Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Yes, the same publicity-hound former chaplain who has been continually dissembling about why he was removed from his position as a chaplain by the Pentagon. He's a typical religious right persecution poser whose story is based on distortions and falsehoods and he's hopping mad about that Hindu prayer in the Senate. Predictably, his claims are just full of lies beginning with the very first sentence:
I personally sat in the Senate gallery, witnessing history when a Hindu chaplain prayed to "earth" and "sky" and "spirits" on the floor of the U.S. Senate Thursday.
No you didn't. You may have sat there, but the Hindu chaplain did not pray to any of those things. Here is the full text of his prayer:
Let us pray. We meditate on the transcendental glory of the deity supreme, who is inside the heart of the earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of heaven. May he stimulate and illuminate our minds.Lead us from the unreal to real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality. May we be protected together. May we be nourished together. May we work together with great vigor. May our study be enlightening.
There is no mention of "spirits" and the only mention of the earth and sky is to say that the one god, the deity supreme, inhabits them both. He did not pray to any of those things. And that's just the start of the utter absurdity of this column:
Rajan Zed's prayer was hailed by sponsoring Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., as "free speech" allowed by the First Amendment. No senators seemed to notice, nor did any object, while Zed committed the sin of idolatry, right there in public, violating the first of God's Ten Commandments with full government permission.
Well yes, Gordon, that's how it works. We have this thing called the Constitution and it guarantees freedom of religion. That means that people get to violate that commandment at will any time they want - yes, right there in public - and they have "full government permission." It also means that you have the right to commit idolatry in the eyes of Muslims and Jews and violate their religious commandments. No one's religion is binding upon you other than your own. That's called freedom; it's kind of important.
Sure, a Hindu prayer (to millions of false gods) may be "legal" by American law, but it still violates God's law: "I am the Lord Thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
The government has no authority to punish violations of "God's law", Gordon. Again, it's part of what whole freedom thing. Look it up.
He then recounts his amusing tale of going to the offices of Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, demanding that they give him equal time to pray a Christian prayer. Unsurprisingly, his request was denied - and probably with much laughter. He concludes:
So all three offices turned me away, denying equal access for Jesus, but welcoming Hinduism, in the name of tolerance for all faiths, except mine.
This is absolutely laughable. Gordon, this is the first time in 220 years that a Hindu chaplain has been allowed to open the Senate with prayer. Every other day for 220 years, the opening prayer has been a Christian prayer from a Christian clergy (perhaps not strictly true; I wouldn't be surprised if, once or twice, a Jewish clergyman had uttered a generic prayer). Are you seriously going to claim, with a straight face, that the religion whose clergy have prayed 47,999 out of 48,000 prayers is not being "tolerated"? Seriously, you can't possibly be that freaking stupid.
Who can pray "in Jesus name" in the U.S. Senate today? Not Ante and Katherine Pavkovic, nor their daughter Christan Sugar, who were arrested and jailed for praying Christian prayers aloud in the Senate gallery that same day.I watched the Hindu chaplain stand to pray, and everybody stood to their feet. I heard the Pavkovic family pray simultaneously with the Hindu chaplain: "Lord Jesus, have mercy on our nation for allowing this abomination, this idolatry, for violating the First Commandment 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' God forgive our nation, in Jesus name, Amen."
No, you didn't hear them "pray simultaneously" with the Hindu chaplain, you heard them try and shout down the Hindu chaplain. They aren't the same thing, Gordon. If you were leading a prayer and a Hindu started yelling about your blasphemy, I suspect your view might change a bit and you'd see it more accurately for what it was.
Had the Pavkovic family simply said "Amen" to the Hindu prayer, or prayed a Hindu "ohm" meditation, they'd have been viewed as supportive, not disruptive, and wouldn't have been arrested. But since the content of their prayer voiced opposition to Hinduism, so they were arrested and jailed as "disrupters," arrested for the content of their prayer, nothing else.
Such stupidity. No Gordon, the content of their prayer had nothing to do with it. Had they stood up and yelled out the opening passages of the Vagina Monologues, they would still have been arrested. It doesn't matter what they said, it mattered that they were disrupting an even at which they had no right to speak. Anyone in the Senate galleries at any time when it is in session who stands up and starts yelling things out is going to be hauled out of the chambers. The content of their speech is absolutely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter whether they're singing a song or reading out of the Manhattan phone book; it only matters that they are disrupting a scheduled event that falls under Senate rules. Again I'm left to wonder: is this man really this devoid of anything like basic reasoning skills? This isn't complex thinking; a 9 year old could figure this out.
Oh, and this ignorant screed certainly would not be complete without a little fake history:
But they're out of step with the Founding Fathers, including George Washington, who prayed:"Help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith and repentance. Increase my faith and direct me to the true object Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life. Bless, O Lord, all the people of this land, from the highest to the lowest, particularly those whom thou has appointed to rule over us in church and state ... for the sake of thy dear son, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."
