posted on January 29, 2004 08:51:18 AM newI don't see much hope for this democracy when there can be idiots like this regularly elected
A prayer offered by a Republican member of the Arizona state House of Representatives has offended a group of Democratic lawmakers who claim it was partisan, disrespectful and divisive.
The Arizona Republic reports Rep. Doug Quelland of Phoenix delivered the controversial prayer – which was based on one offered in the Kansas House of Representatives in 1996 – to open the House session Monday. It takes aim at multiculturalism, welfare, abortion and "alternative lifestyles."
Rep. Wally Straughn of Phoenix led offended Democrats in filing an official protest.
Here is what the Republican lawmaker prayed:
"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 inverted our values. We confess that:
"We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word and called it pluralism.
"We have worshiped other gods and called it multiculturalism.
"We have endorsed perversion and called it alternative lifestyle.
"We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
"We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation.
"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 political savvy.
"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.
"And we have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
"Search us, O God, and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.
"In the name of your son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen."
Straughn subsequently protested: "Pursuant to House Rule 20, we, all the members of the House Democratic Caucus, protest the lack of respect that was shown the members of this body and the citizens of Arizona during the opening prayer on Jan. 26, 2004.
"The opening prayer is the one opportunity during each day that we can come together as a body. The opening prayer should unite us, not divide us.
"But the prayer on Jan. 26, 2004, was divisive. It was a pandering, mudslinging, name-calling political statement. It was hateful and mean-spirited. It was undignified.
"The citizens of Arizona deserve better. We are diverse. We have unique perspectives. And our unique voices should be respected. Especially during the opening prayer, as members of this body we must set aside our differences and show respect for Arizona in all of its diversity."
Pastor Joe Wright of the Central Christian Church in Wichita, Kan., stirred similar controversy in 1996 when he gave the opening prayer at a session of the Kansas House of Representatives. Wright's prayer has circulated on the Internet since that time.
As WorldNetDaily reported, last year, The Rev. George Dillard III of Peachtree City Christian Church near Atlanta served as guest chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives, praying a similar prayer.
The Rev. Daniel Coughlin, the House chaplain, at the time said he "got feedback [from members] that [the prayer] was judgmental."
In his prayer, Dillard asked God for "leaders who will seek your truth … who accept that a lie is a lie and not spin; that it is immorality and not an alternative lifestyle; that it is murder not a procedure; that it is stealing and not creative accounting; that rebellion is rebellion no matter what name we give it."
What an offensive and disgraceful use of God and religion in an attempt to denigrate political opposition with distortion and lies.
Those people who really believe in God, regardless of their political affiliation will be shamed and appalled.
posted on January 29, 2004 11:02:49 AM new
Was someone keeping these people locked to their chairs and they weren't able to get up and walk out in protest if they didn't like the 'tone' of the prayer. Must prayers now be PC? lol
posted on January 29, 2004 11:21:12 AM new
Political correctiness is not under consideration, linda. In this case, religion and God are being *used* to advance issues that directly affect people in this country such as abortion, education, ethnic diversion, pollution and poverty. Gay lifestyle is called perversion. Without analyzing the document line by line, it should be perfectly clear to you that this is not a prayer. Using lies to promote an agenda in the name of God is not acceptable in America.
posted on January 29, 2004 11:29:22 AM new
Yes helen....I've long ago figured out that anything the liberals want to say is okay to be said...but if a conservative does the exact same thing.... tsk tsk. LOL how funny.
What is interesting is how quickly you change the topic and how quickly you stop calling this document a prayer.
You haven't made a single point in defense of your position. Can you only say words such as tsk, tsk, lol and funny? Next, you will be using smiley faces as bullets.
posted on January 29, 2004 11:49:25 AM new
Helen What I find funny is that some here would believe that with 86% of Americans saying they believe in a God....some think that possibly those same people would object to a prayer which asks for guidance. I'd go so far as to bet that some of those 86% are even democrats. LOL
[i]Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance[/i.]
posted on January 29, 2004 12:14:50 PM new
Linda
That prayer is something of a work a beauty and should be required reading at all legistlaitve functions, in every state...
posted on January 29, 2004 12:32:37 PM new
Hi twelve - Yes, you'd think everything in that prayer was going to do detrimental/irreversible harm to those who might hear it.
