I would like to add some additional color to the recommended diary. This is not to dispute the concerns raised by the diarist, but just some additional comments and observations.
First, a little bit of context as to how I got into the Breakfast.
My mother's family converted to Christianity when a missionary visited Taiwan way back when it was still ruled by an emperor. To this day, many of my relatives are deeply religious.
I choose to be not religious at all.
This is a point of consternation to my mother and my grandmother, but I am glad that they nonetheless accept me as I am. As family.
My aunt's pastor had extra tickets to the Breakfast, and of course I jumped at the chance- as a gawking tourist of sorts. I have heard of the "Family" and the C-street inhabitants, and given the partisan skew of that group, I imagined the audience to be a hyper-conservative, holy roller type crowd.
It's not.
Given that I don't actually attend a church, I was kind of dreading having to answer the "Oh hi! come join us in a prayer circle! BTW what church to you go to?" questions. I didn't get that, nor any of the hard sells I imagined in my head- no "let's go convert the heathen out in DuPont Circle!" or "God wants us to cure the gays"!. It was actually very non-political and very non-evangelical, and I did not feel uncomfortable in any way.
This does't mean that the folks there are faking their faiths- I interpret this as a evidence to the comfort they have with their faiths. And I was treated very well. I was assigned to a table with this kind couple who helped with the logistics of the whole thing, and they pleasantly explained to me the logistics and challenges of organizing this entire thing.
And without dismissing the concerns raise by the diarist above, My sense is that this as an institution serves a neccessary function in Washington. Yes, there's plenty of networking going on here. And yes, they will probably never invite Richard Dawkins as the keynote speaker, but my sense from the interactions between the Democrats and the Republicans is that this (and the weekly prayer lunches they have) serves as a "timeout" of sorts between adversaries- for while they are and should be adversaries in many sense of the word, they are also coworkers, and this as an instituion is one way for which the lawmakers balance the two- to disagree vociferously against each other, but not to the point where they are dehumanized caricatures. They are using their faiths are a commonground so that they may break bread and make peace with the enemy. It seems to me this kind of peacemaking is a healthy thing.
At the end of President Obama's speech, the first person who got up on his feet for a standing ovation was Tom colburn, the Republican Senator from Oklahoma. Obama's speech was about how his faith guided him to a belief that government has a role to play in alleviating the sufferings of its citizens.
Again, this is not to say that the organizations that runs it should not be more transparaent or that separation of church and state could not be an issue here, but that, as with everything else in life there are shades of gray to it. And finally, for those who find this kind of detente akin to "date rape" or "veal pen", if I may quote from JFK's inaugural address: "let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."