Well no, Washington did not pray that prayer. That comes from the document that religious right frauds continue to call the George Washington Prayer Journal. That journal never had anything to do with George Washington and there is not a single historical scholar who thinks it does. It was sold by an auctioneer as belonging to Washington, but he was lying. In fact, the journal had already been taken to the Smithsonian and he had already been informed that the journal was from long after Washington died and, if it had any connection to him at all, it belonged only to a descendant of his. The only ones who still peddle it as belonging to George Washington are frauds like this guy.
I pray we'd elect government leaders that might allow someone like George Washington to pray on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but I suspect they'd turn him away, that is, if they wouldn't just throw him in jail.
Gordon, If you'd stop reading fake history and start reading real history, you'd find out that George Washington was a universalist. He believed that there was one God and that all civilizations worshiped that one God in different ways. That's why when he wrote to the Indians, for example, he referred to God as the Great Spirit. Of course, you would accuse him of idolatry for doing so; that is, if you were aware of him doing it, which you obviously weren't.
And by the way, if you want the real story behind Klingenschmitt being court-martialed and thrown out of the chaplain's service, go here.
Comments
Someone should tell him that if God is so offended by his law being violated then maybe he should come down here and do something about it. Until then, I'd go with the conclusion that if he exists, he doesn't give a shit.
Posted by: llDayo | July 17, 2007 9:39 AM
Maybe Mr. Klingenschmitt was listening in tongues.
Posted by: Coin | July 17, 2007 9:52 AM
The Senate should continue to invite other religions, all of them, and then also have a Secular Humanist and an Athiest open the session. ALL should be represented.
Posted by: RAM | July 17, 2007 10:11 AM
I'd add something, but you covered the whole mess pretty well. Bravo!
Posted by: Brian Thompson | July 17, 2007 10:14 AM
It happens frequently. Per the House Chaplain page, as recently 7/12/07 (5 days ago - the horror!) a Rabbi performed the daily prayer for the House. The senate doesn't appear to provide online records. They even list the prayers and I believe Klingenschmitt would of found the Rabbi's prayer more insulting than the Hindu's chaplains. http://chaplain.house.gov/archive.html?id=516&month=July
Posted by: yoshi | July 17, 2007 10:33 AM
Thanks Ed, but your blog is fraught with factual errors.
1) I'm not "hopping mad" but I suspect the Most High God will display His wrath on all idolators and athesists, soon enough. Fear His anger, not mine.
2) The Hindu chaplain did indeed pray to "spirits" when he said "may your spirits be as one."
3) I agree that idolatry is "legal" by Amerian law, which makes it doubly hard for you to repent, since you find "nothing wrong" with violating God's higher law.
4) If Christian chaplains were always free to pray "in Jesus name" then why did Congress agree with me, and rescind the Navy policies that prohibited praying "in Jesus name?" See here:
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52227
5) Had the Pavkovics simply said "Amen" to the Hindu prayer, they'd have been viewed as "supportive" and never arrested. Admit that, at least.
6) Credible academic sources (including this PhD at Berkeley) cite a 1907 historical book of George Washington's prayers, including the one I cited. Do you disagree with academically supported historian?
http://jagger.me.berkeley.edu/~lawton/gwprayer.html
7) More likely, you're a historical-revisionist. You don't want George Washington to be a Christian, so you waive a magic wand and pretend he isn't.
8) But you cannot refute Americas founding fathers were CHRISTIANS, NOT DEISTS as well documented in this history book from the mid 1800's, which you can only ignore, but cannot dispute:
https://www.americanvision.org/wm/
ED, STOP YOUR ANTI-CHRISTIAN HISTORICAL REVISIONISM! And your sissy name-calling proves you're far less intellectual than scienceblog.com wishes you to appear.
In Jesus name,
Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Posted by: Gordon James Klingenschmitt | July 17, 2007 11:15 AM
A few years back, an atheist, Herb Silverman, gave the invocation for the Charleston City Council. Several of the members walked out, highly offended. Here's the full text of his "offensive" insult to Christians everywhere (btw, he also got a lot of support from Christians):
"Thank you for this opportunity to "invoke" a minority point of view. Each of us is a minority in some way. It might be race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, or any other aspect in which we may be regarded as different. Each of us is also part of some majority. It is when we wear our majority hats that we need to be most mindful of how we treat others. We must pledge our best efforts to help one another, and to defend the rights of all of our citizens and residents.
What divides us is not so much our religious differences in this diverse country, but the degree of commitment we have to equal freedom of conscience for all people.
We are gathered today, both religious and secular members of our community, with the shared belief that we must treat our fellow human beings with respect and dignity.
