.png){kind=logo}
February 4, 2012 at 11:16 am 
Al Stefanelli As Posted on the Freedom From Religion Foundation Website:
Prayer breakfast serves up an unlawful mixture of state/church
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has sent a cautionary letter to President Barack Obama asking him to once again disassociate the Oval Office from the so-called annual “National Prayer Breakfast” taking place on Thursday, Feb. 2. Obama is scheduled to once again participate.
“The National Day of Prayer Breakfast lends the unmistakable appearance that the White House itself is cosponsoring the event, working hand in glove with the ultra-right-wing Christian group, The Fellowship Foundation, also known as ‘the Family.’ This group, apparently originated the breakfast to mix religion and state in the early 1950s,” wrote FFRF Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor.
FFRF noted the event sends a message that the president prefers and endorses the Christian faith. These actions exclude and offend the significant portion of the population that is non-Christian (24 percent) including nonreligious (15 percent).
“The inclusion of other faiths at the government-promoted or sponsored National Prayer Breakfast still excludes those of us with no religious faith — the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population by religious identification,” noted FFRF.
FFRF maintains that the entanglement of the Office of the President with the National Prayer Breakfast is inappropriate and unnecessary.
“We request that you honor the oath you took to uphold our godless Constitution, leaving religion to the private sphere, and cancel your plan to ‘bless’ this sectarian event,” wrote FFRF.
The Foundation has taken issue with the president’s appearance at this event for years.
After writing a series of letters last year, FFRF Staff Attorney Stephanie Schmitt can claim success. So far there is no presidential seal on the National Prayer Breakfast website. FFRF will be addressing the unconstitutional congressional seal that currently adorns the page.
To add your voice in complaint over this unseemly mix of religion and government, contact:
The White House Comment Line
Phone: 202-456-1111
Fax: 202-456-2461
Email form: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
Thank you for your support!
Consider making this the focus of a short letter to the editor of periodicals, including your local newspaper. Blind copies of your emails or letters may be shared with action@ffrf.org.
—————————————————–
Here’s a copy of the letter:
—————————————————
Posted in 
Tags: 
Done! Thanks for the link. I may use it more frequently, now.
The name of FFRF is irrational in that the purpose statement establishes a religious tenet:
“The purposes of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Incorporated in 1978 in Wisconsin, the Foundation is a national membership association of more than 17,000 freethinkers: atheists, agnostics and skeptics of any pedigree.”
One definition of “religion” given in The Oxford English Dictionary, 1971 is: “Devotion to some principle; a strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment.”
If the FFRF is not “devoted” to its core priniciples, why pursue them? FFRF portrays itself as a group of “free thinkers.” According to Wikipedia: “Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas. The cognitive application of freethought is known as ‘freethinking,’ and practitioners of freethought are known as ‘freethinkers.’”
Given FFRF is a religious organization, why should this religion be embraced above any other?
Ah, yes, conflating distinct definitions of a word is a VERY effective rhetorical tactic, not at all transparent and easily dismissed. This therefore MUST be a legitimate attempt to argue a legitimate point and not simple trolling (with respect to several meanings of the word “simple” – I know explaining the joke makes it less funny, but I was worried you might miss it otherwise).
If the White House was in the habit of hosting a “There’s No God Pancake Breakfast”, then you might actually have a point.
It’s not, so you don’t.
While some definitions of “religion” may not include the supernatural or divine, it is commonly accepted and assumed that religion typically pertains to such matters. If we want to stick strictly to the definition you provided, then the Constitution of the United States prevents the government from establishing laws that promote the adherence to any principles like individual freedom, liberty, blah, blah, blah.
Nice try, but arguing semantics is about as effective as punching a shadow.
Bill Maher has said before that he thinks Obama is REALLY a secular humanist.
Any thoughts on the matter?