How many of our elected representatives are calling for the removal of the these prayers????? I sure haven't read anything about a vote being taken to remove all prayers from all government buildings/proceedings.
-----------------
Hopefully God will be listenin... Why helen....you surprise me as I thought you didn't believe in a God. Now you're hoping someone you don't believe in will be listening? LOL
posted on January 29, 2004 12:44:02 PM new
Even more offensive is the fact that the man is asked to pray on behalf of the body and then his comments are obviously directed as a lecture at the human audience not to God.
If I were in that body I would object to anyone praying for me. I'd suggest they take it to their private place of worship and not inflict their personal beliefs on the others. There is no way such a prayer can fail to either offend or be diluted down to meaninglessness. To imagine that all those men simply must have a common faith is to impose a religeous test on the office.
Do you really want to ammend things so only declared Christians can be allowed to hold office here?
And how much would that mean? After all Hitler was a declared Christian and constantly harped on family values too. In fact he sent the homosexuals to the camps too. Along with Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses and mentally ill and Gypsies. Plenty here would go along with a program here like that in a heart beat.
posted on January 29, 2004 12:44:02 PM new
twelve - I think many, many democrats that have never prayed are praying President Bush doesn't win re-election. So anything's possible.
posted on January 29, 2004 12:53:19 PM new
Oh gravid.........prayer has been in our government agencies since our nation began. Everything anyone says offends someone.
----------
posted on January 29, 2004 01:11:49 PM new
Linda, the offence is using God's name, in form of a prayer, to further a controlled way of thinking that has nothing to do with reality. I don't agree with anything in the prayer.
posted on January 29, 2004 01:54:44 PM new
KD - It doesn't surprise me one bit that there are those who find this prayer offensive. Many on the 'right' find things the 'left' believe/state to be offensive too.
It's always those who don't believe in a God who scream the loudest about any prayer, now some here want to make it a political issue. It's really not. Democrats are free to pray the way they want as are Republicans.
KD - Which religion do you believe would find the above prayer offensive?
posted on January 29, 2004 02:33:36 PM new
So true, Linda.
What bugs me, is people that use God's name to further their cause and gain credibility... like people who wear a cross necklace when they're on trial for a crime. This prayer is against people. It says that all people are perverted, lazy scum sinners that thrive on abortions and poo-pooing the one God theory. Talk about control!
Why not say something more realisitic?
- We are on the right road to finding our spiritual paths
- We are on the right road to finding out truths
- We are seeking the truth in what God is
- We are becoming more accepting of altenative lifestyles
- We give money to our governments to distribute to the poor and needy. Are you guiding the distributors?
- We appreciate that you have given us individual brains to make choices about what happens to ourselves
- We live in a world where help for the ill costs too much, surrounding us with helpless people
- We do the best we can to look after our children. Birth control is expensive.
- We elect leaders from a pool of a 2
- We realize we're in control of what we watch and read
- In our search for happiness, buying stuff makes us feel good until the happiness part kicks in ()
- As individuals, we are starting to realize that organized religion doesn't work
posted on January 29, 2004 02:55:04 PM new
KD - You didn't answer my question. Which religion do you believe would find the above prayer offensive?
And, KD, in America we enjoy free speech and freedom of religion. Which means, that we have the right to pray as we see fit and to say what we wish to in our prayers. The far left hasn't removed that constitutional right, yet.
posted on January 29, 2004 03:15:03 PM new
Do you mean which religious organization would find the prayer offensive? I suspect none of them because of the deep-rooted belief that we are all sinners doomed for God's judgement. As a person who believes in God, I'm offended - not by his right to say whatever, but by this evangelistic approach at trying to say some evil things about his fellow Americans, giving the impression God's on his side because it was phrased as a prayer. It's too obviously prejudice against the weak.
