I don't have a clue now. I read #415 and agree. I am not sure as to what you are saying.
What I mean is the christian minister should say his prayer without having to alter it in any way. It was the Jewish that were being intolerant. Which is B/S.
Let's say I moved to Israel. I would not expect them to change in anyway, the way they pray, by the fact that I was in the same room. Which they would not do anyhow. If, I expected them to, I would be an intolerant butthole.
Secondly, I agree with everything you said.
Thirdly, you, as many frame the situation in antagonistic terms and then rightfully get offended.
At the very beginning of this thread I said that I would never walk out under the circumstances. At the same time, one can question why the minister had to insist on this partiocular prayer.
The answer to this question lies in thinking of how we have prayers on Capitol Hill and our armed forces, and yet this issue does not arize. This proves that there are plenty of prayers that do not constitute any "dilution" of Christianity.
People on this thread choose to ignore this simle fact: according to them, any prayer that does not include "int he nane of Jesus" is a dilution of Christianity. I am not a specialist in religion, but this does not look right: all the chaplains in the army and the Capitol Hill cannot be traitors to Christianity.