Jewish lawmakers threaten walk-out over reference to Jesus

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

[Illbay]

I don't know if he was seeking a confrontation or not. It seems like he was told the proper form of prayer for such an occasion.

[DensaMensa]

}...he was told the proper form of prayer for such an occasion.

IMHO any "proper form of prayer" arrived at by a committee of man is not a prayer at all, but a performance or exhibition.

To suggest that a performance is a prayer flies in the face of Jesus admonition "do not pray on the street corner to be seen of men" but "go into a closet and pray to your Father which art in heaven". (Or words to that effect.)

[Illbay]

Yours is but one more comment leading me to conclude that prayers for such events will soon be a thing of the past.

[DensaMensa]

}Yours is but one more comment leading me to conclude that prayers for such events will soon be a thing of the past.

Oh, I don't believe that, but am not sure what the loss would be, except in a ceremonial sense of course.

[NeilSmith]

"See post# 819. We are talking about the intent of prayer. If one is praying then it is his belief that dictates whom one is praying to. "

Agreed.

"Hopefully this will get you passed your defensive intolerance."

No, I will never support intolerance.

[Captain Beyond]

Who is supporting intolerance?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Actually, I was refering to Sauropod's missive to YOU. I included you in my post.

My apologies for my misunderstanding and thanks for your support.

[Zionist Conspirator]

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

Once again, the reason for this blatant double standard is the (perhaps unconscious) classification of people in this country into "host" and "guest" populations. While the "guests" have the right to protest the religious beliefs of the "hosts" (ie, the Jewish liberals in Maryland), the "host population" can never protest the religious beliefs of "guests" (ie, the chr*stian in Washington State who walked out on an islamic prayer). It is this difference in treatment meted out to "hosts" and "guests" that allegedly assures "religious liberty," ie, that the "hosts" cannot "impose" their views and that the "guests" are free to practice theirs.

Of course this is hypocrisy to the nth degree, but the most distressing thing of all is that liberals such as Dershowitz (who is still crying in his beer because his "good friend" Al Gore isn't leading the war on Iraq) claim they do not recognize any difference between "host" and "guest" populations. But if they did not, then all religions would be treated with equal sensitivity--which they obviously are not.

[k2blader]

Thanks, aruanan!

It is a glorious quote. I've not yet read Mere Christianity but plan to before the summer's out.

[rmlew]

That's odd considering that people can purchase the Talmud online.

How many mdeieval anti-semitic lines can you spout before I impale you with my horns?

[restornu]

shame I saw that I am surprised at you!

[Alex Murphy]

Just making an observation that the word and topic kept creeping into his posts for a time. Was it coincidental, or not? I don't know - that's why I made the observation. Apparently the poster knows he was engaging in foul language, thus the substitution of ***s when he posted it. Thankfully, someone washed his mouth out with soap, and the language has since subsided a bit.