Letter from Manzullo page one
Letter from Manzullo page two
Letter from Manzullo to Gates page one
Letter from Manzullo to Gates page two
Letter from Manzullo to Gates signatures
June 15, 2010
The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-1316
Dear Representative Manzullo:
Thank you for your dedicated service to our nation and to you correspondence dated June 9, 2010, in which you express concern for recent U.S. Court and U.S. Department of Defense decisions concerning both the National Day of Prayer and the rescission of an invitation to the Reverend Doctor Franklin Graham. I deeply appreciate your thoughtfulness in keeping the religious leaders in your district informed; however, I do feel it necessary to express my profound disagreement with a couple of your interpretations and conclusions regarding these events.
First, in reference to the court decision by U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb who ruled that the law designating a set national day of prayer is unconstitutional, you argue that such proclamations are historically established going all the way back to July 20, 1775. This argument leaves out some key facts; the most notable being is that such days of prayer were hotly debated by the Founding Fathers. In fact John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had an openly hostile debate on the floor of Congress concerning this very issue. This is but one of numerous instances that are historically documented concerning the struggles that the Founding Fathers endured in understanding the role of prayer, clergy and religion in the new federalist government.
The strongest evidence of this struggle is the Constitution itself, which makes no appeal or acknowledgment of God whatsoever even though many advocated passionately for such an inclusion in the Preamble. Therefore, even though there is precedent for a national day of prayer in the history of the United States, it is in no way a precedent without controversy and criticism dating back to the Founding Fathers. Therefore, the court ruling against the current law that establishes our current National Day of Prayer, a law that I believe was not enacted until 1952, is by no means that surprising, outrageous or itself without precedent.
Second, in reference to the decision by the U.S. Army to rescind an invitation to Rev. Dr. Franklin Graham to speak at the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer service, you argue that Rev. Graham should not be singled out for his personal views and his “type” of Christian belief. I respectfully disagree and also argue that such discrimination is, again, hardly without precedent. Many faithful Christians are openly critical of U.S. policies and of war in general. Very few of them have been invited to speak at such events.
While Rev. Dr. Franklin Graham is a very devoted man of faith, his openly hostile views towards homosexuals and Islam does raise significant concerns, not just for liberal political organizations, but for many who strive to be loyal to Christ. I am not saying that I think his invitation should have been rescinded, but I definitely understand why some thought that it was appropriate to do so.
In closing, I would like to express my concern that these rather superfluous issues have seemed to captivate the priorities of the U.S. Congress. Of course religious freedom is vital, but whether or not the U.S. Government has an official day dedicated for people to pray is irrelevant to this vital freedom. I cherish the freedom that allows me and others to worship and pray without fear, to establish our religious community without intimidation and to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ without censorship. Whether or not the U.S. Government, which is neither a church nor a religious community, designates a day for everyone to pray is at best irrelevant, and at worse, counterproductive to the protection of this vital religious liberty.
Thank you for letting me express my opinions and concerns. I need to note that while I do speak as pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Durand, Illinois, please know that I do not speak for the lay leadership of this congregation or its individual members, who are free to agree or disagree with me in matters addressed in this letter.
Once again, thank you for your willingness to serve our great nation.
Sincerely,
Reverend Robert Lee Bennight
Minister of Word and Sacrament
Posts
