This was a prayer given in Kansas at the opening session of their Senate. It seems prayer still upsets some people.

When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:

"Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, "Woe to those who call evil good," but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it Pluralism..

We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.

We have killed our unborn and called it choice.

We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem.

We have abused power and called it politics.

We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.

We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent to direct us to the center of Your will and to openly ask these things in the name of Your Son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen!"

The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer in protest. In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively. The church is now receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa, and Korea.

Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, "The Rest of the Story," and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired.

With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called "one nation under God."

Not commenting on this specific incident, but generally speaking anyone afraid of prayer is an idiot.

Ignoring the fact that the prayer is overflowing with strawmen; a prayer (especially one as exceptionally politically biased as the one above) really has no place in the Senate.

It's only reasonable that sprouting trash like this upsets people.

I don't believe that prayer, in an of itself, upset those people. It was that mildly offensive 'prayer' (If you can call it that) that did. Respecting other's beliefs is a great thing, as is respecting their right not to believe, this 'minister' was attempting to make an outcast of everyone whom did not believe in the same tenants that he did.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that fun stuff.

It's all about respect, this 'minister' didn't seem to have much for those who disagreed with him.

Greetings:

Our founding fathers believed in prayer, and had open prayer in their political sessions.

Research your history. When did "separation of church and state" take place? It didn't take plus until the 20th century. Hmm….

Our founding fathers put "In God we trust" on our money so we would remember whom we should put our trust in -- not the money, but in God Himself.

===

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that fun stuff."

Did Jesus speak tolerance when He Himself stated that NO one comes to the Father, except through Him? -- John 14:6

Thank you.

Originally posted by dynamicnet

Our founding fathers put "In God we trust" on our money so we would remember whom we should put our trust in -- not the money, but in God Himself.


Actually, they did not put "In God We Trust" on money. That was not started until after the Civil War and was added very slowly. It was not until the middle of the 20th century that all money had the phrase printed on it:

http://www.dispatch.com/news/features01/jan01/566590.html

Originally posted by dynamicnet
Our founding fathers put "In God we trust" on our money so we would remember whom we should put our trust in -- not the money, but in God Himself.

Ahahaha. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...

Originally posted by dynamicnet

Research your history. When did "separation of church and state" take place? It didn't take plus until the 20th century. Hmm….


It took place when the Constitution was created. At least according to Thomas Jefferson it did (and I think he might know more about it than either you or I). As far as the explicit phrase "Separation of church and state" that was introduced in 1802, by Thomas Jefferson:

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Specifically:


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

seperation of church and state

I still don't understand why some people are afraid of praying. It's mearly talk to some and a conversation with the Lord. I mean, if you can't stand hearing someone talk, why have ears?

Greetings:

"It took place when the Constitution was created."

Where is it specifically stated in our constitution?

"At least according to Thomas Jefferson it did (and I think he might know more about it than either you or I). As far as the explicit phrase "Separation of church and state" that was introduced in 1802, by Thomas Jefferson:"

Is this not a personal letter from Thomas Jeffereson to a specific church (Danbury)? As such, how does a personal opinion from a personal letter dictate the meaning of the our constitution?

And why did it take until the 20th century for some people in our court system to base the entire argument on the separation of church and state on such a personal letter?

Thank you.

Originally posted by Xymbiant
I still don't understand why some people are afraid of praying. It's mearly talk to some and a conversation with the Lord. I mean, if you can't stand hearing someone talk, why have ears?

I don't think people have a problem with prayer, people do have a problem with evangelizing. The prayer in the first post was not a prayer, it was evangelizing and it offended some people. In sincerely doubt the Founding Fathers opened their sessions with similar prayers.

Originally posted by Xymbiant
I still don't understand why some people are afraid of praying. It's mearly talk to some and a conversation with the Lord. I mean, if you can't stand hearing someone talk, why have ears?