In this invocation, I don't ask you to close your eyes, but to keep your eyes constantly open to the serious problems that city government can solve or improve. I don't ask you to bow your heads, but to look up at what you can accomplish by applying your considerable talents and experience to the issues that confront us.
As you work together on behalf of all who live in this city, may you draw strength and sustenance from one another through reason and compassion.
I'd like to close in a bipartisan manner by quoting from two presidents I greatly admire--one a Republican and the other a Democrat.
First, the Republican:
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion.--Abraham Lincoln
And now, the Democrat:
It's remarkable how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit.--Harry S. Truman"
Posted by: Sastra | July 17, 2007 11:18 AM
Ed,
Time to fisk the Klingenator.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 17, 2007 11:21 AM
Make that, "Time to fisk the Klingenator. AGAIN."
Posted by: Adrienne | July 17, 2007 11:23 AM
The silliest thing about this kefuffle is that if a Christian had said exactly the same prayer, nobody would have batted an eyelid. It's as non-sectarian as they come.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | July 17, 2007 11:28 AM
This from his commanding officer:
"The ex-chaplain is a man without honor..."
He can put it on his resume. I'm sure he can get a job with the DI or maybe taking tickets at the Toon Museum.
Posted by: eewolf | July 17, 2007 11:36 AM
The Hindu prayer was definitely watered down so as to be accessible to all religions. Are the Christian prayers similarly toned down, or do the Chaplains on the Senate floor often make references to Jesus Christ?
Posted by: Brandon | July 17, 2007 11:37 AM
Adrienne, is that code for some kind of threat? Are you now actually requesting Ed do some kind of violence against me?
Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Posted by: Gordon James Klingenschmitt | July 17, 2007 11:49 AM
It's amazing how much intellectual dishonesty Gordon was able to cram into his one little response. I'd love to dissect it, but I'm sure Ed will get to it as soon as he has the time.
Posted by: gary l. day | July 17, 2007 11:50 AM
Yes, Mr. Klingenshschmitt, I am asking Ed to use his logic, reason, and wit to destroy...no, make that "annihilate"...the steaming pile of supreme stupidity/ignorance/dishonesty/disingenousness that you posted as a comment.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 17, 2007 11:52 AM
Gordon,
As I told you via email, eventually you'll probably concede that GW's prayer journal is inauthentic.
"But you cannot refute Americas founding fathers were CHRISTIANS, NOT DEISTS...."
Brayton would agree with me that America's Founding Fathers were a mixed bag. Certainly there were orthodox Christians among them including Sam Adams, John Witherspoon, Patrick Henry, and Roger Sherman.
The key Founding Fathers -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and a few others -- however, were not "Christians" as evangelicals or Catholics understand that term.
If Washington was an orthodox Christian you really have to wonder why he 1) systematically avoided communion, 2) had the words "Jesus Christ" recorded as coming out of his mouth only once, 3) was not once recorded in his private letters using the name or talking about the person of Jesus, and 4) twice when talking to Native Americans referred to God as the "Great Spirit."
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 17, 2007 11:59 AM
If you don't know the meaning of the word "fisk," don't assume it means something having to do with physical violence and act like you scored a point. You can just ask "what does 'fisk' mean?" That's honest, and humble.
Posted by: Sastra | July 17, 2007 12:01 PM
Mr. Klingenshschmitt, just for your information, as defined in WikiPedia, "to fisk" means to make a "detailed point-by-point criticism that highlights errors, disputes the analysis of presented facts, or highlights other problems in a statement, article, or essay."
I leave it to you decide whether that amounts to "some kind of threat" or "some kind of violence". As for myself, I appreciate it when people offer me responsible criticism.
Posted by: Tim Tesar | July 17, 2007 12:07 PM
Insta-martyr! Just add criticism, stand back, and watch the fun!
Posted by: MartinM | July 17, 2007 12:16 PM
"All of the actions of Washington and the First Congress upon which I have relied, virtually all Thanksgiving Proclamations throughout our history, and all the other examples of our Government's favoring religion that I have cited, have invoked God, but not Jesus Christ."
[...]
"This is not necessarily the Christian God (though if it were, one would expect Christ regularly to be invoked, which He is not)"
Justice Scalia, dissenting MCCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF KENTUCKY ET AL.
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1693P.ZD.pdf
I seriously wonder, Mr. Klingenshschmitt, if you understood your superiors were trying to get you to exercise the same kind of prudence that the first four Presidents did, you would still be in your position.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 17, 2007 12:17 PM
Be afraid, Mr. Klingenschmitt, be very afraid. You see, when someone threatens to "fist" you, it's a threat which should be taken very seriously. If you should drop your wallet on the street over these next few days, you'd better kick it somewhere safe before bending over to pick it up. If I were you, I'd call Homeland Security or Chuck Norris, because you definitely do not want to get fisted.
