Posted on 03/21/2008 10:10:08 AM PDT by kellynla
A former member of the U.S. Supreme Court serving on an appeals court panel has justified a city's decision to ban prayers at council meetings that are "in Jesus name," calling it a "reasonable" restriction on a councilman's speech rights.
The comments came this week as the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard a case handled by the Rutherford Institute on behalf of Rev. Hashmel Turner.
Turner, a resident of Fredericksburg, Va., and a member of its town council, was part of a rotation of council members who took turns bringing a prayer at the council meetings, and he ended his prayers "in Jesus name."
That offended a listener, who promptly brought several heavyweight activist groups into the picture with the threat of a lawsuit if the elected Christian council member wasn't censored. So the city adopted a policy requiring "nondenominational" prayers, effectively eliminating any reference to "Jesus."
John Whitehead, the founder and chief of the Rutherford Institute, told WND it's an issue of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, burdened with the politically correct atmosphere in the U.S. that appears to endorse or at least allow any sort of religious acknowledgement, except for Christians.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
And that is the bottom line.
Anti-Christianity, the last "safe" bigotry in America.
ping
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
That is waht the name of Jesus does. He exposes the guilty. To the Rutherford Institute, any other name, any other God or symbol is okay to pray to. But not the one true God.
Who cares what O’Connor says?
I’m glad she’s off the Supreme Court.
I’m sure no one in this forum would object had he ended his prayers “in Mohammed’s name.”
It is purely politically motivated INVENTION that there is ANY offense whatsoever. If the word Jesus is an offense then so are those Muslim only prayer rooms at the various Airports around the nation as they pray in the name of Allah.
I am also offended at the lack of prayer at meetings.
I am offended that Rosie Oddonell occasionally gets her picture where I have to see it.
I am offended that most hollywood liberals act like conservatives int he movies they are in but in real life are dimwitted and seem to think they are smarter than everyone else.
I am simply just offended that a Reagan appointee to the Supreme Court has drunk the kool-aid from the fountains of hell so as to sit there and tell a nation clearly rich in Christian heritage that we have to shut that up now.
174 years until the 1947 case of Engla v. Vital and then Romer v. board of Ed in 1962. SINCE THEN the INVENTION of separation of Church and State means one thing only. NO JESUS none of the time in any and all circumsances...Satan, Allah, and everything else...promoted out of “tolerance.”
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
It’s not the Rutherford Institute that’s doing this. They are defending the prayers.
Would it have been okey-dokey if he had copied Obama's Rev. Wright and said, "in Black Jesus name?"
I've had my doubts about O'Connor for a long time. I am glad that she is no longer a member of the court.
So Allah can’t be mentioned, nor Mo?
Correction: The ever elusive Black ‘Che’ Jesus.
This wasn't Congress and the prayer didn't respect an establishment of religion. If the guy didn't like the prayer, he didn't have to join in.
Yeah, becausae America is 90% muslim.
Well, first of all, that is silly. Muslims don't say that when they pray.
But even if they did, I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't insist that he could not do it.
The same person doesn't offer the prayer all the time. Just suck it up and wait until someone else's turn.
This just goes to show that when President Reagan made his mistakes they were big mistakes!
As long as any restriction is “reasonable” how could anyone reasonably argue against it?
Too damn bad she was ever on it. President Bush sure picked a hell of a lot better judges than Reagan did.
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.