I believe it's fairly clear that this is not the case with this particular 'prayer', though dynamicnet's topic seems to have been made to mislead people into thinking it was.

I'm willing to bet even money that the majority of the politicians in that Senate are completely open to prayer in general; however, when the minister praying starts to attack the policies of some of those politicians in his prayer, in a place he was invited into to 'bless', not condemn, then there is a serious problem.

Long story short, it just seems that dynamicnet's trying to spread this 'evangelism' here and draw a proverbial line in the sand.

Originally posted by dynamicnet

Did Jesus speak tolerance when He Himself stated that NO one comes to the Father, except through Him? -- John 14:6


John 14:2


In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.


We can do Bible quotes all day, it doesn't prove anything.

Does anyone remember that the "founding fathers," by and large, were Deists? "Clockmaker" theory of God? As in, a deity made the world and then LET IT RUN ON IT'S OWN.

If that's Christian, why pray?

Originally posted by dynamicnet
Greetings:

"It took place when the Constitution was created."

Where is it specifically stated in our constitution?


Well, I will tell you what. Here is the Constitution:

http://memory.loc.gov/const/const.html

And the Bill of Rights:

http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html


Tell me where it talks about god? It doesn't, I have to assume that was intentional. Why would I assume that? Because the Declaration of Independence references god multiple times -- so the fact that there is no mention of god in the Constitution is intentional.


Originally posted by dynamicnet

Is this not a personal letter from Thomas Jeffereson to a specific church (Danbury)? As such, how does a personal opinion from a personal letter dictate the meaning of the our constitution?

And why did it take until the 20th century for some people in our court system to base the entire argument on the separation of church and state on such a personal letter?


Of course it is a personal letter, but he is commenting on the Constitution and the intention behind it. Since he was there, he should know what the intention is.

I don't know that it was first used in the 20th Century -- but even if it was, maybe that was because people started injecting more overtly relgious symbols/words into the realm of the state.

Originally posted by dynamicnet

And why did it take until the 20th century for some people in our court system to base the entire argument on the separation of church and state on such a personal letter?


Here is a court decision from the 19th century:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html

I'll see if I can find any earlier cases.

Originally posted by dynamicnet

Our founding fathers put "In God we trust" on our money so we would remember whom we should put our trust in -- not the money, but in God Himself.


From the treaty of Napoli written by Washington and signed by president Adams :

'the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion'.

No one is opposed to prayer or "god", as he is so reffered to.

What some people are opposed to is the fact that Christians, collectively and as a whole, have this habit of berating anyone that dosent belive thier little book and they refuse to recognize that not everyone wants to partake in, be subjected to or be around them while they are worshiping thier higher power.

Because some of us belive in a higher power that differs quite a little bit from thier views and some of us (like me) are athiests and we don't belive in religion at all.

You have the right to worship whoever you want, but not in places where I have to be subjected to it and not in a manner in which I have to fund it. I'll be the first to defend your right to do as you see fit in your church and in your homes. But when it comes to government buildings and public schools, which are funded in part by my money, you enjoy no such rights.

If Chirstians would simply leave the rest of us alone who do not share thier faith and quit trying to "save" us, they'd find that most of the world would leave them be and everyone would be much happier.

The setting was inappropriate, but the message is profound and true.

There in no way, and I mean no way, that the world would not be a better place if people learned to take responsibility for the quality and direction of their own lives. I find those that seek and often gain political power by catering to the weekness and hopelessness of their constituents disgusting. This is precisely why Larry Elder (conservative radio host) coined the phrase "Victocrats." I wonder what percentage of "walk outs" would fall into this category.

Thank you for sharing this "prayer" Dynamicnet. From Minister Joe Wright's mouth to God's ears.

Originally posted by Joe Bonanno
The setting was inappropriate, but the message is profound and true.


Uh huh:

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem.

I would not say these two statements are either profound or true. In fact, I would argue they are both needlessly political -- especially for someone who is allegedly praying.

