Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on May 25, 2011 - 12:51pm
As we noted yesterday, Focus on the Family's Jim Daly seems to be in damage-control mode after a recent interview in which he that his side had "probably lost" the fight over marriage equality.
Yesterday he wrote an op-ed for Fox News saying that gay marriage would spell the end of religious liberty for Christians and today he has another piece in the Washington Post saying that "engaging in a little wishful thinking" if they think that he and his organization are going to give up the fight:
In a recent report in World Magazine, my friend Marvin Olasky reprinted, in part, an exchange I had with students at The King’s College in New York City a month or so ago.
Although the story touches on an array of subjects – Focus on the Family’s nationwide orphan-care effort, how intact families help women and children stay out of poverty, even the positive example President Obama sets for the country as a committed family man – the left-leaning blogosphere has zeroed in on one slice of one answer to one question about same-sex marriage. When asked about cultural trends on the subject, particularly polling among the millennial generation, I acknowledged that recent data suggests this very important and key group is polling behind the rest of the country on marriage. To me, it was a simple statement of demographic and statistical fact, but to those who advocate for same-sex marriage, it is being presented as a concession speech regarding our efforts to protect one-man, one-woman marriage.
So, let me be clear: I am not waving a white flag. I’m not even contemplating picking one up. There is still much work to be done by those of us in the faith community to advocate for marriage as it has been defined, and practiced, by every civilized society for millennia.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on May 24, 2011 - 10:21am
Over the weekend, Focus on the Family President Jim Daly made news for admitting in an interview in World Magazine that "we've probably lost" the fight over marriage equality and the Religious Right would "need to start calculating where we are in the culture."
Focus on the Family then admitted to Jeremy Hooper at Good As You that this was admission was not "big news, but it’s really just another expression of what he’s been saying for years."
But, as Jeremy noted, this admission was in fact a big deal and probably would not go over very well with the organization's right-wing allies.
So, wouldn't you know it, today Daly has an opinion piece up on Fox News entitled "Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work" in which he warns that gay marriage will result in the complete destruction of religious liberty:
On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history.
...
[A] home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.
In each example of social reengineering I’ve noted, progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too ... Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.
...
If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be. Our rights will no longer be derived from God but from man, and therefore, dangerously beholden to political despots.
Submitted by Brian Tashman on May 12, 2011 - 3:41pm
Jim Daly, the president of Focus on the Family, thinks that the Hallmark Channel should make a movie about Abby Johnson, the Planned Parenthood clinic worker turned anti-choice leader. Johnson, who now works with Lila Rose’s Live Action, has received plaudits (and earnings) from Religious Right activists for her book deal and speaking tour. At the center of Johnson’s experience is a purported account where she saw a fetus on the ultrasound machine move away from the doctor during an abortion, and she abruptly quit and joined a 40 Days for Life protest outside the clinic.
While Daly says that nobody “has ever questioned her haunting description,” it is quite likely that the event never happened.
Nate Blakeslee Texas Monthly found out that on the day Johnson claims to have assisted the doctor with an abortion, the “physician on duty told the organization that he did not use an ultrasound that day, nor did Johnson assist on any abortion procedure.” The only time he used an ultrasound that month was two weeks prior.
The exposé also discovered that the details of Johnson’s story simply don’t add up with the official records the clinic presented to the state of Texas’s Health Services Department: “Johnson has consistently said that the patient in question was thirteen weeks pregnant, which is plausible, since thirteen weeks is right at the cusp of when physicians will consider using an ultrasound to assist with the procedure. Yet none of the patients listed on the report for that day were thirteen weeks pregnant; in fact, none were beyond ten weeks.”
Johnson claims that the woman undergoing the abortion was black, but the only black woman who had an abortion at Planned Parenthood that day “was in the sixth week of her pregnancy. There would be no medical reason for a doctor to use an ultrasound to guide an abortion performed on a woman at such an early stage. Even if one was used, it’s hard to imagine how Johnson, who said she has seen hundreds of ultrasound pictures in her career, could mistake a one-quarter-inch-long embryo for a three-inch, thirteen-week fetus.”
