Posted on 09/21/2006 1:22:47 PM PDT by 300magnum
Two major newspapers are blasting conservatives for holding up passage of a defense appropriations bill by attaching a "mischievous," "pro-evangelical" amendment to it, as the New York Times described it.
According to an editorial in Thursday's New York Times, "hard-right Republicans have held up passage of the defense bill in an attempt to license zealot chaplains to violate policies of religious tolerance at secular ceremonies."
The amendment -- contained in the House bill but not in the Senate bill -- says military chaplains may "pray according to the dictates of the chaplain's own conscience" (i.e., pray in the name of Jesus) at public events.
The New York Times editorial says the amendment has nothing to do with freedom of religion: "At its heart is religious intolerance -- not respect of chaplains' consciences --and a naked attempt to elevate evangelical beliefs to primacy in the ranks."
A Washington Post editorial on Thursday also faults conservatives for bogging down the defense bill with what it calls an " unneeded and divisive" amendment.
The Post says Congress should stay out of the issue and leave such decisions up to the military. And the newspaper suggests that a "no prayer" policy at public events would be best.
"In the long run," the Post opined, "the best resolution would be not to drain prayer at public ceremonies of specific religious content but to discourage prayer at such events as inherently and unnecessarily divisive."
Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wants to strip the military prayer provision from the final defense appropriations bill, which is now before a conference committee. Warner says the prayer measure should wait until next year, when congressional committees have time to hold hearings on it.
But the military prayer amendment is important to conservatives, who say the Air Force has passed guidelines that prevent chaplains from praying according to their own faith traditions.
The Family Research Council says Senate negotiators are erring on the side of political correctness -- trying to replace the amendment's language with words that would "undermine chaplain's religious freedom."
The group says Sens. Warner and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) are promoting alternative language that would require chaplains to be "sensitive" to a "diversity of faiths."
"This would require chaplains to pray according to the diversity of faiths, and pressure chaplains to bow to moral relativism, rather than allow each to pray according to their own religious conscience. This places religious 'tolerance' over religious freedom," the FRC said last week.
"People of all faiths should object to any requirement that chaplains pray or serve contrary to their faith tradition," the FRC said.
The amendment, as currently written, says "Each chaplain shall have the prerogative to pray according to the dictates of the chaplain's own conscience, except as must be limited by military necessity, with any such limitation being imposed in the least restrictive manner feasible."
So I wonder, do Muslim chaplains now get to intone the name "Allah" or wouldn't that be insensitive?
Or do I whistle in the wind, expecting logic and proportion from our politicos on this kind of issue?
If the NY Times is against it, I'm for it!
If you invite a muslim or a wiccan to bless your ceremony, you deserve to have them praying to their god(s).
Ummm, perhaps you might look up my posts before you snap my head off like that.
I'll be glad to provide sarcasm tags if that would help, but the question was intended to show that relgious bullies right now can sit wherever they want to and no congresscritter is going to say boo ...
They'll only light into Christians, as usual.
Okay, so what are they up to? Slipping the "J" word into a prayer again? Imagine, Christians doing such a thing!
Nonsense. If they prefer not to serve everybody, they can simply stop accepting the taxpayer's dime and go into private ministry.
Sounds like the proposed Amendment would do a good job of separating the State from the Church.
Sounds like the proposed Amendment would do a good job of separating the State from the Church.
Perhaps you should reread my post. If you truly think I was "snapping your head off", you have a translucent skin. I simply made an editorial comment on the content of this thread prompted by your post--not a blast across the bow.
I was just about to post the same thing... but you beat me to it.
"In the long run," the Post opined, "the best resolution would be not to drain prayer at public ceremonies of specific religious content but to discourage prayer at such events as inherently and unnecessarily divisive."
Prayer...is ...DIVISIVE.
But blasphemy and atheism bring us together I guess. /s
It's called "Going to hell in a handbasket." Some people prefer it.
and a small vocal contingent here have said the same things
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
When Israel (OT) marched into battle, they won the battles in which the praisers of God marched IN THE FRONT ROW, singing and making music to God on instruments. The enemy soldiers killed each other.
Prayer (while it's best practiced in one's prayer closet) is still at least as important as being well armed. Well prayed-up IS well armed.
The war on religion (especially Christianity and Judaism) continues apace. Note that according to the article the use of the name of Jesus Christ within the body of a prayer is a sign of a "religious zealot". This kind of rhetoric has become more and more common on the left and the open hostility to Christianity of so many on the left is also commonplace these days. If these people ever take real power again you can bet your bottom dollar that we will see "hate crimes" legislation enacted aimed directly at religious freedom. This has already started in Europe and to a lesser extent in Canada. California recently enacted law aimed at restricting speech from the pulpit by threatening to pull state funding from any group that dares to declare homosexuality sinful.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
I love the hysterics! Hehehehehehehe!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.