AUDIO SCOTUS LGBT Decision Will ‘Create a Tsunami of New Litigation’ Against Religious Groups

ROBERT KRAYCHIK 15 Jun 2020

The Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) reinterpretation of a federal prohibition against employment discrimination based on sex — which now includes sexual orientation and “gender identity” — will “create a tsunami of new litigation” against religious organizations, explained Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, offering her remarks on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour.

The Supreme Court’s legal redefinition of “sex” to include sexual orientation and “gender identity” opens the door for further left-wing lawfare against religious organizations, Severino noted.

Severino said, “The Supreme Court left a lot of really important issues open, like, how do you balance this with religious freedom? How do you balance it with freedom of speech? If you’ve got a law, for example, saying that using someone’s preferred pronoun is mandatory — or you can be fined [for non-compliance], how do we balance that with some of these other important and even constitutional questions? Those are things that, for the most part, are unfortunately going to be just decided by a whole range of lower courts. and it will be a long time before the Supreme Court even takes up the opportunity to weigh in on that.”

Severino predicted, “These questions are going to create a tsunami of new litigation and create a huge amount of uncertainty going forward.”

LISTEN:

The Supreme Court’s decision to extend prohibitions against employment discrimination to include sexual orientation and “gender identity” will place religious and traditional organizations at a legal disadvantage when they are inevitably sued by left-wing outfits.

“You’re going to see these decisions going overwhelmingly in favor of the litigants [and] the plaintiffs who are challenging any religious organization, or any school, or anyone who wants to maintain a traditional, biologically based, scientific-based understanding of sex,” Severino forecasted.

“The logic that the court embraced” sets in motion a legal momentum for lower courts to render future decisions in favor of plaintiffs suing religious and traditional organizations for their personnel decisions, Severino anticipated.

Mansour asked if religious organizations would surrender to left-wing activist groups filing lawsuits based on the Supreme Court’s decision given their insufficient resources to legally defend themselves.

Severino replied, “That’s part of the strategy of the activists because they know that many of these organizations can’t afford to pay for defense. They can’t afford to risk a negative judgment where they could face crippling fines. If you’re talking about individuals, you’ve seen what’s happened with cases like the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, where someone’s entire business and livelihood could be destroyed and where they can face even personal threats and real concern over their own safety if they are willing to carry on litigation.”

Severino added, “I think the intimidation factor of a lawsuit is huge, and when you’ve got the court almost inviting that, it’s going to present a real challenge for a lot of people. Practically speaking, for the most part, this isn’t even going to be an issue because I think there’s the vast majority of businesses don’t have any reason or desire to discriminate on either of these bases, but there are circumstances where it is either relevant to the job qualifications or where it’s going to be an issue of conscience, and those are the ones where you’re going to have people who are going to be forced to make those tough choices between violating their own conscience and possibly losing their livelihood.”

The Supreme Court’s decision amounted to a rewriting of civil rights legislation, Severino stated.

“This had to do with the court interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Severino explained. “We’re kind of familiar with this language. It says that no employers can discriminate on the basis of sex, of religion, of natural origin, and other kinds of classic caveats that you have, but what their question was, ‘It says you can’t discriminate ion the basis of sex. Does that also mean you can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity?’”

Severino continued, “It’s kind of a strange question to be asking because in so many states, now, and in many situations in federal law, we already do have laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation, but they never phrase it as ‘discrimination based on sex.’ It’s always explicitly written, ‘discrimination based on sexual orientation.’”

“What the Supreme Court did is, in an opinion, they basically just rewrote what that text said because there is a long-standing history where for decades, no politicians [and] no judge said that language meant sexual orientation, as well,” Severino added.

The Supreme Court’s decision usurps the role of legislators, Severino determined.

“That’s really a revisionist reading of the statute dressed up as textualism, and that’s one of the things that is so dangerous because we have laws that courts can effectively rewrite,” Severino concluded. “No legislator who passed [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act] would have thought it meant that.”