But while Johnson appears to have manufactured her conversion story, Daly believes that Johnson can motivate other Planned Parenthood clinic employees to quit their jobs:
If the producers of Hallmark Hall of Fame were looking for a thoughtful script that both inspires and convicts, they needn’t look any further than the story of Abby Johnson.
…
Abby’s decision was met with scorn and suspicion from abortion activists, with some even accusing her of a “cover-up” to conceal the real reason behind her resignation and orchestrating a campaign of half-truths to embarrass her former employer.
Nobody, however, has ever questioned her haunting description of a baby’s reaction when he or she is about to be aborted.
…
As such, please join me in praying that more Planned Parenthood workers will, like Abby, come forward and publicly resign from their positions. We will continue to utilize every legal means at our disposal to help overturn Roe vs. Wade, as we continue to work to change hearts and minds about abortion. At the same time, can you imagine the magnitude of the practical impact should more Planned Parenthood employees turn from supporting death to promoting life?
Submitted by Brian Tashman on March 9, 2011 - 12:33pm
After Focus on the Family asked members to pray for Justin Bieber’s protection from Usher, the organization is now taking a stand against Lady Gaga. While Lady Gaga is a leading advocate of LGBT equality, Focus on the Family consistently lobbies against gay rights and is a chief sponsor of “reparative therapy” for gays and lesbians. Jim Daly, the head of Focus on the Family, writes about Lady Gaga’s Born This Way, and unsurprisingly finds her music and message deeply troubling. In his critique, Daly claims that people can be “set free from homosexuality,” and compares homosexuality to adultery:
I am not inclined toward celebrity psycho-analysis, and, candidly, find it strange to even write the word “Gaga.” But when millions of young people download her music and watch her videos, parents are wise to take note of what the hype and hoopla is all about.
In Born This Way, the claim is made that you’re born either heterosexual or homosexual. Don’t fight it - simply accept and embrace it.
The problem is, researchers are not sure about what causes homosexuality. Many are concluding it is a complex combination of things, but it is not as clear cut as simply genetic material.
The pulse and pace of modern culture can usually be determined from its music and movies, not faith and reason. That a song advocating for a genetic determinative for homosexuality sits atop the charts is disconcerting, but not entirely shocking. From the outside looking in, two things strike me.
First, by Stefani Germanotta’s own admission, she’s built her entire persona and celebrity on a platform that’s anything but typical. She is playing a part, a role, and not living as she would outside the bright lights. Put another way, Lady Gaga was clearly not born this way.
Second, and more importantly, the message found within the lyrics of Born This Way is in stark contrast to the message of the Gospel. All of us are born into sin, the Bible tells us, with desires and resulting actions that separate us from God and put us at odds with His blueprint for our lives. But the Good News is we’re not hopelessly trapped in our sin and failure. Despite the fact that we were “born this way,” each of us can be set free – from homosexuality, or heterosexual sex outside of marriage, or pornography, or greed, or gossip, or any other human shortcoming – to be the men and women God intended us to be.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on February 25, 2011 - 4:14pm
Today, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, joined Focus on the Family's Jim Daly on his radio program to discuss the news that the Obama administration would no longer defend DOMA in court.
During the discussion, Mohler said that it is all but inevitable that day is coming when marriage equality will "become normalized, legalized, and recognized in the culture" and that Christians had better be prepared for living in a nation where they find themselves in the minority:
Daly: Do you think, as we look at those demographics and the polling data and all the other things, as the Christian community, is this something that is inevitable? I know this is a tough question here on Christian radio but I think it's time to start talking about what if.
Mohler: Well Jim I appreciate your candor in that because I think a lot of Christian conservatives are going to try to deny the obvious. I mean, when we're talking about same-sex marriage, we're talking about something that is already legal in one form or another in basically twelve states. So whether they call it marriage, as they do in a few states, or marriage lite as they have now in twelve states, the reality is that a good number of Americans are living where they're already facing not just the inevitably, but the reality, of same-sex marriage. I think it's clear that something like same-sex marriage - indeed, almost exactly what we would envision by that - is going to become normalized, legalized, and recognized in the culture. It's time for Christians to start thinking about how we're going to deal with that.