Dear God, Please help the poor and scum laden. I would, but they're too yucky to touch. In God's name...
posted on January 29, 2004 03:22:10 PM new
"We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word and called it pluralism.
"We have worshiped other gods and called it multiculturalism.
"We have endorsed perversion and called it alternative lifestyle.
"We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
"We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation.
"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 political savvy.
"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.
"And we have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
What I don't understand is how anyone can say this is UNTRUE?
Why do the Democrats feel this was aimed specifically at THEM? There are plenty of Republicans who do the same things.
We're screwed up and this "prayer" proves it!
-------------------
Replay Media
Games of all kinds!
posted on January 29, 2004 03:41:11 PM new
KD - The person who is praying is not responsible for the way some choose to take those words. If some choose to take it personally, that is their problem.
posted on January 29, 2004 03:45:04 PM new
I agree with that, Linda. I'm just saying how I (me) feel about these slanted prayers. It's OK if no one in the world feels the same as me.
Replay, it's because these things are in the eye of the beholder. If you think the world is sick, then it will be for you.
posted on January 29, 2004 04:44:09 PM new
That is NOT a Prayer. It is a summation. But you goofballs wouldn't know the first thing about real prayer, that it involves worship first and foremost - because you're all too busy playing democrate/republican checkers to figure that out.
posted on January 29, 2004 04:45:48 PM new
This issue has arisen in nearly every state Senate and House. Here's an article about what went on in Maryland nearly a year ago:
Controversy brews over Senate prayers by Sherry Greenfield
Feb. 13, 2003
For some lawmakers, the state's staggering budget deficit seemed to have taken a back seat recently to a brewing controversy over injecting the name of Jesus in the state Senate's daily opening prayers.
Following the morning roll call in the Senate chambers each morning, a different member of the clergy offers a prayer.
The controversy started when Sen. Sharon M. Grosfeld (D-18) of Kensington, who is Jewish, issued a complaint to Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller Jr. (D-Dist. 27) of Clinton over what she says is the frequent use of the name Jesus Christ in the opening morning prayers.
Frederick's two senators, Alex X. Mooney (R-Dist. 3) of Frederick and David R. Brinkley (R-Dist. 4) of New Market, both say that Maryland is a state of religious tolerance that should allow people the right to pray as they deem appropriate to their own faith.
Both senators, who are Christian, see no problem if an invited member of the clergy injects Jesus' name in the opening prayer, just as they have no concerns over the religious words that are occasionally offered each morning by non-Christian leaders.
"It has not been a problem over the last four years I have been here," Mooney said. "We all have the freedom to pray in the way that accommodates us."
Brinkley agrees.
"Maryland is a haven for religious tolerance," he said. "That includes tolerance for Christianity, Judaism and Mohammedism. My only objection is that the Pledge of Allegiance is not said each day."
Grosfeld, who was unable to respond by press time, argues in a Feb. 4 letter to Miller that it is "vital that the diversity of religious faiths and cultures be respected" in the Senate chamber.
Grosfeld also wrote that the use of the name Jesus violates the Senate guidelines for public prayer during the legislative session. "Those guidelines clearly state that prayers given during legislative sessions should be 'inclusive,' 'non-sectarian' and 'sensitive to a diversity of faiths,'" Grosfeld's letter states.
The clergy are given a booklet entitled "Guidelines for Civic Occasions." In the guidelines, it states that "public prayer in a pluralistic society must be sensitive to a diversity of faiths."
It also states that the prayer should be appropriate for the general public.
"General prayer is inclusive, non-sectarian and carefully planned to avoid embarrassments and misunderstandings," the guidelines state. "Those who are reluctant to offer general prayer should be given the option of declining an invitation."
But Grosfeld argues that since this is not being followed in the Senate chambers, they should no longer allow outside clergy to deliver the morning prayers.