Breitbart News Tonight broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot channel 125 weeknights from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern or 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific.

Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/06/15/carrie-severino-scotus-lgbt-decision-tsunami-litigation-religious-groups/

Groups receiving anti-AIDS taxpayer funds refuse to condemn prostitution

Supreme Court hearing challenge to federal requirement

(Image courtesy Pixabay)

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case brought by the federal government against organizations receiving taxpayer funds to combat AIDS that refuse to abide by the requirement that they expressly oppose sex trafficking and prostitution.

The American Center for Law and Justice has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, U.S. Agency for International Development vs. the Alliance for Open Society International.

Groups receiving grant money through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, are required to oppose sex trafficking and prostitution.

The program is credited with saving millions of lives.

ACLJ said that while the policy “seems like common sense, particularly in the face of known health risks associated with each and the immense societal damage and human rights violations associated with trafficking, grantees have claimed that ‘policy requirement’ violated their First Amendment rights.”

The case previously came before the Supreme Court, which agreed that the requirement was unconstitutional and returned the case to the lower courts.

There, a judge struck down the policy “not just as to domestic grant applicants, but also their foreign affiliates.”

So the federal government is back at the Supreme Court, still fighting for the requirement that recipients oppose prostitution and trafficking.

“When selecting among competing applicants for discretionary funding, government can look to the relevant qualifications of the applicant to ensure the effectiveness of a government program,” ACLJ argues.

“For example, government could disqualify tobacco merchants from an anti-smoking campaign, or require a documented pro-democracy record or policy for applicants to receive funding in a program to promote democratic principles and institutions abroad.”

ACLJ argues the requirement is an effort by the government to find the best-suited applicants.

“Congress is certainly entitled to judge that those with a demonstrated commitment are more likely to be dependable and effective in carrying out the program as Congress designed it,” ACLJ said in a brief.

Since trafficking and prostitution contribute to the spread of HIV, the legal group argues, why “would it not be legitimate for Congress, when doling out money, to prefer those grantees who explicitly oppose such destructive practices?”

A hearing is scheduled for next month.

ACLJ contends the requirement is “nothing more than a means of selecting suitable agents to implement the government’s chosen strategy.”

 

Original here


Supremes asked to defend faith of foster parents

City requires church organization to change beliefs to meet LGBT demands

 

supreme-court-wikipedia-feature

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to overrule Philadelphia’s demand that Catholic Foster Services place children with gay and lesbian parents.

A petition filed Monday by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty argues the church non-profit has a First Amendment right to place children according to its religious beliefs about family.

“As the city of Philadelphia attempts to shamelessly score political points, dozens of beds remain empty and children are suffering the consequences,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket, which is defending Catholic Social Services.

“It’s time for the Supreme Court to weigh in and allow faith-based agencies to continue doing what they do best: giving vulnerable children loving homes,” she said.

In April, 3rd Circuit judges Thomas Ambro, Anthony Scirica and Marjorie Rendell endorsed the city’s policy.

The case is on behalf of foster mothers Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simms-Busch, who say they are standing up for faith-based foster agencies and foster children in need of a home.

“Catholic Social Services has been serving the foster children of Philadelphia and their families since 1917, long before the city got involved,” said Becket. “Ms. Fulton was a longtime foster parent who fostered more than 40 children with the help of Catholic Social Services, and Ms. Simms-Busch is a former social worker in the foster care system who recently decided to become a foster and adoptive parent herself.”

Simms-Busch said that as a social worker, she evaluated the quality of care provided by the foster agencies in Philadelphia.

“When I decided to become a foster parent myself, I chose to go through the agency that I trusted the most,” she said. “The consistency, integrity, and compassion of Catholic Social Services has made all the difference in my journey through the foster care process.”

