Franklin Graham

To whom it may concern,

I respectfully ask you to reconsider your objection to Franklin Graham speaking at the Pentagon during the National Day of Prayer. Franklin Graham has worked tirelessly in help Muslims in disaster stricken counties. I believe more Muslims endorse his efforts to help others than do not.

Thank you,
(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld)
Thanks for your earnest e-mail and for your concern. My name is Rick Baker, a regional coordinator for MRFF. I’m siting in for Mikey Weinstein who is, as you might imagine, tied up with many responses we have received relative to the National Day of Prayer.

It is important you know that it is not our objection to Mr. Graham speaking at the NDP event but rather the United States Constitution’s objection with which we are concerned. Mr. Graham’s outreach to Muslims world wide is recognized and appreciated. But his efforts are offset by his rather pointed criticisms and Christian doctrinal assessments of Islam and the very little breathing room he leaves for amelioration.

Add to that the fact that all three provisions of the Lemon Test as established by the United States Supreme Court are violated in this invitation, and it becomes a matter of religion versus civil law. (see below)

We must never be guilty of violating the constitution in favor of religious belief.

Thanks again, and remember that MRFF is not here to disrupt religious belief but to prevent it from dominating the Democratic process.

Rick Baker
MRFF

The Lemon Test
Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:
1.It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose.
2. The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.
3. Or the practice excessively (in the Court’s opinion) involves government with a religion.