State Bars Christian Prayer

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

[joesnuffy]

FAITH UNDER FIRE State Senate bars Christian prayer Jewish lawmakers threaten walk-out over reference to Jesus

Posted: April 3, 2003 6:30 p.m. Eastern

By Diana Lynne © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A Maryland minister was barred from giving the opening prayer in the state Senate after he refused to drop a reference to Jesus.

The Rev. David N. Hughes of the Trinity and Evangelical Church of Adamstown, Md., intended to round out his invocation yesterday with the line, "In Jesus' name, Amen." But the sergeant at arms – on the orders of Senate President Thomas Mike Miller Jr. – shut the reverend out of the body's chambers.

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

"I'm shocked by the response. I've never had this happen in 26 years," Hughes told the Frederick News-Post. "It just makes me feel that they've taken away my right as an American to pray, and this is the seat of government, and that's scary."

The pastor – a Vietnam veteran – was invited to give the prayer by Republican Sen. Alex Mooney. Hughes was Mooney's fourth guest. The other three were Jewish rabbis.

Opening up legislative sessions with prayer is a longstanding tradition in Maryland, as it is in states across the country. Mooney told WorldNetDaily no one had been barred from giving an invocation before. He sees irony in yesterday's "censorship."

"We were the first state to address religious tolerance in our state charter," he told WorldNetDaily. "This just shows a lack of tolerance for peoples' religious views."

Mooney recalled numerous instances of invocations referencing Jesus throughout the four years that he has been in office.

But at the beginning of the session this year, a string of invocations by Baptist preachers invoking the name Jesus Christ sparked debate on the issue. Miller appealed to lawmakers for tolerance and urged they stick to guidelines that call for invocations to be of an ecumenical nature and respectful of all faiths.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines ecumenical as "promoting cooperation or better understanding among differing religious faiths."

Since the debate, the Senate clerk screens prayers ahead of time and flagged the written text submitted by Hughes.

When Sens. Ida Ruben and Paula Colodny Hollinger – both of whom are Jewish – heard of the reference, they asked Mooney to strike it.

"I said, 'Hey, I'll let him pray however he wants to pray. I'm not going to censor him and tell him how he needs to pray,'" Mooney told WND.

Ruben told the Frederick News-Post she then urged Hughes to substitute "messiah" for Jesus, telling him the reference could offend non-Christians and goes against the guidelines.

Neither Ruben nor Miller returned calls seeking comment.

"This is part of my faith," Hughes responded, according to Mooney. "The Gospel says when you pray, pray in Jesus' name."

The senators next asked to be excused from the floor during the prayer.

Paradoxically, a walk-out over a Muslim cleric's prayer opening a Washington state legislative session last month backfired on one Christian lawmaker.

As WorldNetDaily reported, Rep. Lois McMahan, a Republican from Gig Harbor, Wash., refused to participate in the prayer and declared, "My god is not Muhammed."

"The Islamic religion is so ... part and parcel with the attack on America. I just didn't want to be there, be a part of that," she said in an interview with the Seattle Post Intelligencer. "Even though the mainstream Islamic religion doesn't profess to hate America, nonetheless it spawns the groups that hate America."

But a day later, McMahan apologized on the floor of the state House of Representatives amid mounting furor over her stance.

Debate over invocations is raging elsewhere in the country. As WorldNetDaily reported, several Southern California cities are grappling with threats from both sides of the issue.

Under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union to quit using the name Jesus Christ in invocations, the city of Lake Elsinore, in Riverside County, decided to eliminate mention of "religious figures." The decree subsequently had the apparent effect of eliminating the prayer altogether, as no local pastors would accept invitations to deliver the prayer, and city councilors adopted moments of silence instead.

The ACLU contends that praying at the request of a government entity is a violation of the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of religion.

But the nonprofit United States Justice Foundation, which threatened to sue the city if it failed to reverse its decision, maintains telling a pastor what to pray is a violation of his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion.

The notion of "separation of church and state" is derived from the dissenting opinion of the 1946 Supreme Court case Everson vs. Board of Education, which upheld a program allowing parents to be repaid from state funds for the costs of transportation to private religious schools. The court required only that the state maintain neutrality in its relations with various groups of religious believers.

"The decision in Everson does not rise to the level of being a battle cry for those who would wish to remove every vestige of religion from the public forum," USJF litigation counsel Richard Ackerman asserts.

