One of the most foundational rights we have as a country is religious freedom. Shockingly, most Americans do not really understand what religious liberty actually means or what it entails. When the Founding Fathers established our nation and drafted the documents that preserve our God-given rights, freedom of religion meant the government would establish no national church or declared denomination that everyone had to belong to. The Founders assumed the vast majority of the United States would be Christian.
After all, the Christian Bible served as the foundation for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Founders envisioned that each state or local community could, if it wished, decide for itself which Christian denomination it would follow. They certainly did not intend to ban Christianity, prayer, or other expressions of faith from government.
The confusion stems from a misunderstanding of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referenced a separation of church and state. Atheists have twisted those words to argue that government must strip all mention of God and faith from public life. In reality, Jefferson meant that a separation must exist to prevent the government from establishing or favoring a specific denomination.
Unfortunately, this confusion continues today. For example, a Maryland county council maintained a long-standing tradition of opening meetings by reciting the “Our Father,” also known as the Lord’s Prayer. An atheist group, apparently ignorant of the nation’s history, threatened to sue the council unless it stopped the prayer.
The council had a clear opportunity to defend the true principle of religious freedom, but instead bowed to fear tactics from a group of godless progressives. Cowardice is not a godly trait, folks. If we deny the Lord before men, He will deny us. This decision amounts to a clear denial.
Legal experts weighed in and stated that reciting the prayer clearly complied with the Constitution, but the council still caved to demands from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Members worried about crushing legal fees if they continued the tradition. They lacked the faith and intestinal fortitude to trust God’s promise to provide for His people’s needs.
“The Wicomico County Council in southeastern Maryland is considering replacing its longstanding practice of prayer by council members with ‘holding a moment of silence, hosting a clergy-led prayer or letting Wicomico County voters decide through a referendum,’ according to the Salisbury Independent,” LifeSiteNews reported.
During a legislative meeting on January 20, Council President John Cannon said the decision caused a “great deal of disappointment” and that he personally “shared in that disappointment.” He also noted that the council practiced the Our Father long before he began serving in his current position more than two decades ago.
“We are not a council that shies away from a challenge simply because litigation is threatened,” Cannon said. “But when legal counsel is clear about the probable outcome, and when the financial risk to our citizens is so substantial, we have a responsibility to weigh fiscal stewardship against our desire to preserve a tradition we’ve honored for so many years.”
Senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Litigation at Alliance Defending Freedom explained that the Founding Fathers themselves began the tradition of opening legislative meetings with prayer and that the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed its constitutionality.
“What’s funny about this recent case is that it feels like a blast from the past,” he said during an episode of Washington Watch on Monday. “These issues have been settled by the Supreme Court for over a decade.” Cortman also pointed out that nearly four decades ago, the Supreme Court ruled legislative prayer constitutional. In Marsh v. Chambers (1983), the Court upheld the Nebraska legislature’s practice of opening sessions with prayer led by a publicly funded chaplain.
To push back against the FFRF, officials must stand on principle and refuse to comply with fearmongering tactics.
“They send out these fear-mongering letters, threaten litigation, and threaten attorney fees,” Cortman explained. “Towns and counties look at their budgets and say, ‘We’re already strapped. We don’t want to risk paying attorney fees.’”
“Sometimes the law differs across the country, but that’s why the Supreme Court exists to resolve those differences,” he added. “Federal law, according to the Supreme Court, applies uniformly everywhere. Some courts may try to draw distinctions, but even if this case reached the Supreme Court again, the justices would certainly uphold this practice because it forms part of our national tradition going back to the Founders.”
Let’s hope the next council that receives one of these letters turns to Christ for strength, wisdom, and courage to stand boldly for the truth—and threatens its own legal action if necessary. Otherwise, religious liberty will soon be put out to pasture.