I think in the United States, Evangelical Christians in particular, have kind of grown accustomed to having our beliefs and moral convictions and ways of life supported by the state, by the larger culture and we're going to have to learn what it means to live faithfully as Christians when we do not have those supports. You know, it's one thing to live believing that you're in the majority position - everything comes pretty easy that way ...
Daly: A Christian nation.
Mohler: That's right. But when you live in a situation where we're clearly a minority holding to certain convictions that the larger culture either doesn't hold or doesn't hold tenaciously or as very important, we're going to find out just where we stand as Christians.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on July 6, 2010 - 10:34am
For weeks now I have been writing regular posts on the increasing intersection between the "mainstream" Religious Right and Dominionist prophetic intercessors like Lou Engle, Cindy Jacobs, Rick Joyner and others.
But I have always beencareful to note that just because the more "mainstream" leaders have been joining forces with these self-proclaims prophets and apostles, it didn't mean that they necessarily shared their Dominionist agenda.
But I think it is fair to say that I no longer need to be so careful, as the leaders of the Religious Right have now openly embraced Seven Mountains Dominionist theology, which is described thusly:
First, human beings are blessed by God. Secondly, these blessed human beings are given a mandate to take dominion of the earth for the purpose of blessing it. ... The first advent of Christ was for the purpose of creating a blessed seed upon the earth - the church. The second coming of Jesus will take place after this blessed seed has completed the Dominion Process upon the earth by making disciples of all nations.
In short, Dominionist theology believes that Christians are called to take "dominion" over every aspect of our culture and use them to create God's kingdom on Earth in order to bring about the return of Jesus Christ. And their method for gaining "dominion" is through something called the "Seven Mountains Mandate," which seeks to place Christians at the top of seven distinct spheres that shape our culture: (1) Business; (2) Government; (3) Media; (4) Arts and Entertainment; (5) Education; (6) Family; and (7) Religion.
One of the leading authorities on the Seven Mountains Mandate among the new apostles and prophets is a man named Lance Wallnau, and here is a video of him explicitly explaining how it is to work:
Most believers on the Earth are more frightened at the prospect of taking on the insurmountable giants represented by the mountains near them in their nations. They're more intimidated by trying to take possession of what is an opposition that has strength and fortification in the natural, from the IRS, to Hollywood, to whatever. Most believers are afraid, so they create a theology that eliminates the responsibility for having to take territory and rather focuses on just getting people saved so that when Jesus comes back he can repopulate the Earth with people that are followers and let him take over the planet.
There is just a little problem with that: the little problem is Heaven is his throne and the Earth is the footstool of his feet and he was told that he was to sit at the Father's right hand until God made his enemies a footstool for his feet, which means He doesn't come back until He's accomplished the dominion of nations.
The point is this: God wants to have the tabernacle at the top of every one of these spheres. You want to know what the spheres are that shape a nation? This is how you take a nation: you have to get into the family - that is why same-sex marriage such a demonic agenda ... because who ever shapes the family mountain shapes the idea of what culture is for a man and wife. You got to get into the education mountain, you know why? Because whoever's ideology is shaping that little kid when he's a child, by the time he's 19, hey for all you know he could become part of the Hitler Youth movement and die for the Fuhrer. Hitler basically knew that if he educated them as kids, he'd have them as sons to go fight for him. Government mountain where your laws get legislated. Media mountain where the truth is debated. And the arts mountain which is where sports and creativity come along, and we've got business and finance. Is it possible that there are seven sovereign spheres of authority?
By the way, that's how you take nations. It's the only way you take nations. There has never been a nation taken as the result of an evangelism harvest. Shocking but true. Believers don't know these things, which is why we get in trouble.
You realize that when you have 8% of a population, that's the key. 8%, that's all it takes. 8%, according to the Center for Religious and Diplomacy, practice Jihad. 8%, according to the research of James Davidson Hunter, are doing the same sex marriage initiative, You've got 80% Jews, Catholics, Protestants, 35% of Evangelicals, even Mormons - you have a very broad constituency of 85-90% of the American population is not for same-sex marriage. How is it that 7% can impose their agenda on the other 90%? It's not because we don't have enough converts to an idea - it's because when Satan is shrewder in his own generation than the Sons of Light, he makes sure that he has his prophets of Baal at the high places. So what you have is a well-positioned 8% whose agenda is working with the will of Principalities and Powers while Christians are in pursuit of the supernatural or glory or prosperity, but they're missing the apostolic assignment. They're to take over spheres and administer them for the glory of God.