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.

I agree with that one and it sure is true.

Greetings:

Some quotes from the founders of our country:

“He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world” – Ben Franklin

“But these things did not dismay them… for their desires were set on the ways of God, and to enjoy His ordinances: but they rested on His Providence and knew whom they had believed.” – William Bradford, Governor of the Pilgrims

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor” – Declaration of Independence

“How has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly appealing to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible to danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered…. I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs the affairs of men. – And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’… I firmly believe this” – Benjamin Franklin addressing the Constitutional Convention

“The people of these United States, from their earliest history to the present time, have been led by the hand of a Kind Providence, and are indebted for the countless blessings of the past and present, and dependent for continued prosperity in the future upon Almighty God… The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ” – The United States House of Representatives in 1854

“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor” – George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789

John Adams stated in 1798, “Our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

The father of the Constitution, James Madison stated in his “Memorial and Remonstrance” of 1785 that “religion.. [is] the basis and foundation of government… before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”

From the Journals of our Congress, Wednesday, October 18, 1780 (yes, this was from Congress):

“Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, amidst the vicissitudes and calamities of war, to bestow blessings on the people of these states, which all for their devout and thankful acknowledgements, more especially in the late remarkable interposition of His watchful providence, in rescuing the person of our Command in Chief and the army from imminent dangers, at the moment when treason was ripened for execution; in prospering the labours of the husbandmen, and causing the earth to yield its increase in plentiful harvests; and above all, in continuing to us the enjoyment of the gospel of peace;

It is therefore recommended to the several states to set apart Thursday, the seventh day of December next, to be observed as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer; that all the people may assemble that day to celebrate the praises of our Divine Benefactor; to confess our unworthiness of the least of His favours, and to offer our fervent supplication to the God of all grace; that it may please Him to pardon our heinous transgressions and incline our hearts for the future to keep all His laws; to comfort and relieve our brethren who are any wise afflicted or distressed; to smile upon our husbandry and trade; to direct our publick councils, and lead our forces, by land and sea, to victory; to take our illustrious ally under His special protection, and favor our joint councils and exertions for the establishment of speedy and permanent peace; to cherish all schools and seminaries of education, and to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread all over the earth.”

Abraham Lincoln stated, “The only assurance of our nation’s safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion.”

===

Thank you.

Originally posted by kkimmel
No one is opposed to prayer or "god", as he is so reffered to.

What some people are opposed to is the fact that Christians, collectively and as a whole, have this habit of berating anyone that dosent belive thier little book and they refuse to recognize that not everyone wants to partake in, be subjected to or be around them while they are worshiping thier higher power.

Because some of us belive in a higher power that differs quite a little bit from thier views and some of us (like me) are athiests and we don't belive in religion at all.

You have the right to worship whoever you want, but not in places where I have to be subjected to it and not in a manner in which I have to fund it. I'll be the first to defend your right to do as you see fit in your church and in your homes. But when it comes to government buildings and public schools, which are funded in part by my money, you enjoy no such rights.

If Chirstians would simply leave the rest of us alone who do not share thier faith and quit trying to "save" us, they'd find that most of the world would leave them be and everyone would be much happier.

To lump all "Christians" into one group and speak of them as if they don't have individual thoughts, opinions and actions, makes this post no better than the post you attacked. I'm a Christian and I don't believe in pushing my views or beliefs on anyone. Yes, I will discuss it and even debate it, if the mood strikes--but not in any unwelcome manner. For example, this thread is relevant to the topic, I'm not just posting prayer threads randomly--and even if I had, people could ignore them (but I don't think it would be relevant or that I had any business in doing so).

Clearly, you don't agree with people that do--and that's fine by me. See->Me not trying to 'save' you. People don't think and act alike based on their beliefs or claimed beliefs. For example, I've had 'dynamicnet" on my ignore list for over a year now--we both claim to be Christians and we don't agree with many views nor have much like for each other too. Had we based our beliefs and views and actions alike as you suggest, we'd be great friends--and I think he's the only person I've ever put on my ignore list here. Thus, you may wish to rethink your post.

