Jewish lawmakers threaten walk-out over reference to Jesus

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | April 3, 2003 | Diana Lynne

[ApesForEvolution]

Ideally, it would be better if the world recognized that Jesus is God and worship and love their Creator, He who paid the price. Outside of that, watering down the Gospel to appease anyone is only done by apostate preachers. Why would he, I or anyone offer up a useless, diluted prayer, if one is so persuaded?

[TopQuark]

Exactly right! It's not about purity of belief --- it's about merely some tact. In a mixed company, we try to find a common ground.

I sympathize with my Christian friends (I am Jewish): they are the center of attack from the Left. Believe me, if anybody, a Jew can understand that they are trying to stand their ground in the face of that attack. But it is sad to see that people do not see the difference between purity and tact; that they assume that being tactful is a betrayal of their faith. It is sad especially that we need unity more than ever.

Thanks for your post.

[Deb]

How 'bout if you take your own advice! Start with post #20.

[ApesForEvolution]

BTW, the prayer wasn't aimed at anyone BUT the Lord and was to COVER everyone. Big difference...

[Radix]

I do not have the time, nor the inclination to peruse 418 posts.

Here is my post.

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
(Whole Chapter: 1 Corinthians 14 In context: 1 Corinthians 14:32-34)

Just what we need more uppity Jews.

Gosh, what was I thinking?

How could I have forgotten?

Jews wrote the New Testament.

I am in a foul mood.

Do not mess with me unless you are prepared to defend yourself with a demonstration of your knowledge!

I have no tolerance for immature bullshiete artists.

Back off unless you are prepared for a serious rebuke.


In better days, I might be nicer.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Miller issued the orders after two Jewish lawmakers threatened to stage a boycott of the legislative session if the phrase was not removed.

It's two Jewish Democrats; chances are, they're rabid, left-wing, gun-grabbing liberals (hopefully, I'm wrong). If they want to sit the session out, that's fine with me.

[Delphinium]

Thomas Jefferson called “the Bible” the cornerstone for American liberty, and wanted it placed in our schools as the light that should lead their way.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Are these the same cranks who wanted Santa banned from Kensington? Wait 'til they figure out they live in Maryland. Of course, there was that whining neurotic jerk who figured out there was a Cross in the heraldic imagery of the state flag. Maybe a new crusade to cut it out will be launched with support from the Satanic editorial board of The Sun. Why can't they just move to New York or Florida and harrass the Christians there? Or some atheist country like China, Albania, or Cambridge, Mass. where hatred of Jesus by cranky, unhappy neurotic people with nothing better to do is cultivated to an art form?

Hint:

Maryland was founded by people who worshipped JESUS!

[DensaMensa]

In Jesus Name" is a STANDARD closure to any Christian prayer and has nothing to do with
"emphasizing differences". Think about it. Why should any Christian cleric change theology just to make you feel good? Maybe you can find someone in the Yellow Pages under "Rent A Prayer", or "Prayers -- as you like them".

[mosby]

You might want to direct your comment concerning the difference between "purity and tact" to the two Jewish lawmakers who threatened to walk out. Walking out because someone from another religion mentions a name in a prayer??!!! Incredibly tactless. And why do I have this sneaking suspicion that if it was a mullah mentioning the name of Mohammed the two Jewish lawmakers would have not raised a peep. Every evangelical Christian should mark this down and remember it well. Why give a damn for any man that doesn't give a damn for you.

[TopQuark]

Religious tollerance is not watering down your religious expression so as not to offend anyone...its mainly, choosing not to be offended by the closely held religious beliefs of others--even if they are publically expressed.

It is absolutely correct and well-stated. It is the application of this truism that is a problem.

There is no recipe here for all occasions, and this is a root of the problem for many on this thread. If I see you pray in the street or in your house, I think I am morally wrong to be offended. If you invited me to dinner and pray in whatever way is your custom, I am not only tolerant --- I respect your beliefs, although they are not mine.

There is a difference, however, if you ask me to join. I've been in this situation many times. When my Christian host says in the middle of the prayer something to the effect, "we bow to Jesus" (sorry I Do not recall the exact wording), my wife and I do not bow. I go as far as I can without crossing what is proscribed by my religion. No firend of mine ever took offense. Naturally, it did not even occur to me to be offended by their prayer; I only respect them for their convictions.

This is what many on this thread confuse and argue against a strawman: if you assume that I am against a public expression of your beliefs, then you are RIGHT in being offended. Except the assumption is wrong.

Express your beliefs but do not invite me to join. That is what the words "In Jesus name" mean. I cannot join you here. You can say, "As Jesus said..." or "as Jesus taught" ---- anything of that does not compel my commitment. I will stand there, praying silently with you. But when you tell me that have to do anything "in the name of Jesus," I cannot --- just as you cannot do that in the name of Mohammed.

IT's not about purity of belief, thefore: it's about an action of a human compelling another human to do/accept something. It has nothing whatever to do with the relation of either of these individuals with divinity.

[TopQuark]

Walking out because someone from another religion mentions a name in a prayer??!!! Incredibly tactless.

I agree: that indeed would be incredibly tactless.

The reason is, however, entirely different. See post 415 and another dozwen before that where this point was clarified.

[TopQuark]

I am sorry, you do not adhere to logic, and I cannot argue with a Dense Mensa: I tried, I failed.

[Delphinium]

Doesn't matter whether they believe it or not, I will still pray for them to be blessed as the Bible says to do.

Its people like you that cause them to think Christians don't love them.

Those that curse the Jews will be cursed, and those that bless the Jews will be blessed.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/724933/posts

[TopQuark]

Are these the same cranks who wanted Santa banned from Kensington?

No, they are not.

YOu are on a wrong thread.

[TopQuark]

What deny Christ? No way!

Of course not!

See post 415 and understand that you are arguing against a strawman.

[mosby]

OK you'd better explain the reason. The article says they threatened to boycott if the phrase wasn't removed. What am I missing here?

[jonatron]

Last I checked it was still In God We Trust.

[TopQuark]

And you both did not get a clue as to what they were taling about. See 415.

[Mr. Mojo]

And why do I have this sneaking suspicion that if it was a mullah mentioning the name of Mohammed the two Jewish lawmakers would have not raised a peep

Ridiculous.