Nation of Christians no more???

[LadyEagle]

Senators Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid Both Refuse to Allow Chaplain Who Prays 'in Jesus Name,' but Welcome Hinduism to the Floor of the U.S. Senate


WASHINGTON, July 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- A Hindu chaplain will pray a Hindu prayer on the floor of the U.S. Senate for the first time in history. But yesterday, staffers from the offices of Senator Clinton (D-NY) and Harry Reid (D-NV) both denied a request for equal access to a chaplain who prays "in Jesus name."

Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt personally visited the Washington offices of both Senators on July 10th, but was turned away.

"Yes, we sponsored today's Hindu chaplain from Nevada to pray Hindu prayers on the Senate floor," admitted Reid's staff, "but we won't sponsor you because you're from New York ," they told Chaplain Klingenschmitt.

Senator Clinton's office also turned away her own constituent. "We won't sponsor you to pray 'in Jesus name' on the floor of the Senate," her staff told Klingenschmitt, "because Senate Chaplain Barry Black is a Seventh-Day Adventist who regularly prays on the Senate floor... so we don't need a Pentecostal chaplain who prays in Jesus name. You can ask Chaplain Black if he'll sponsor you, but Senator Clinton won't."

Senate Chaplain Barry Black, who is a former Chief of Navy Chaplains, refused to help. "How did you get in here?" his staffer asked Klingenschmitt. When he pointed to the sign above Black's door that says "welcome, please come in," the staffer replied, "Chaplain Black knows who you are, and he likely won't talk to you, and his personal calendar is booked with appointments until 2009."

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/322633629.html

 

[Eliyahu]

The final destination of this trend will be that all the other religions will be allowed to pray in the pulbic offices, except the true Christianity, and all the other religions will be united against the true believers in Jesus Christ.

Even so, Come, Lord Jesus.

 

[Eric B]

Actually, to be historically correct, Muslims started the Crusades by invading Christian lands and trying to conquer them. The Crusaders fought back. Besides, the Crusades is off topic, but nice red herring try.

I knew somebody was going to nitpick on that, but it was not a red herring try. It was a point that it was wrong to to judge a whole group based on the actions of some when there are differing levels of moderation in each group. Regardless of who started the Crusades, Christians were going and conquering and killing. Not just the Muslims, but also the Jews. The point is not who started it, but how would you like for a Muslim or Jew or atheist (who are the biggest ones throwing that stuff at us today) to come and call YOU a potential killer because of what the Crusaders did? How would you like it if they called you a racist because many Christians participated in racism in the past? (And regarded it as the "true" Christianity, and anyone who disagreed was accused of watering it down).
Better yet, if someone accused us of being crazy culists, because Jim Jones and Koresh were "Christians". The first thing you would say is that "well; they are not 'real' Christians", but then the other side does not see that. You are making the same mistake with all people under then name of "Muslim".

Also, right on to Chemnitz as well!

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

The situations with Christians all happened long ago.

The Muslims are still doing it.

I come from a German ancestry and I would not like to be blamed for the Holocaust.

What matters is who I am today and what I am doing.

However, the Muslims are still doing the same thing today that they have always done. They have not stopped...

 

[Chemnitz]

Thanks for the link. I had read that before I posted. If you read the whole story, you will find many contradictions in what he says and what he did.

He has not admitted that he is a Muslim. OTOH, he has not admitted that he was NOT a Muslim.

What politician do YOU know who would admit he was a Muslim when running for office???

I am not sure I have ever seen anybody so determined to believe the worst about a person.

 

[Eliyahu]

Regardless of who started the Crusades, Christians were going and conquering and killing. Not just the Muslims, but also the Jews. The point is not who started it, but how would you like for a Muslim or Jew or atheist (who are the biggest ones throwing that stuff at us today) to come and call YOU a potential killer because of what the Crusaders did? How would you like it if they called you a racist because many Christians participated in racism in the past? (And regarded it as the "true" Christianity, and anyone who disagreed was accused of watering it down).

You are equalizing the victims and the killers.

You may say Hitler and Jews are the same. Yes, they have one mouth, 2 ears, one nose, etc.

Were the truly born again believers those who raped and killed the people in the name of Crusade?

I am quite disappointed with you, Sir.

 

[Eliyahu]

I wish many US citizens wake up from the dream that the life in U.S. help the Muslims and Hinduists change their belief on their religions and led them to think about Chrisitanity in the positive direction.

They are proud that they are civilizing lazy Americans.

 

[Eric B]

The situations with Christians all happened long ago.

The Muslims are still doing it.

I come from a German ancestry and I would not like to be blamed for the Holocaust.

What matters is who I am today and what I am doing.

However, the Muslims are still doing the same thing today that they have always done. They have not stopped...