People are people--don't speak down about this in such a manner or you will only argue against the very point you just made. I agree that you don't push beliefs on people that have no desire to hear it. Alternatively, I don't think people should shy away from it in any forum if it's a topic or relevant of interests either (even in school or government). Though I agree that people shouldn't push it on people in the wrong forum for _no_ reason. I realize some do, but they aren't me or anyone I know. Conversely, people that don't believe, some of them try and aggressively push their opinions on people too. Neither of us can do anything about that, and the blame lies soley on the people that do--not the religion they claim to be standing up for--unless it expressly sates otherwise in their beliefs.

An example of the above would be; if people want to have a prayer meeting at school, it should be 'allowed', but they shouldn't hold an assembly forcing people that have no interests in being involved. That sort of thing. No one is oppressed or forced to do or believe anything they don't want or do want to. Sound like a fair or reasonable view? It's my view, and I'm a Christian--don't hate me for it, I don't hate you because you don't agree. But 'we' aren't all the same, so please choose your words more carefully out of fairness. :-)

Originally posted by kkimmel
I agree with that one and it sure is true.

Ahhh...okay then, please show me in the Bible where Jesus refused to help someone who came to him because that person was lazy? Jesus gave of himself unconditionally, and without passing judgements on those who asked for his help.

Not to mention that the very premise of that statement is flawed: People who are on welfare are not necessarily lazy. Are there lazy people on welfare? I am sure there are. But not all people on welfare are lazy and to make that claim is decidedly un-Christianlike.

Originally posted by dynamicnet

From the Journals of our Congress, Wednesday, October 18, 1780 (yes, this was from Congress):


Just to be perfectly honest, that quote is from the Continental Congress, not the United States Congress, because the United States of America did not exist in 1780. The Continental Congress led to the formation of the Articles of Confederation -- a system of Government so poor that it had to be scrapped and the union almost dissolved.

The only way the founding fathers could develop a working system of government was to exclude religion -- which is where the United States Constitution comes from.

Im sorry but anyone who considers the intial post to be anything other than a string of spin doctored political diatrabe is mistaken.

I dont want to start a flame war but these so called "Evangalists" ( I call it that because that whats the initial post smacks of) that so many americans donate to would be laughed at in Ireland (which is still one of the most religious countries in christian world).

Read between the lines of the so called "prayer" and see how many votes they are counting.

I myself was raised as a roman catholic and during my teens rebelled and became an atheist, but with the light of experience and a few more years under my belt have become an agnostic.

I have read the bible cover to cover almost as many times as I have read the lord of the rings and consider them both to be fine works of fiction.

Im drifting off topic here :), back to my point.
To call the initial post a prayer is an insult to anyone who actually believes in "any" religion.

People use prayer in times of need when they have nothing to fall back upon but their faith, or to give thanks for some percieved benefit.

To call a blatantly politic speech a "prayer" really should serve to guarantee fewer votes, but alas the folks in the US weaned on TV Evangalism might have a different opinion.

Originally posted by Xymbiant
I still don't understand why some people are afraid of praying. It's mearly talk to some and a conversation with the Lord. I mean, if you can't stand hearing someone talk, why have ears?


.... It's called choice. It's not about not wanting to hear *at all*.

It's about not wanting to hear others push their self-righteous philosophy down your throat.

Originally posted by Ed_Case
Im sorry but anyone who considers the intial post to be anything other than a string of spin doctored political diatrabe is mistaken.


And that wraps it up nicely.

Originally posted by allan
Ahhh...okay then, please show me in the Bible where Jesus refused to help someone who came to him because that person was lazy? Jesus gave of himself unconditionally, and without passing judgements on those who asked for his help.


