No Jesus Allowed

July 12th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags: , , ,

Human Events just sent me the following action alert:

NEW NATIONAL PETITION to stop banning the name of Jesus in Pennsylvania State-House prayers. Please click, sign, WE WILL FAX your petition automatically to all 253 Pennsylvania Senators and Representatives (saving you hours of labor!)

BREAKING NEWS: Pennsylvania House Speaker bans Jesus Christ from prayers. Heroic Pastor Censored. California City also debates vote to ban Jesus from prayers. “California, Stand Up For Jesus!” State-wide Prayer Rally 5 Aug, 6pm in Lodi, CA.

Dear Friends,
The right to pray publicly “in Jesus name” is under new attack in Pennsylvania and again in California. Please let me explain to you exactly what terrible events just transpired…

The Democrat Speaker of the Pennsylvania House Keith R. McCall has just issued (and enforced) a policy which bans the name of Jesus Christ as illegal speech that may not be uttered during voluntary prayers spoken before the Pennsylvania state legislature.

Pastor Gerry Stoltzfoos of Freedom Valley Worship Center in Adams County, PA had been invited to pray the invocation at the State-House on June 30th, but McCall’s office insisted on previewing and censoring a written copy of the prayer beforehand.

Although I understand the fear many religious Americans have to lose the right to worship (God) as they see fit, I have to say that if you truly believe in the separation between church and state – as I do – that it makes sense to support a policy that says that elected officials cannot pray out loud before the Pennsylvania state legislature. As far as I know, Pennsylvania is not a theocratic state. Elected officials, whether they are Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or something else altogether, can pray in private. There is no reason for them to do so publicly, before and with the entire legislature.

However, allowing prayer but outlawing the word ‘Jesus’ from it is strange. If you allow people to pray before the legislature, as was the with the invocation, then let them pray as they see fit. Christians should then be allowed to mention Jesus, Muslims Mohammed, Buddhists the Buddha, and so forth.

As said, the best thing to do, though, is to simply make the entire government secular.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Michael Merritt
    July 12th, 2009 at 20:41
    Reply | Quote | #1

    that it makes sense to support a policy that says that elected officials cannot pray out loud before the Pennsylvania state legislature.

    While I’m inclined to agree, you’re going to find yourself in the minority, I think. Even Congress typically holds a (non-denominational) prayer in the morning before starting business, I believe. As far as I know, it’s a long-standing tradition.

    And it’s not likely to go away any time soon.

  2. Michael van der Galien
    July 12th, 2009 at 23:00
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I know (and don’t care about being in the ‘minority’) – and I’m not extremely passionate about it myself either. But these Human Events people clearly are. ;)

    Prayers: I know, they have done so for a long time but, it’s not exactly a sign of being a secular state / country – so it seems logical (to me at least) to abolish it altogether.

    Besides, it also strikes me as quite hypocritical to (rightly!) complain about other countries that may become less secular, and more theocratic, while at the same time starting important days in the legislature off (and normal days as well) with a prayer of one kind or another.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.