You are equalizing the victims and the killers.

You may say Hitler and Jews are the same. Yes, they have one mouth, 2 ears, one nose, etc.

Were the truly born again believers those who raped and killed the people in the name of Crusade?

I am quite disappointed with you, Sir.

What are you talking about? Where did I even say anything about Hitler, let alone about him and the Jews being the same or "equalized"?

You all are still not getting the point. Going right around it each and every direction. You take one aspect of my analogies (first, who would not kill who, then, "who started what", now, a time element), and run with those, but still miss the poimt that it is wrong to judge every person in a group as diversified as either Muslims or Christians. Regardless of what time period. You do not like being accused of the actions of Germans generations ago, well then that right there should show you first hand my point. But what you are saying is "well, that was different because it was a long time ago". But the victims of those things do not see it like that. Go and try to evangelize some of them, and the first thing they will throw up in your face is the Holocaust--60 years later! So yes, you will not like that, and you should then see how you're doing the same thing to others.

And what about my more recent examples? Jim Jones and Waco. Well those groups are also gone, right? How about current examples, then? Elohim City ("Christian" white supremacists), Westboro Baptist (Phelps), Peter Ruckman (Radical KJVO), Faith Healers and others prosperity charlatans on TV. All of them are still doing their stuff today. And the world sees us all the same under the banner "Christians". We see the differences between us and those groups and get offended. But others don't see any difference.
So regardless of the time element, it is the same generalized prejudice. Whether separated by time or by space or by school of thought, it is wrong to always lump everyone in the same pot, when there are significant differences.

We would think it far out for Muslims, Jews or others to claim
"I wish many __ citizens wake up from the dream that the passage of centuries help the Christians change their belief on their religions and led them to think less about killing us."

It's the same exact thinking!

 

[Eliyahu]

What are you talking about? Where did I even say anything about Hitler, let alone about him and the Jews being the same or "equalized"?

You all are still not getting the point. Going right around it each and every direction. You take one aspect of my analogies (first, who would not kill who, then, "who started what", now, a time element), and run with those, but still miss the poimt that it is wrong to judge every person in a group as diversified as either Muslims or Christians. Regardless of what time period. You do not like being accused of the actions of Germans generations ago, well then that right there should show you first hand my point. But what you are saying is "well, that was different because it was a long time ago". But the victims of those things do not see it like that. Go and try to evangelize some of them, and the first thing they will throw up in your face is the Holocaust--60 years later! So yes, you will not like that, and you should then see how you're doing the same thing to others.

You started from the right statement against the generalization, then the conclusion is really wrong.
Yes, we must avoid the fallacy of Generalization. But you said Christians are killing people? No, Sir, if the alleged Christians are killing, they are not Christians. You may say about Iraqi War, but I doubt about the Salvation of G Bush, sorry. All the time, throughout the history, Christians were the victims. The Crusade was led by Catholic which is full of Idolatry and goddess worship, killing the True Christians called Albigenes( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade)
G Bush declared the war against the Afghanistan as the Crusade, appointing 2 Catholics as Supreme Judge, I don't see any Christianity in him

And what about my more recent examples? Jim Jones and Waco. Well those groups are also gone, right? How about current examples, then? Elohim City ("Christian" white supremacists), Westboro Baptist (Phelps), Peter Ruckman (Radical KJVO), Faith Healers and others prosperity charlatans on TV. All of them are still doing their stuff today. And the world sees us all the same under the banner "Christians". We see the differences between us and those groups and get offended. But others don't see any difference.

You are generalizing those guys too. I don't know how much you know about Ruckman but he may be right in saying KJV is better than any other versions, even though he may be wrong if he said KJV is perfect and flawless. You see, everyone can hardly get out of the fallacy of the generalization.

So regardless of the time element, it is the same generalized prejudice. Whether separated by time or by space or by school of thought, it is wrong to always lump everyone in the same pot, when there are significant differences.

I do have a fellowship with some muslims in an attempt to preach the gospel to them, and they show certain interests in the Gospel. However, in that case, it is because they showed the good responses to the calls and to the truth. What we are pointing out to the Politicians, especially from Muslim or Hindu background, we can say that there is the strong trends of deception and of the fake Christianity, which even the Bible warns us against ( Gal 2:4, 2 Cor 11:4, 1 John 2:19). I am talking about the carefulness against the deception, not the Generalization Prejudice, but the Caution against the common trends of deception. Even Paul pointed out the general character of Cretians ( Titus 1:12-13) saying they are always liars, evil beasts, which doesn't mean that Paul meant Cretians are not supposed to accept the Gospel.
If I warn you that you should be careful about the Chinese food products and pharmaceutical products, will you condemn me of the Generalization Prejudice? Then read the news articles about them more carefully. I don't show any hatreds against Chinese, but want to caution about the safety of their products.