WND reported the city cut off the foster homes in the CSS program even while it was making an urgent call for 300 new foster parents for the more than 6,000 children in Philadelphia foster care.

The request to the high court for review explains, “The city of Philadelphia chose to exclude a religious agency from the city’s foster care system unless the agency agreed to act and speak in a manner inconsistent with its sincere religious beliefs about marriage.”

The case centers on whether or not “a government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs.”

The petition explains: “On any given day, over 400,000 children are in foster care nationwide. More than 100,000 of those children are awaiting adoption. Because the government cannot find enough foster and adoptive families on its own, it has historically relied on private groups and faith-based agencies.

“It is no exaggeration to say that the decision below threatens the future of Catholic foster and adoption agencies throughout the country. In Boston, San Francisco, Buffalo, the District of Columbia and the state of Illinois, Catholic charities have already been forced out of foster care and adoption.”

The dispute provides “an important opportunity” for the Supreme Court to “apply the First Amendment to a post-Obergefell system in which same-sex marriage co-exists with the ‘proper protection’ owed to ‘religious organizations.’”

In the 2015 Obergefell case, the justices created same-sex marriage, even though the ruling was described by the chief justice as being unconnected to the Constitution.

The high court previously declined to intervene on an emergency basis in the case.

It said last year it would not immediately order the city to resume placing children with Catholic Social Services while the litigation continued.

Three justices dissented: Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas.

It was U.S. District Judge Petrese Tucker who originally said the city could order the Catholics to place foster children with same-sex foster parents in violation of their religious beliefs.

CSS argued in court that the city’s “vindictive conduct will lead to displaced children, empty homes, and the closure of a 100-year-old ministry.”

WND reported when CSS explained to the lower court the city made clear that the religious beliefs of CSS “would not be an acceptable basis for Catholic’s unwillingness to provide a written certification regarding a [same-sex] couple’s relationship and to approve that couple for foster care.”

“The city’s rhetoric further reveals that the goal of its actions is to force Catholic to change its beliefs such as the statements that it’s ‘not 100 years ago anymore’ and ‘times are changing’ and Catholic’s religious beliefs should change, too,” the court filing said.

CSS charged the city’s policy is motivated by religious hostility.

“What justice is there in taking stable, loving homes away from children? If the city cuts off Catholic Social Services from foster care, foster moms like me won’t have the help and support they need to care for special-needs kids,” said Fulton. “I have relied on Catholic Social Services for support for years, and the city is taking away this help and causing harm and heartache to countless families like mine.”

CSS said the dispute appears to be personal.

“The city has targeted Catholic Social Services because of its religious beliefs. City officials have been open about their disagreement with Catholic teaching on marriage and their personal animosity toward the archdiocese,” the complaint stated.

 

https://www.wnd.com/2019/07/supremes-asked-to-defend-the-faith-of-foster-parents/

The Cross in the Crosshairs

image

By Jerry Newcombe, D.Min.

Last week’s cross decision was a major case for religious liberty. Perhaps it even spells the death knell of the so-called Lemon Test…an aptly-named decision from the early 1970s that has often been used against any religious expression in the public square.

The Supreme Court ruled that a 40-foot memorial cross in the state of Maryland was not unconstitutional. The cross was built beginning in 1919 to commemorate many soldiers from Prince George’s County who died in service to their country in World War I.

The American Humanist Association (AHA) sued to have the cross torn down. The 4thCircuit Court of Appeals (out of Richmond, Virginia) agreed with the AHA, and the cross had a sentence of death hanging over it. First Liberty Institute, which fights for religious liberty (including many military-oriented cases), fought to save the cross, on behalf of the American Legion. Perhaps surprisingly, the Supreme Court decided by a comfortable 7-2 margin.

The author of the decision was Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote, “A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.”

Writing for the dissenting minority—just herself and Justice Sonia Sotomayor—Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued: “the principal symbol of Christianity around the world should not loom over public thoroughfares, suggesting official recognition of that religion’s paramountcy.”

