what he had to offer was pretty much election-season boilerplate."
I would think that the government coercing citizens to accept government policy through religious commands or shame would be a red flag to AUSCS, but I guess not if its a left leaning policy.
From the AUSCS thread on the pastors calling for the resignation of Kansas house speaker Mike O'Neil:
"Today the Rev. Tobias Schlingensiepen of First Congregational Church and the Rev. Jim McCollough of Topeka Center for Peace and Justice will present a petition demanding that O’Neal step down as speaker."(for PRAYING against pres. Obama)
"I hope Speaker O’Neal resigns – or at least repents."... J.L. Conn
What, no rebuke of the pastors or mention of the separation spirit by AUSCS? I wouldn't think that the clergy calling for the resignation of a government representative on religious grounds would garner the support of AUSCS, but it obviously does if it leans the right...I mean the left way.
If you can't see AUSCS speaking ill of being ridulced by the jokester for their concerns over this legal prayer breakfast in the same light as them two paragraphs later ridiculing the speaker over their concerns over the legal practice abortion, then you're just as blind eyed as they are.
Every AUSCS article I've seen on this legal breakfast has criticized it, but they imply the speaker is in the wrong for criticizing the practice of abortion with their use of the word "legal". C'mon.
As far as AUSCS is concerned, the importance of the spirit of separation is relative to the political leanings of those involved. Get it now? If not, you may as well get used to me confusing you because as long as AUSCS takes aim at things like a private statue in a national park that has nothing to do with nothing, then turns right around and supports the clergy calling for the resignation of a representative on religious grounds, I will continue to point it out. I hope this thread doesn't slip by because I really want to find out how you became blind in your left eye.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
[[I gotta tell you, I really had to skim this. You're getting less and less coherent as the thread goes on and I literally have difficulty understanding what you're trying to get across.]]
So, let me get this straight: You perceive a disconnect between them being critical of a preacher speaking out on a legal procedure (abortion), while at the same time feeling free themselves to criticize a prayer breakfast which is, in and of itself, legal? I'm sorry, but seriously, you don't always articulate yourself very well.
Assuming I’m reading you right, the answer to this is simple: the religious right is attempting to change the law to suit their own political/religious views. AUSCS is opposed to the infiltration of religion into politics, be it through the religious right's desire to change abortion politics, or more generally by undermining separation through the prayer breakfast. There's no mixed message there: in both cases, AUSCS is advocating the same constitutional principle: to keep religious peanut butter out of governmental chocolate.
I understand you may perceive hypocrisy there, but then again, you are an enemy of separation of church and state, so your evaluation of AUSCS's tactics is worth less than nothing as far as I'm concerned. Likewise, the point you continually bring up about the letter and the spirit of the law is hogwash. There will always be room for honest people to disagree over the spirit of the law; no statute could ever be written that clearly delineates all possible situations. It would be a refreshing change if the religious right would restrain itself to honest disagreement over the law; what they really want is to destroy religious freedom in this country, and the prayer breakfast is just one more way they cheat the system to maintain their undeserved Christian privilege.