We would think it far out for Muslims, Jews or others to claim
"I wish many __ citizens wake up from the dream that the passage of centuries help the Christians change their belief on their religions and led them to think less about killing us."

It's the same exact thinking!

This type of view is exactly what I was disappointed with you about.

Can any reasonable person not find the superiority of the Christian truth over Hinduism or Islam only if they devote minimum amount of time to compare?

I would agree with you if you and I immigrate into India or into Iran and find their religions have the equal justification as the Christianity in US system, proven by their society and by their economic success, public order, democracy etc. which can never be found unless both you and I are insane.

But I would accept your emphasis on the warning against the generalization while I would keep cautious about the trends of the other paganism and their people.

 

[Eric B]

You started from the right statement against the generalization, then the conclusion is really wrong.
Yes, we must avoid the fallacy of Generalization. But you said Christians are killing people? No, Sir, if the alleged Christians are killing, they are not Christians. You may say about Iraqi War, but I doubt about the Salvation of G Bush, sorry. All the time, throughout the history, Christians were the victims. The Crusade was led by Catholic which is full of Idolatry and goddess worship, killing the True Christians called Albigenes( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade)
G Bush declared the war against the Afghanistan as the Crusade, appointing 2 Catholics as Supreme Judge, I don't see any Christianity in him

I do have a fellowship with some muslims in an attempt to preach the gospel to them, and they show certain interests in the Gospel. However, in that case, it is because they showed the good responses to the calls and to the truth. What we are pointing out to the Politicians, especially from Muslim or Hindu background, we can say that there is the strong trends of deception and of the fake Christianity, which even the Bible warns us against ( Gal 2:4, 2 Cor 11:4, 1 John 2:19). I am talking about the carefulness against the deception, not the Generalization Prejudice, but the Caution against the common trends of deception.

No, no, no! The point is still going right over you.:BangHead:
It's not about what we are actually doing today; the whole discussion is about others' perception of us as being the same as all other people called "Christians".

Claiming "well they were not true Christians" just becomes a
"[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman"]No_true_Scotsman"[/URL] form of equivocation. People don't see the Christian religion as the "true" Christians only, because to them, the whole thing is NOT true anyway, and they cannot spiritually discern the differences between those calling themsleves Christian.

So if they were to attack us in retaliation for what other Christians did long ago, and you came up with "well, those aren't true Christians", they wouldn't buy it. I know, because I have used such disclaimers with nonbelievers, and all they do is accuse me of coming up with my own "interpretation", while they continue to react against all the other Christians.

You are generalizing those guys too. I don't know how much you know about Ruckman but he may be right in saying KJV is better than any other versions, even though he may be wrong if he said KJV is perfect and flawless. You see, everyone can hardly get out of the fallacy of the generalization.

He has also acted in very unChristian manners to all who disagree with him. That was my point; not his believing the KJV is better than other versions (which I tend to agree with). And in fact, he DOES claim it is operfect and flawless, to the point that it is superior to the original Greek manuscripts! That plus his behavior, in the name of "The Word of God" makes people think all Christians are nutcases. Again, they do not see the difference.

Even Paul pointed out the general character of Cretians ( Titus 1:12-13) saying they are always liars, evil beasts, which doesn't mean that Paul meant Cretians are not supposed to accept the Gospel.
If I warn you that you should be careful about the Chinese food products and pharmaceutical products, will you condemn me of the Generalization Prejudice? Then read the news articles about them more carefully. I don't show any hatreds against Chinese, but want to caution about the safety of their products.

We have to be careful with that. And the statements being made here go beyond even that generality. For that is making a general statement about the whole group (allowing individuals to be different), but the generality in this discussion labels every specific, individual as complicit with the general sin.

I liked what Analgesic said in the "Tancredo" thread. "Why would they "denounce" Islam? Why not just denounce the interpretation of those nasty radical Muslims as being false? Exactly how do you KNOW that these moderate Muslims will choose to join the radicals? I have yet to see a moderate Muslim who believed the killing of innocent people to be okay if it furthers the cause of the jihad, but if you'll look to the post above yours you'll see pinoybaptist proposing the killing of innocent people to further his cause."

Just like we reject the interpretation of Ruckman, the supremacists, the cults, the Crusaders, they can reject the interpretations of their radicals. From all this hysteria I am seeing right here; what do you propose we do? Just make all forms of Islam illegal right now, and locking them all up, or kicking them out? Just like Analgesic pointed out, we so fear others, and in the process end up becoming the persecutors ourselves.

This type of view is exactly what I was disappointed with you about.