Welfare Dept. != Jesus. :D

Originally posted by allan
Uh huh:

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem.

I would not say these two statements are either profound or true. In fact, I would argue they are both needlessly political -- especially for someone who is allegedly praying.

You failed to quote the fact that I quoted "prayer" myself. I am agreeing that this is not the appropriate forum. But the fact is that the speech was given in a political context and should be evaluated as such.

Furthermore, I don't think it is fair to assume that the Minister is saying that everyone on welfare is lazy, but that the welfare system does encourage it.

The comment on children and discipline should also be taken in context with his other points, and together with his other ponits can be understood as a condemnation of the secular left which attempts to make ethics situational and personal in too many respects.

Again, all I think the minister was trying to do was beg people to take responsibility for their own lives. If a lot of people disagree with how he went about delivering his message, I doubt he cares.

The fact is that faith in a benevolent God, whether Christian or not, creates a sense of accountability that the faithless do not understand.

Originally posted by dynamicnet

The father of the Constitution, James Madison stated in his “Memorial and Remonstrance” of 1785 that “religion.. [is] the basis and foundation of government… before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”


Funny you should mention James Madison. Do you know what he did in 1786? In 1786, along with Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, James Madision wrote the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty (I know this, because I happen to live in Virginia):

http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/documents/ih195802.htm

This law made Virginia one of the first states to legally separate Church and State, and it is the basis for the first amendment.


And from George Washington (1797 Treaty of Tripoli):


As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries.

You can argue all day long about what our founding fathers felt about the separation of church and state, but the fact remains that one of our principals, as a country, is that the church and government should remain sole entities, completely devoid of any interaction. While, I agree, there is still a lot of interaction between our government and the church, we've done a damn good job as a country, without falling into theocracy.

Originally posted by webworkz

While, I agree, there is still a lot of interaction between our government and the church, we've done a damn good job as a country, without falling into theocracy.

Agreed, and I agree with what Tim said earlier:


An example of the above would be; if people want to have a prayer meeting at school, it should be 'allowed', but they shouldn't hold an assembly forcing people that have no interests in being involved.


Similarly, if the Senators in Kansas want to start their session with a prayer, that's great. But, to intentionally incite trouble through that prayer goes against the teachings of Christ (at least in the Bible I have read). Christ would never use prayer as a method of backhanded attack against those he disagreed with. Prayer is a time to come closer to god, and you don't get closer to god by instilling divisiveness.

Originally posted by allan
Funny you should mention James Madison. Do you know what he did in 1786?

To add to your post... in 1774 he wrote the following:

“If the Church of England had been the established and general religion and all the northern colonies as it has been among us here and uninterrupted tranquility had prevailed throughout the continent, it is clear to me that slavery and subjection might and would have been gradually insulated among us. Union of religious sentiments begets a surprising confidence and ecclesiastical establishments tend to grate ignorance and corruption all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.”

ignorance...corruption...mischievous projects... Carl Rove -- all so similar :) Say your farewells to W. :wavey:

Separation of Church and State also guarantees that the government can't control or say what people believe in, not just to say it doesn't 'mix well' in politics or decisions they make. This is a good thing--also that the state can't create a church of belief anyone must follow--freedom. Freedom good, beer good, fire bad! Who would argue this? :-) As for anyone forcing a view in this regard, being a Christian myself, I'd not appreciate it. I can tolerate it in different mediums and I'm not bothered by people expressing themselves either way.

However, I really don't appreciate insults of people pushing their anti-religious beliefs though (as if people that do believe are somehow foolish, stupid people, and that it's all fiction)--that doesn't contribute anything to the topic. Everyone's entitled to their opinion and I'm not personally saying people are fools for not believing what I do--I'd personally appreciate the same respect shown in return. After all, this isn't a debate about that aspect, but in regard(s) to the context originally mentioned and discussed. There's no need to go further than that, because what someone believes isn't relevant to the point of the thread.