First Prayer in Congress, September 1774, "The Establishment Clause must be interpreted (TR)

American Minute ^ | September 01, 2019 | Bill Federer

[Perseverando]

First Prayer in Congress, September 1774, "The Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices & understandings"-Supreme Court, Galloway

"It was enough to melt a heart of stone," remarked John Adams after the First Prayer in Congress.

The First Session of the First Continental Congress opened in September of 1774 with a prayer in Carpenter's Hall, Philadelphia.

America was being threatened by the most powerful monarch in the world, Britain's King George III.

On September 7, 1774, as the Congress began, the founding fathers listened to Rev. Jacob Duche' read Psalm 35, which was the "Psalter" for the day according to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

"Plead my cause, Oh, Lord, with them that strive with me, fight against them that fight against me. Take hold of buckler and shield, and rise up for my help.

Draw also the spear and the battle-axe to meet those who pursue me; Say to my soul, 'I am your salvation.'

Let those be ashamed and dishonored who seek my life; Let those be turned back and humiliated who devise evil against me."

Then Rev. Jacob Duche' prayed:

"Be Thou present, O God of Wisdom, and direct the counsel of this Honorable Assembly; enable them to settle all things on the best and surest foundations; that the scene of blood may be speedily closed;

that Order, Harmony and Peace may be effectually restored, and that Truth and Justice, Religion and Piety, prevail and flourish among the people ...

Preserve the health of their bodies, and the vigor of their minds, shower down on them, and the millions they here represent, such temporal Blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting Glory in the world

[Perseverando]

Time for another great American history lesson from American Minute.

[Jacquerie]

<>Historical practices confirm that the Establishment Clause does not require courts to purge the Government of all religious reflection or to ‘evince a hostility to religion by disabling the government from in some ways recognizing our religious heritage’ ...”<>