"Given the fact that the Senate has been unable to maintain control over its own guidelines, it is imperative that we refrain from inviting outside clergy from delivering prayers in the Senate chamber," she writes.
But Miller has no intention of changing the tradition.
"We're going to continue to proceed as we have in the past," he said. "What we have said is if a minister or pastor or anyone can't abide by the guidelines we have set, than the senator should not invite them back."
The same controversy has also plagued the House side of the legislature. In fact, concerns over the sensitivity ran so high that the delegates no longer invite religious leaders to open the day with a prayer. Instead, each day a different delegate recites a poem, reading or quote.
One delegate is so angry that prayers are not recited, he has introduced a joint resolution stating that a member of the clergy may refer to a supreme being or God without being subject to criticism or censure.
Del. Emmett C. Burns Jr. (D-Dist. 10) of Baltimore County has introduced a resolution that would allow not only the name of Jesus Christ in the opening prayer, but the god of any faith.
Burns, who is a Baptist minister, considers it an insult to tell invited clergy members not to say the name of Jesus.
"Jesus is the deity that Christians worship and believe in," he said. "This is an insult. This is discrimination against me as a Christian. I'm a minister and you're telling me I can't say his name. That's awful."
But for religious leaders, the dilemma is not that clear cut.
"I think if you're going to pray in that setting, there is a responsibility of the person offering the prayer," said Albert K. Lane III, pastor of the Urbana ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Frederick. "The responsibility of the person offering the prayer is recognizing a body of people who come from several traditions in their approach to God. Sometimes they (clergy) offer an agenda. Prayer must be sensitive to others."
Lane stresses there is a responsibility for those receiving the prayer.
"There must be grace and understanding on both sides," he said.
Rabbi Morris Kosman of the Beth Sholom Congregation in Frederick said prayer at any level is more important than no prayer at all.
"My own personal feelings, not to be taken as defined Judaic stand, is that if I'm not included in a prayer that specifically denotes Christianity or any other particular sect, I don't mind," Kosman said. "I'm a minority. I'd feel more uncomfortable having 300 persons recite a non-denominational prayer for my sake. I can say my own prayer. I certainly vote for the recital of prayer at any level, whether it includes me or not. I say pray, whatever the prayer is."
Staff writers Joseph C. Anselmo and Thomas Dennison contributed to this story.
linda...I see up there you've been addressing the "topic" again.
As astounding as you are, you do have some difficulty appreciating a little humorous remark. When I said that hopefully God is listening and will show Bush the way home ...back to the ranch, it was not intended seriously as a sign of my personal religious conversion.
Actually, I was placing myself in the shoes of those people who are having their beliefs strewn asunder by a bunch of conservative mobsters.
To clarify for you, I might speak on behalf of those with aids yet not have aids. Do you understand that analogy? Most of my relatives and friends believe in God and I know that none of them would accept the BS in that so called *prayer*.
posted on January 30, 2004 12:45:09 PM new
When something is based on the teachings of the Bible and ends in the Name of Jesus Christ it is hated. If the saying part prayer was not based on the Bible and ended in any other name it would been acceptable to far more people. I don't think that the man who said this was basing it on his political party but his relationship with God and His Son. He just happen to be a Republican so it's one more thing for the libs to come down on.
I always find if interesting that the truth of the Bible and the name of Jesus stirs up such hate in people.
People want to live their own way and they don't want to be told how to live, even if it means losing freedom. Many preach so called tolerance but they tolerate very little. Thank God we still have the freedom of speech, if you aren't a Christan anyway, and also the freedom to not listen if we choose. If we are told today, and we are, we can't pray in public what will the government outlaw next? The thought police are everywhere. A country with controlled speech, political correctness, is a socialistic country.....just what the Clintons and some other Democrats want. Odd thing is socialism has NEVER worked anywhere in the world.
One thing I know to be true is Jesus said "whoever He sets free is free indeed" and I am truly free!~!~!~!~!~!~!