Can any reasonable person not find the superiority of the Christian truth over Hinduism or Islam only if they devote minimum amount of time to compare?
I would agree with you if you and I immigrate into India or into Iran and find their religions have the equal justification as the Christianity in US system, proven by their society and by their economic success, public order, democracy etc. which can never be found unless both you and I are insane.

They can still speculate on the radical groups I mentioned, or even better, Rome, gaining power (as many of us believe regarding the End Times, anyway), and then propose the same scenario, that all of us "moderates" who do not believe their interpretation and uphold democracy, order, etc. NOW, will be forced to side with them, and hence justify lumping us all together, and reacting against all of us accordingly.

 

[Eliyahu]

Eric,

I would not respond to each of your statements, but would accept them as the emphasis on the danger of the generalization which can cause tremendous mistakes. I don't value the Christian heritage or culture equal as the other heathens', but believe we must push and reflect the Christian beliefs in the politics and in the school system as much as possible, and we should not be deceived by any fake Christians either.
It is exactly the goals and aims of Satan that most people in the world misunderstand Christians did most of the crimes in the history after he and his people did them, though some true believers were misled by the Satan and participated in such crimes.
Random shooting by the generalization can cause a lot of casulties of innocent victims too, while the deception is another big problem which demands us to be careful.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

On Thursday, a Hindu chaplain from Reno, Nevada, by the name of Rajan Zed is scheduled to deliver the opening prayer in the U.S. Senate. Zed tells the Las Vegas Sun that in his prayer he will likely include references to ancient Hindu scriptures, including Rig Veda, Upanishards, and Bhagavard-Gita.

Read it and weep .. vote the bums out.

Shocking! The Senate is permitting the free exercise of religion!!!! How dare they!

Why don't we just tear up the Constitution and write something new that suits Christians only?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

As long as they allow prayers in the official proceedings they will have to have it open to all religions. It is for this reason, I have been in favor of removing prayer from official governmental functions including school. I don't want to listen to a heathen pray to their idol.

Excellent thoughts. Some Christians think that we should have some kind of favoured status, only Christians can pray in Congress and in schools. America is a free nation, with freedom of religion. If we don't like it lets call for the repeal of the religion clause of the 1st amendment.

 

[hillclimber1]

This argument is why we've kicked God out of American society. He can only be talked about in church. The separation of church and state has been so distorted, so as to work for evil.

 

[Jaaaman]

This argument is why we've kicked God out of American society. He can only be talked about in church. The separation of church and state has been so distorted, so as to work for evil.

I agree with you sir. :thumbs:

 

[Ex-Fundy]

ladies and gents,

As much as believe that Jesus Christ is the Only way to the Father, I think these people going and interrupting the senate just makes us believers look bad. yes, it was all over the Liberal blogs, they were referred to as "nut job fundies". Which is sad, because they're not fundies at all, just some radical evangelicals.

This same thing happened in 1993, and nobody protested then.

So, I don't get it.

Do I say it's right? No, But what these people did was no so bright in my book.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

I still find it hard to believe that we have enough Senators that allowed a Hindu to pray to his 'gods' (yes, the Hindu religion has many gods).

What happened to ONE NATION UNDER GOD?

This is the first time in 200 years that a non-Christian prayer has opened the Senate.

The founding fathers must be turning over in their graves - not to mention what the one true God is thinking...

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I still find it hard to believe that we have enough Senators that allowed a Hindu to pray to his 'gods' (yes, the Hindu religion has many gods).

Why? Do you not accept the 1st amendment?

What happened to ONE NATION UNDER GOD?

That was only added to the pledge in the 50s. We threw it out when we started slaughtering millions of children in the 70s.

This is the first time in 200 years that a non-Christian prayer has opened the Senate.

So? Does the 1st amenment only apply to Christians?

The founding fathers must be turning over in their graves - not to mention what the one true God is thinking...

Or they are glad to see that we do believe in freedom of religion. Do you really think God is surprised that American is showing her true pagan colours?


It seems to me that our precious constitution is not quite so precious when non-Christian are allowed the same rights we are.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Don't forget, they also broke the first commandment when they allowed the Hindu prayer... To me, the commandments are more important than the constitution.

However, I seriously doubt the founding fathers had the Hindu's in mind when they signed the Constitution.

This is just the first step down a slippery slope. It is a forewarning of what is to come...

 

[Eric B]

That was only added to the pledge in the 50s. We threw it out when we started slaughtering millions of children in the 70s.

Do you really think God is surprised that American is showing her true pagan colours?

And it was reportedly added only to distinguish us grom the "godless" communists. That right there shows that God was basically just a mascot for this country, so it would figure that they would not really take Him seriously, and this would manifest itself after some time.