After the victory, I interviewed constitutional attorney Jeremy Dys for a radio segment. Dys serves as the Deputy General Counsel for First Liberty, the legal organization that helped procure the victory on behalf of the American Legion.

Dys told me, “It’s a landmark victory for religious freedom….Whatever detractors are saying, they no longer have a tool in their arsenal so they can twist the establishment clause of the Constitution to render memorials like this Bladensburg World War I veterans memorial obsolete and then take a wrecking ball to it.”

The establishment clause, of course, is the first part of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” For the last several decades, the establishment clause has been invoked to censor out virtually any religious content in the public arena.

With this decision, he says, the Supreme Court is now protecting religious monuments: “That area of the law is kind of settled at this point, and we’re grateful that the Supreme Court has seen fit to protect what was the vision of some mothers back in 1919 as a way to remember their sons for serving in our armed forces.”

Dys continues: “The day and age when [they] can weaponize the establishment clause to bulldoze memorials just because they are religious [and are] on public property are over.”

Dys feels that this decision effectively replaces the Lemon test with something he calls “the American Legion Test” (after the organization that built the monument and fought for it in the Supreme Court case). According to that test, if a religious symbol has longstanding significance in America’s history and tradition, it has the “presumption of constitutionality.” He notes that there are now six justices saying that the Lemon Test is bad law.

That is very significant going forward. Through this decision, things like “In God We Trust” on our money or displayed on our walls in public buildings would also be protected.

Dys also notes that the American Legion deserves a lot of credit in this case: “We have been working with them for about 15-20 years now, protecting monuments that have religious imagery in them….These war heroes have been working with us for years to preserve these monuments. And if you’re one of those guys or gals from the American Legion…I just want to say: Mission Accomplished.”

This new victory would have allowed another World War I cross to stand, without having to change ownership of where it stands. In that case from a few years ago, First Liberty worked to save a memorial on public land in the Mojave Desert. A judge  ruled that that cross must be covered up with a canvas bag which was padlocked and then later covered up by a plywood box. “Why?” one might ask. So the spiders and snakes and occasional hikers could not see it? It was in the middle of nowhere. That cross ultimately was allowed to stay only because the land it stood on became privatized through a land-swap.

Just as Dracula flees from the cross, so there are many atheistic legal groups in America (like the American Humanist Association) that fight the cross at every turn—even when it is a symbol of those who paid the ultimate price for our country. Thank God the cross in the crosshairs still stands.

https://www.djameskennedy.org/article-detail/the-cross-in-the-crosshairs

Supremes Send Anti-Christian Ruling Over Cake for Homosexuals Back to Oregon Appeals Court

 June 17, 2019 by  

 

Supremes Send Anti-Christian Ruling Over Cake for Homosexuals Back to Oregon Appeals Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the Oregon Court of Appeals’ ruling that permitted that state’s bureau of labor to punish yet another Christian bakery.

Citing its decision for Masterpiece Cakeshopin Colorado, the court said Oregon’s court must reconsider permitting Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries to fine a Beaver State bakery $135,000 because it refused to make a cake for a lesbian “wedding.”

So yet again, the high court delivered a blow against the sexual revolutionaries trying to punish Christians who believe that two members of the same sex cannot be married.

Lesbians Upset
Oregon’s war against normalcy began in 2013 when a pair of lesbians complained that Sweetcakes by Melissa, owned by Aaron and Melissa Klein, refused to bake a cake for the lesbians’ wedding.

The refusal, which included a message from the book of Leviticus condemning homosexuals, upset the lesbians. One apparently collapsed in tears on her bed. Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries, not surprisingly, ruled that the Kleins “discriminated” against the sapphic plaintiffs.

Then came the penalty. A judge for the bureau slammed Sweetcakes with a $135,000 fine for refusing to participate in the lesbian nuptials, a ruling Sweetcakes appealed to Oregon’s Court of Appeals.