"There's a push in this country to remove religion from society," Mooney echoed, "from the Supreme Court's decision on the Pledge to the ACLU going after all the Ten Commandments posted across the country. ... Nothing in the church-state relationship allows censorship and the removal of religious values from society."

Related articles:

Lawmaker sorry for snubbing imam's prayer

Lawmakers snub imam's opening prayer

City council bars prayers to Jesus

[nmh]

Considering the times that we live in this should not be surprising. It's prophecy at work and intolerance from the Jews:

Matt.10:22

[22] And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Mark.13:13

[13] And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Luke.1:71

[71] That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

Luke.6:22

[22] Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.

Luke.2117

[17] And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.

John.7:7

[7] The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

John.15:18, 23-25

[18] If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

[23] He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

[24] If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

[25] But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

It's also no surprise that leftist claim Christianity and twist Scripture to echo their humanistic teachings:

2Tim.4:3

[3] For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

As they do this, they deny Him and this is what His action will be when denying His teachings:

Matt.10:33

[33] But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

2Tim.2:12

[12] If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

[nmh]

Isn't it odd that these same "Jewish lawmakers" do NOT object to when ALL Presidents swear in to office placing their hand on the Bible which contains the Old and NEW Testament?

Just goes to show how hateful these "Jewish lawmakers" are. Just as in the Bible they are as disobedient as ever.

[Just mythoughts]

This is a "free" nation that was based upon Christian principles.

Within that document it clearly states that government cannot establish a religion.

For "lawmaker" to think that they have the power to tell a "free" person how to pray, no matter what religion the "lawmaker" is then something has gotten turned upside down.

There is no way that the opposite situation could occur and there not be the hue and cry of anti-semitism.

Somebody in that legislature has gotten a bit to brazen to think that as a lawmaker they can tell anyone what is an acceptable prayer. It is far worse than "censorship" for any lawmaker to tell someone how and what is acceptable in a prayer.

Would you stand for someone, anyone telling you who to and how to pray? I think not.

[PFKEY]

What I don't understand is why it is important that there be some sort of prayer in these assemblies?

Where is it in the Bible that says a Christian should pray amoung unbelievers?

What does the Bible say about public prayers?

Sorry, I don't see the problem. I wouoldn't want someone to offer a prayer to Allah or the wind spirit or whoever. This all seems rather silly and pointless.

[Kuksool]

{Isn't it odd that these same "Jewish lawmakers" do NOT object to when ALL Presidents swear in to office placing their hand on the Bible which contains the Old and NEW Testament?}

Liberals have not thought of objecting to the practice yet.

[mvpel]

E-CU-MEN-I-CAL.

If I asked someone to offer an ecumenical invocation, and they refused to do so, then I don't think it amounts to "telling them how to pray" to decline to invite them to offer the invocation.

[Just mythoughts]

Upon whose authority does a "lawmaker" have to determine what E-CU-MEN-I-CAL means?

Who does that State House belong to?

Who pays their salaries?

The very idea that an elected government official takes upon themselves what "ecumenical invocation" means and what words are appropriate to say, is government establishing a religion.

Christians have been taught too long to turn the other cheek, and ignore what is Written. This country has been hit with the broadside of unbelievers demanding to removed the very foundation that made and keeps this country the most blessed nation in recorded history.

Christians are not second class citizens. Enough is enough.

So an "offer" was made and when he refused to follow directions, then an "invitation" to decline the offer.

You are whitewashing what took place. If the same situation happend to you, would you follow the directions of what was appropriate to say?

[mvpel]

Christians are not second class citizens. Enough is enough.

But Jews are, apparently. Don't worry too much, we're used to it.

[Hacksaw]

The minister was wrong and he should apologize.

Nope.

[Just mythoughts]

Actually in this day and age it is the Christians who are required to take the back seat. The "left" socialists, media, Hollywood, ever hear the words "right wing extremists" so commonly use thorough out the 90's.

It was not a Rabbi that was told what words were acceptable to pray. The article states they were not given any requirements as to what could be said.

If this had been done to a Rabbi I would have the same position. "LAWMAKERS" have no authority to tell anyone what is an appropriate prayer.

Because I am a Christian and we live in a "FREE" country each individual has the right to practice their religion. It is because of my respect for that right and know that if it is not protected none of us will retain it.

The Christian community as a whole in this nation has the highest level of support for Jews anywhere in the world and no one can claim that Christians as a whole treat Jews as second class citizens.

We are continually told that government is to be Christian free, and based upon your words, sounds like you agree.