It is exceedingly clear that the Seven Mountains is a Dominionist theology that carries with it the ultimate goal of creating God's kingdom on Earth so as to create the conditions needed to bring about Christ's return.
And amazing, it is something that just about every Religious Right leader has now officially embraced.
Last week, Lou Engle was featured on Focus on the Family's "Friday Five" where he announced his latest political endeavor: a groups called Pray and A.C.T. The acronym A.C.T stands for "Affirming the Basics, Conforming our Lives, and Transforming the Culture," and the "basics" which they are affirming are those values set out in The Manhattan Declaration, the document produced by the Religious Right earlier this year vowing to give their lives to withstand President Obama's attempts to set himself up as a Nazi-like dictator.
For these reasons, we call on all faithful Christians to join us in the fight to defend life, protect and revitalize marriage, and preserve religious liberty and the rights of conscience. We must work tirelessly in all the “seven spheres of cultural influence:” (1) the home, (2) the church, (3) civil government / law / military, (4) business / technology, (5) education, (6) media, and finally (7) arts / entertainment / professional sports.
Jim Garlow, Skyline Church & Renewing American Leadership
Chuck Colson, Founder Prison Fellowship & BreakPoint
Che Ahn, Harvest International Ministry
Vonette Bright, Co-Founder, Campus Crusade for Christ, International
Bishop Keith Butler, Founding Pastor, Word of Faith International Christian Center
Kristina Arriaga, Executive Director, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Jim Daly, President & CEO, Focus on the Family
Lou Engle, TheCall to Conscience, TheCall
Father Joseph Fessio, Editor in Chief, Ignatius Press, San Francisco
Maggie Gallagher, National Organization for Marriage
Professor Robert George, Princeton University
Professor Timothy George, Dean, Beeson Divinity School
Jack Hayford, Founder and Chancellor, The King's College and Seminary
Mike Huckabee, Former Governor of Arkansas & Host, The Mike Huckabee Show
Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., High Impact Church Coalition
Alveda King, Silent No More Awareness Campaign
Richard Land, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
Ron Luce, Founder, Teen Mania & Battle Cry
Bishop Richard Malone, Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland (Maine)
Eva Muntean & Dolores Meehan, Co-Founders, West Coast Walk for Life, San Francisco
Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
James Robison, Life Outreach, International
Samuel Rodriguez, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
Alan Sears, Alliance Defense Fund
Chuck Stetson, Let’s Strengthen Marriage Campaign
Pray and A.C.T is planning a series of Call-like events leading up to the 2010 election; events that are explicitly rooted in a theology which seeks to place Christians in complete "dominion" over every aspect of this nation ... and this effort is now being supported by the heads of highly influential "mainstream" Religious Right groups like Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage Concerned Women for America, the Southern Baptist Convention, and even a potential Republican presidential candidate in Mike Huckabee.
A few months ago, Janet Porter of Faith 2 Action lost her radio program because of her growing support for this sort of Seven Mountains Dominionism, and today this very same theology is being embraced by the Religious Right as a whole ... and I don't think it is possible to overstate just what a radical transformation the movement appears to be undergoing.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 24, 2010 - 12:25pm
Back in April, Focus on the Family president Jim Daly was saying that he did not see much value in continuing to fight the culture war on gay issues because he more or less expected to eventually lose the battle over marriage:
"I'm not fearful that change will happen in America. It will happen. ... I don't know what will happen with same-sex marriage, but I'm not going to be discouraged if we lose some of those battles," he said, noting that for "98 percent" of people, traditional marriage will remain relevant.
"It's going to be difficult in this culture and the way the demographics are going right now," he went on. "You look at the under-35 age group. I think it's splitting 60-40 support for same-sex marriage. There's a lot of people in the U.S. [who] basically come to the conclusion that this is something between two adults. I will continue to defend traditional marriage, but I'm not going to demean human beings for the process."