In 2017, again not surprisingly, that court ruled against Sweetcakes. The court said the labor bureau’s diktat merely “requires their compliance with a neutral law” and that the couple “made no showing that the state targeted them for enforcement because of their religious beliefs.”

Having paid the fine and shut down their business even before the court ruled, the Kleins appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court published a two-sentence order. “The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Oregon for further consideration in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n,” the court partly wrote.

Masterpiece Attacked Again
The ruling in Masterpiece squarely placed the court in the breach against those who would force Christian businesses to approbate homosexual sodomy.

That case involved Jack Phillips, the owner, who also refused to bake a “wedding” cake for a couple of homosexuals in Colorado.

The state’s Civil Rights Commission, which joined the two homosexuals in trying to wreck Masterpiece, ruled that if Phillips made wedding cakes, he had to make them for homosexuals. Phillips refused, taking away 40 percent of his business.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy averred that the commission was hostile to Phillips’ religious beliefs and violated the First Amendment. And so the high court overruled the state’s anti-Christian bureaucrats and courts.

Kennedy wrote that Colorado’s attack on Phillips “showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

That’s right. The Colorado civil rights Gestapo compared Christians to Nazis.

Amazingly, Phillips is still under attack. Having already lost a previous case against the baker just two months ago, a man who pretends he is a woman has sued Phillips a second time in a local court. Once again, Phillips had refused to provide a cake that trespassed his religious beliefs.

The homosexuals and Colorado have been waging war against Phillips for seven years. The message they’re sending to Christians? You’ll do what you’re told, your beliefs regardless, or face professional and financial ruin.

Back in Oregon
The question is whether Oregon’s Court of Appeals will act wisely given the Masterpiece decision.

And that, in turn, depends on whether the court will defend a state agency that attacked a business owner for much the same reason that Colorado attacked Phillips: The owner refused to provide a service because providing that service would have violated his religious beliefs and required him to become an accessory to another’s sin by partaking in it.

If what is past is prologue, the Kleins will have to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court once again.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/32622-supremes-send-anti-christian-ruling-over-cake-for-homosexuals-back-to-oregon-appeals-court


America’s Founders on National Day of Prayer

April 29, 2019 by Chuck Norris

This Thursday, May 2, is the 67th Annual National Day of Prayer. The theme this year is “Love One Another,” which couldn’t be a better one when it comes to praying for others.

The National Day of Prayer has been an annual observance since 1952, inviting people of all faiths to pray for the nation and world. It was created by a joint resolution of the United States Congress, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and annually observed by presidents ever since on the first Thursday of May. Its approval flew through the Congress almost seven decades ago as a way to help separate America as a country with a godly heritage and to aid her success against atheistic communism. (In 1956, the motto “In God We Trust” was also universally printed on all U.S. currency for the same basic reasons.)

Despite that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of state legislatures to open their sessions with prayer in the case of Marsh vs. Chambers (1983), critics try to oppose the National Day of Prayer’s constitutionality by saying it didn’t exist prior to 1952 as a national observance. But all one must do is go back to the founders and framers of the Constitution to understand that, whether one looks at Creator-language in such pivotal documents as the Declaration of Independence or the role religion played in establishing ethics and morality even in political arenas, not one justice or government official back then would oppose a national day of prayer. In fact, they would be advocates for it.

The NDP website explained, “The National Day of Prayer is a vital part of our heritage. Since the first call to prayer in 1775, when the Continental Congress asked the colonies to pray for wisdom in forming a nation, the call to prayer has continued through our history. …”

Recently I read another excellent article by historian David Barton at the Wallbuilders website, titled, “Founding Fathers on Prayer.” In it, Barton details many of our founders’ ponderings and passions about prayer. Let me give you a small sample.

