Replies

Makes sense to me. I had 2 thoughts to reading this article:

The first was, let'um walk out. So what? If their conscience is bothered by being in attendance while someone prays to Jesus, then by all means, they should vacate the premises. I suspect it had less to do with their conscience though, and more to do with wanting to get in a zinger against Christians.

My second thought was that for those who advocate the Christian minister dropping the Jesus reference, out of respect for those who were in attendance -- would they also encourage a Muslim or Jewish religious leader to INCLUDE a reference to Jesus, out of respect for those Christians in attendance? Of course not. So whereas this particular Christian minister felt a moral obligation to "pray in Jesus' name", per his own faith, he is forced to abdicate that, against his own conscience --- however, others of differing faiths are not held to the same standard.

What it boils down to is the same old tired practice that has become fashionable in America -- when it doubt, stick it to the Christians.

My second thought was that for those who advocate the Christian minister dropping the Jesus reference, out of respect for those who were in attendance -- would they also encourage a Muslim or Jewish religious leader to INCLUDE a reference to Jesus, out of respect for those Christians in attendance?

Your thought has the following structure: "Would those who quit playing violin eat an apple instead? Of course not, so everyone should attend at least one year of college." Words that might belong together but do not.

When you are leading in prayer, this no longer your private prayer. If you are in a mixed company, you seek a common ground. If you pray to G-d, you do not jeopardize any of your Christian beliefs and remain on common ground with Christians of all denominations, Jews, Muslims, and Hindu.

It's very simple, actually.