But, since Focus has become entirely schizophrenic since Daly took over, it doesn't come as a surprise that Daly has now penned a piece criticizing President Obama for daring to recognize families with "two fathers" on Father's Day:
President Obama is very carefully and quietly transforming homosexual politics and policy on the federal level. With the use of his executive authority he is actively engaged in an attempt to normalize the public's perception of homosexuality, from supporting the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy to extending and expanding health care coverage for homosexual partners of federal employees.
...
In elevating and equating the influence of a two-father family to that of all other traditional forms, the administration is, perhaps unknowingly, depriving children of the opportunity to have the very thing the president has so strongly and eloquently suggested they need most: A mom and a dad.
As the product of a fatherless home myself, I am keenly aware and extremely sensitive to the harsh realities of a life that is less than ideal. In fact, the president and I share this common background, and so I immediately identify with his compassion and his desire to use the bully pulpit to ease suffering and meet the needs of the neediest among us.
But the fatherhood "effect" is not cumulative - two daddies are not better than one -- nor is a mother dispensable or replaceable. Instead of expending precious (and finite) energy and resources on selling the merits of two- father or two-mother families, the administration would be wise to invest and encourage the loving presence of both a mom and a dad.
It really is amazing how the mere admission and recognition that some families do in fact have two mothers or fathers drives the Religious Right absolutely insane.
It all seems rather schizophrenic ... and that is exactly the impression I got after listening to this recent Focus on the Family broadcast examining Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court as well as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
In the past, a Focus on the Family program dedicated to these issue would almost surely have contained some over-the-top rhetoric from either the host or the guests ... but this broadcast, which featured Daly, Chuck Colson, Focus on the Family Judicial Analyst Bruce Hausknecht, and Focus on the Family Vice President of Government and Public Policy Tom Minnery, was downright dull.
In fact, any time anyone said anything that might be considered even borderline controversial, Daly went to great lengths to explain that their views are not based on hate and that the ultimate goal is to bring people to Christ.
As such, during the discussion on Kagan, Daly ended up reading passages from the Bible about loving your enemies, explaining that those who don't share their political and cultural views are "gnarled in their sin" and can't see the world properly.
The discussion then turned to ENDA and as Tom Minnery explained that Christian were alarmed about it because it would make it illegal for them to discriminate against gays, Daly was again quck to say that they were not opposing this legislation out of hatred toward gays, but rather on the grounds that while all people are sinners, we shouldn't be passing laws that encourage such sins.
Then Hausknecht began to explain that gays want ENDA to pass because it is a stepping stone to marriage equality and ultimately the marginalization of Christians, at which point Daly again stepped in say that their opposition to gay marriage was not about hate toward gays, but rather about what is best for our culture and our children, insisting there is no ill-will toward gays and no desire to offend them since the ultimate goal is to get them to know the love of Jesus.
I've edited the program down so you can listen for yourself:
If this is the new, more civil Focus on the Family, I have to say I almost prefer the older, more confontational one.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on May 10, 2010 - 12:34pm
Last month, Focus on the Family made news when it suddenly backtracked from its earlier stance that that a Supreme Court nominee's sexual orientation was "not even pertinent" to the question of the nominee's qualifications to sit on the court.
Under pressure from militantly anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera, Focus did an about-face and declared that "someone who is a practicing homosexual is a non starter for the group," saying that "homosexual behavior is a sin" and a nominee's "character and moral rectitude should be key considerations" in opposing a nominee.
Today, President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court and LaBarbera and others are already opposing her on the grounds that she might be a lesbian ... and now Focus on the Family has announced its opposition as well (Focus does not explicitly cite this issue, instead focusing on Kagan's "commitment to the LGBT agenda" as its justification):
Focus on the Family Action Senior Vice President Tom Minnery released the following statement today in response to President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States.
“We are extremely disappointed by the President’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
“Kagan’s nomination is a triumph for liberal ideology and judicial activism. She has never been a judge, nor written a judicial opinion. In fact, she has very limited experience in the actual practice of law. Her resume reveals her to be an academic who has served liberal judges, liberal presidents, and liberal universities. Her entire career has been lived in a narrow slice of the judicial spectrum.