In 1789, after being urged by Congress on the same day they finished drafting the First Amendment, President Washington issued a thanksgiving proclamation stating, “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

President John Adams declared that America’s independence “ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”

Benjamin Franklin was particularly eloquent on the power of prayer in government, as he addressed those who attended the Constitutional Convention:

In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard; and they were graciously answered. All of us, who were engaged in the struggle, must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need its assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, That God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. … I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business.

Franklin’s question still needs to ring from the corridors of Congress to the halls of our public schools and homes: “And have we now forgotten that powerful friend?”

James Madison, the so-called father of the Bill of Rights as the drafter of the ratified ten amendments, agreed: “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in [America’s founding] a finger of that Almighty Hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the Revolution.”

Even Thomas Jefferson, who is often pitched by progressives as the secularist among the founders, said in 1808 near the end of his second term as president: “Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it.”

(To understand more about our founders’ views on everything – especially their often-overlooked or misunderstood religious views and practices – and to keep up to date on current trends and culture wars, I highly encourage you to check out the resources at Wallbuilders. In addition, listen regularly to Wallbuilders Live, an excellent historical and political commentary show hosted by former Texas State Representative and constitutional expert and educator Rick Green and historian David Barton, who interview great patriots and culture warriors every week.)

The NDP website gives these “fun facts” about prayer and politics:

  1. There have been 146 national calls to prayer, humiliation, fasting and thanksgiving by the president of the United States (1789-2017).
  2. There have been 69 presidential proclamations for a National Day of Prayer (1952-2017). Gerald R. Ford (1976), George H. Bush (1989-91), Barack H. Obama (2012), and Donald J. Trump (2017) are the only U.S. presidents to sign multiple National Day of Prayer Proclamations in the same year.
  3. Every president since 1952 has signed a National Day of Prayer proclamation.
  4. Thirty-five of the 45 U.S. presidents have signed proclamations for National Prayer. Three of the presidents who did not sign a proclamation died while serving in office. Two presidents, not included in the count – William Howard Taft and Warren Gamaliel Harding – signed Proclamations for Thanksgiving and Prayer.
  5. Records indicate there have been 1,526 state and federal calls for national prayer since 1775 and counting.

The NDP website added, “In 1988, the law [for a national day of prayer] was amended and signed by President Reagan, permanently setting the day as the first Thursday of every May. Each year, the president signs a proclamation, encouraging all Americans to pray on this day. Last year, all 50 state governors plus the governors of several U.S. territories signed similar proclamations.”

The NDP website also explained the significance of this Thursday this way:

The National Day of Prayer has great significance for us as a nation as it enables us to recall and to teach the way in which our founding fathers sought the wisdom of God when faced with critical decisions. It stands as a call for us to humbly come before God, seeking His guidance for our leaders and His grace upon us as a people. The unanimous passage of the bill establishing the National Day of Prayer as an annual event, signifies that prayer is as important to our nation today as it was in the beginning.

Like Thanksgiving or Christmas, [the National Day of Prayer] has become a national observance placed on all Hallmark calendars and observed annually across the nation and in Washington, D.C. Every year, local, state, and federal observances were held from sunrise in Maine to sunset in Hawaii, uniting Americans from all socio-economic, political and ethnic backgrounds in prayer for our nation. It is estimated that over two million people attended more than 30,000 observances – organized by approximately 40,000 volunteers. At state capitols, county court houses, on the steps of city halls, and in schools, businesses, churches and homes, people stopped their activities and gathered for prayer.

For all the above reasons, I urge every American to locate and join a group in your local community on this National Day of Prayer, and bow your head in prayer with millions across the country, beseeching God to protect, forgive and heal our land, as well as submit us to His rule and reign as our founders did. You can find a local NDP event in your area here. Also, click here for NDP promotional tools or to livestream the National Observance in Washington, D.C.

Again in the words of President George Washington, let us remind everyone we know with our words and actions: “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

https://www.wnd.com/2019/04/americas-founders-on-national-day-of-prayer/