Interfaith Alliance and Jews On First Call For The President To Issue An Inclusive National Day Of Prayer Proclamation
Apr 21 2010
April 20, 2010
The Honorable Barack H. Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
The National Day of Prayer and Reflection will be observed this year on May 6th. While we believe a call to prayer is best left to religious leaders and not the government, we would respectfully request that if you do issue a proclamation, that once again you call for an Inclusive Day of Prayer and Reflection as you did last year. We believe that an inclusive declaration that explicitly opens this day to clergy and believers of all religions, as well as those who profess no religion is in keeping with President Truman’s original intent.
As you know, a federal judge recently ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional, but has allowed your proclamation to move forward during the appeal process. In light of this decision, it is even more important that this year’s proclamation speak to Americans of all faith traditions and belief systems.
We are compelled to make this request because in past years the National Day of Prayer was taken over by a group of religious exclusivists led by Shirley Dobson of Focus on the Family. In past years Mrs. Dobson's group, The National Day of Prayer Task Force has represented itself in a way that led many to believe that they were the government sanctioned National Day of Prayer organizers. In fact, they clearly represent only certain evangelical Christians. While they have taken some steps this year to clarify their role, the casual visitor to their website would still assume that it is the official website of the National Day of Prayer.
We urge you to again issue a single proclamation for the day that calls for an Inclusive National Day of Prayer and Reflection that restores and reflects our nation's best values by explicitly inviting clergy from diverse faith traditions to participate equally and fully - especially in events held on government property.
With gratitude for the sensitivity and inclusiveness of your proclamation last year,
Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy,
President, Interfaith Alliance
Rabbi Haim Dov Beliak,
Co-Director-Jews On First
Co-Director-Jews On First
Organizations support freedom of religion, but neither party, in case to be argued Monday before U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 20 2010
Groups filed friend-of-the-court brief defending religious freedom principles in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court should protect the religious autonomy of student groups that have expressive association rights to meet on campus as part of a public university’s forum, but not in a manner that clears the way for government funding of religion, says the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the Interfaith Alliance.
Oral arguments are scheduled for Monday, April 19, in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. At issue is whether the Constitution permits the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law to exclude the campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) from official recognition and attendant benefits afforded other clubs solely because the group requires its members to share its core religious commitments.
In the only friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of neither party in the case, the Baptist Joint Committee and the Interfaith Alliance wrote that a public university’s laudable goal of preventing discrimination is not impeded by allowing a student group to control its own message and membership criteria. The groups support the constitutional requirement that religious clubs on a public university campus receive equal access to a forum for speech that is offered to other student organizations.
CLS allows anyone to attend meetings, but only those who sign its Statement of Faith and agree to live “in a manner consistent” with it can become voting members. The dispute arose when the law school denied CLS official recognition for failing to comply with its nondiscrimination policy. Hastings maintains that recognized student organizations must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, natural origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation. In fact, the parties stipulated that Hastings requires recognized student organizations to have “open membership.”
The High Court agreed to hear CLS’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that the chapter had to follow the school’s nondiscrimination policy to participate as a recognized student organization with access to related benefits, such as use of school name and logo, campus e-mail addresses, mass e-mail privileges and access to certain funding.
On the membership issue, the Baptist Joint Committee and Interfaith Alliance brief argues there is nothing extraordinary about a religious club wanting to control its message by having exclusionary criteria for membership.
According to the brief, “for CLS, allowing those who would not affirm their Statement of Faith to become voting members would alter who they are.”
The law school’s nondiscrimination policy “interferes with rights of expressive association and destroys its intended purpose of allowing student groups to meet around common interests and to encourage the exchange of ideas on campus.”
BJC Executive Director J. Brent Walker said the policy is problematic because it does not allow groups to develop viewpoints that are diverse from other groups. “What Hastings gives with one hand — a forum for student expression — it takes away with the other hand by not allowing CLS to define itself and its message.”
The Hastings policy is further complicated because it also provides for funding of student organizations, raising additional religious liberty concerns. As the brief explains, the constitutional principle of equal access for a speech forum “is constitutionally and logically tied to principles of no establishment that protect against government sponsorship of religion.” In linking access to the forum with access to university funds, Hastings threatens “sponsorship” of Christian fellowship and Bible study through direct government funding. This is a far cry from the indirect, incidental forum funding the Court has previously permitted in such contexts.
The Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, underscored the importance of a narrowly tailored decision by the High Court.
”Regardless of which side prevails, the Court should avoid rendering a decision that allows direct funding of a private religious organization and their religious activities or that unduly curtails the expressive association rights of the organization,” Gaddy said.
The Baptist Joint Committee is a 74-year-old, Washington, D.C.-based religious liberty organization that works to defend and extend God-given religious liberty for all, bringing a uniquely Baptist witness to the principle that religion must be freely exercised, neither advanced nor inhibited by government. For more information visit www.BJConline.org.
Apr 15 2010
Washington, DC –Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, issued the following statement today on the federal court decision overturning the National Day of Prayer.
Today’s court decision is sure to be controversial. However, those willing to take the time to read it will see that Judge Crabb has crafted a decision that is sensitive to the integrity of religion by keeping government mandates out of it.
Today’s decision makes clear that just because the government may not endorse a religious message, it does not mean that a religious message is harmful. Maintaining clear boundaries between religion and government only serves to strengthen both.
Mar 31 2010
Washington, DC –Interfaith Alliance President, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, issued the following statement today criticizing an advertisement placed in the New York Times by Bill Donohue and the Catholic League defending Pope Benedict XVI and his actions related to the child sex-abuse scandal embroiling the Catholic Church.
I read with great disappointment the advertisement placed by Bill Donohue and the Catholic League in yesterday’s New York Times. The child-sex abuse scandal the Catholic Church faces is a tragedy of untold proportions. It should be at the top of the Pope’s agenda, as well as a primary concern in every religious denomination that has faced similar scandals. As a member of the clergy myself, I take very seriously the welfare of the children in my congregation.
I do not question Mr. Donahue's desire to speak out on issues concerning his church and the Pope. But I find his reasoning repugnant. To claim this is a ‘homosexual crisis’ rather than a ‘pedophilia crisis’ is a misguided insult to the millions of gay men and women who find this scandal as devastating as their heterosexual counterparts.
Rather than pointlessly pointing fingers, Mr. Donahue should start focusing on the need for accountability and transparency.. This is a time for constructive dialogue, not for demonizing and disenfranchising entire segments of the population.