“Even with her sparse legal record, one thing stands out – her emotional and legal commitment to the LGBT agenda. Calling the federal prohibition against gays serving in the military ‘a profound wrong, a moral injustice of the first order,’ she argued to the Supreme Court that law schools should be allowed to exclude military recruiters from campus while still accepting hundreds of millions in federal dollars, a position which the Supreme Court unanimously rejected, including the very liberal justice she would be replacing, Justice Stevens.
“Sadly, we look for a Justice Kagan to work for the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act and the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage upon all 50 states. We expect a continuation on her part of the Leftist allegiance to abortion-on-demand as well as the standard hostility to religion in the public square that has come to epitomize the liberal wing of the court.
“Americans have time and time again voiced their desire for judges who will judge according to the text and original understanding of our laws and Constitution. It is that fidelity to our Founders’ intent for the proper role and responsibility of the judiciary that makes a good Supreme Court justice. Yet for the second time in two years, the president has nominated someone who is committed to molding the law and the Constitution into something more to their liking rather than demonstrating what should be the non-negotiable quality of judicial restraint.
“We oppose this nomination and call upon the Senate to reject it as well. America deserves better.”
Wasn't it just a few weeks ago when new Focus president Jim Daly was saying this?
Yet it's clear Daly, who has met with gay activists, sees diminishing returns in continuing the culture wars.
"I'm not fearful that change will happen in America. It will happen. ... I don't know what will happen with same-sex marriage, but I'm not going to be discouraged if we lose some of those battles," he said, noting that for "98 percent" of people, traditional marriage will remain relevant.
"It's going to be difficult in this culture and the way the demographics are going right now," he went on. "You look at the under-35 age group. I think it's splitting 60-40 support for same-sex marriage. There's a lot of people in the U.S. [who] basically come to the conclusion that this is something between two adults. I will continue to defend traditional marriage, but I'm not going to demean human beings for the process."
While Daly keeps claiming that he not out to demean people and is seeking a more civil dialogue with his opponents, Minnery is running around saying that gays or anyone who supports them are morally unfit for the bench.
Maybe Focus ought to try to get its story straight.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on April 22, 2010 - 10:02am
Last year I noted how is seemed that those who work at Focus on the Family just seem to be fundamentally incapable of realizing that there are millions of people in this nation who do not share their Christian views.
Here is some more evidence of Focus' myopia, as President Jim Daly wonders just how anyone could possibly oppose the National Day of Prayer:
But even an enthusiastic atheist would have a difficult time explaining how merely recognizing the first Thursday in May as a "Day of Prayer" (without any denominational attribution or financial support) is akin to establishing a national religion. By Judge Crabb's standards, if the federal recognition of the National Day of Prayer is illegal, so is Christmas Day and Easter Sunday.
As a Christian, I view the matter of prayer with an admitted bias, but one studied with both my head and heart. Clearly, prayer means different things to different people. Personally, I receive my understanding of prayer and its collective purpose and power from the Old and New Testaments in the Bible. I do not view prayer as merely a recitation of personal requests, though I do regularly pray for the health and well-being of my wife and two boys. Prayer is very personal; it helps me remember again and again that life is not about me and how utterly and wholly dependent I am on God.
I am not alone in my understanding and practice of this both mysterious and reflective practice; but we Christians support a National Day of Prayer for reasons well beyond selfish interest. A colleague of mine at Focus on the Family tells the story of a mentor back in Texas who used to say he always got down on his knees to pray because "it makes it real clear who's in charge."
Christians understand prayer to be powerful because it is the way in which we humbly and gratefully praise God. We don't believe prayer changes God's mind, but rather that prayer changes our hearts. And changed hearts lead to a more humble, grateful and healthy nation of Americans.
Who, may I ask, could possibly be opposed to that?
And secondly, does Daly really not understand who could oppose a National Day of Prayer after he explicitly explains that prayer is important because it allows us to "humbly and gratefully praise God" and therefore reminds us God is always in charge?
