National Prayer Breakfast

It is that time of the year again.

Last year, I discussed the event, which has traditionally been controversial because of its connections with "the Family." Liberals websites and other outlets flagged the problems with that group over the years. 

There was an effort for a "reset" that separated things from that group:

[T]he prayer breakfast, whose highlight is typically a speech from the sitting U.S. president, is no longer run by the International Foundation, a Christian group also known as the Fellowship Foundation and more familiarly referred to as “the Family.”

There were still concerns, including from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (who talked about it on their weekly radio show at the time), that there were too many connections remaining:

FFRF President Annie Laurie Gaylor told RNS in an email that her organization welcomes the changes, but said, “it does look as though the creation of a new entity to sponsor the prayer breakfast is essentially a subterfuge, because the folks running the NPB Foundation are all connected with the Fellowship.”

Rep. Mark Pocan (who once sponsored a failed attempt to have a former pastor and co-president of FFRF give an invocation to the House) is still concerned.  The group, for instance, is anti-gay and supports gay hate laws in Uganda.

The National Prayer Breakfast Foundation says they welcome all faiths to the breakfast. Nonetheless, if you go to their website, there is a direct Christian message. The all-comers policy (check their vision page) is for a reason:

When the group began, there was an understanding that this would be a meeting of friends to which all members would be invited. The purpose would be to grow in personal relationship with God and bonds of friendship with each other and to be an encouragement to one another as friends. These friendships often transcend party differences and opposing views on national and international issues. It is with this spirit that we aim to be a vehicle of fellowship and connection through the life of Jesus.

It is inherently sectarian to use "prayer" overall, which was flagged in a Supreme Court case involving adding a reference to prayer to a moment of silence law. It is a step beyond according to this vision statement. It directly speaks of a concern about the "life of Jesus." This is a Christian path. 

The National Prayer Breakfast has a wider symbolic meaning. It is a means for politicians to express their religious beliefs. But, there is a concern limit here that the values statement underlines. A Hindu might be welcome, but they would find the "fellowship" somewhat selective.

I noted last year:

And, even if we might be upset that Congress is not a true cross-section of a growing non-official (about 30%) religion-supporting country (no open atheists, a handful of non-Christians cited in a poll of membership), it is appropriate for government officials like everyone else to show their religious side.  

A "national prayer breakfast" has a certain implication, but it is not truly official.  It is not a "national day of prayer" authorized by congressional legislation and official presidential pronouncement.  

I basically hold to that. I still am concerned about the whole thing, especially since it does have the patina of an official event. President Biden has worn his faith on his sleeve. This provides him a chance to express it with the reassurance that some separation from the conservative group was made. 

I saw someone annoyed that President Biden didn't completely wash his hands from the group. The message there would be spun as anti-religious even if it is bullshit. 

The more important thing for me is the move to have a separation in the event itself. If it is far enough is not clear to me but it appears it is not just a Potemkin Village effort too. I will remain agnostic, however, since there still can be too close connections. I did not do a deep dive. 

I also don't know how sensible and appropriate it would be for the President to opine on religious groups overall. He has underlined his opposition to hate and discrimination.  

You can listen to President Biden's remarks. It provides a good message. 

ETA: In fact, in their overall strong disagreement, the FFRF statement singled out his remarks as overall benign. The other remarks were more strongly Christian. 

They still opposed him giving the overall event, taking place at a Capitol venue, his blessing.