What?
The word's "fisk"?
Never mind.
Posted by: Mister DNA | July 17, 2007 12:18 PM
Well, you DO seem to regard logic, reason and intelligence as threats....
Posted by: gwangung | July 17, 2007 12:19 PM
Well, you DO seem to regard logic, reason and intelligence as threats....
Posted by: gwangung | July 17, 2007 12:19 PM
That's it? That's the entire prayer? If I didn't know it was said by Hindu, I would never be able to tell that it didn't originate from the lips of a Baptist, Pentecostal or Methodist pastor instead.
In fact, the next time I'm 'asked' (actually required) to give a dinner prayer at a family function filled with my fundamentalist relatives, I think I'll give that prayer... I'm absolutely 100% sure that none of them would be able to tell the difference.
Posted by: doctorgoo | July 17, 2007 12:21 PM
I will respond to Gordon's reply in a new post at the top shortly.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 17, 2007 12:26 PM
No, that wasn't the entire Hindu prayer, he truncated it for his own purposes. (Amazing how many anti-Christians applauds him here, while claiming scientific reasoning skills....)
The entire prayer of the Hindu chaplain was reprinted in this USA Today article:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/07/christian-prote.html
Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Posted by: Gordon James Klingenschmitt | July 17, 2007 12:44 PM
No, that wasn't the entire Hindu prayer, he truncated it for his own purposes. (Amazing how many anti-Christians applauds him here, while claiming scientific reasoning skills....)
The entire prayer of the Hindu chaplain was reprinted in this USA Today article:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/07/christian-prote.html
Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Posted by: Gordon James Klingenschmitt | July 17, 2007 12:44 PM
No, that wasn't the entire Hindu prayer, he truncated it for his own purposes. (Amazing how many anti-Christians applauds him here, while claiming scientific reasoning skills....)
The entire prayer of the Hindu chaplain was reprinted in this USA Today article:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/07/christian-prote.html
Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Posted by: GJK | July 17, 2007 12:46 PM
Which "he" truncated the prayer? The poor Hindu who was interrupted? Imagine that.
Good grief, it takes the reading skills of a ten-year-old (maybe younger) to see that the "your spirits" reference was directed to the members of Congress, not any deity: "United your resolve, united your hearts, may your spirits be as one, that you may long dwell in unity and concord."
Posted by: Adrienne | July 17, 2007 12:50 PM
Thanks for the link. This changes everything:
Of all the nerve! I really can't blame the Christians for being upset over this.
Posted by: Mister DNA | July 17, 2007 12:52 PM
If you had any reading comprehension skills yourself, you would know that people accept his prayer because it is entirely constitutional, not because they agree with it. "Scientific reasoning skills" really have nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, and knowledge of the 1st Amendment is something which should allow even a person with a grade school education to know that the Hindu prayer was entirely permissible, and that the 10 Commandments are not listed anywhere in the Constitution. So your threats invoking God's wrath against us, or anyone who advocates allowing any sort of prayer on government property, is just so much pissing into the wind. It's easy to say "God's gonna get you" to people who disagree with you when you can't summon up any actual evidence to support your position, isn't it?
Posted by: Gretchen | July 17, 2007 12:53 PM
Ohhhhhh....K.
Try clicking on home page at the bottom of the linked page. You'll find this credible academic source/academically supported historian is one Lawton H. Lee. True, he does have a Ph.D., no particularly great accomplishment in and of itself. But he seems to be an engineer (if the Dilbert cartoon is indicative) at Lockheed Martin Space Systems - Missiles & Space Operations. His publication list mentions nothing about being a historian. His page hasn't been updated for a while (27 Sep 2002), so maybe he became a historian since?
Posted by: Dave S. | July 17, 2007 1:00 PM
Klingenschmitt:
What's wrong with that invocation from ANY god-botherer's point of view?
BTW Shouting "This is an abomination" is not the same as joining in with the prayer.
And you disgraced your uniform and the service to which it belongs by appearing at a non-naval political event wearing it. Shame on you.
Posted by: Martin D Hutton | July 17, 2007 1:02 PM
Mr. Klingenschmitt,
I can't properly fisk ALL of your statements, as I am not an historian myself. I can hit a few of them, though, and let others join in for the rest.
2) The Hindu chaplain did indeed pray to "spirits" when he said "may your spirits be as one."
First, I didn't see that in the full text of the prayer Ed quoted. Where's your source? Second, "your" is a pronoun, and presumably here refers to the "spirits" of the Members of Congress there assembled. That may be unorthodox for your religion, but it is still praying FOR them, not TO them. In this case, "spirits" is a close synonym for "souls" - do you object to someone praying for others' souls?
4) If Christian chaplains were always free to pray "in Jesus name" then why did Congress agree with me, and rescind the Navy policies that prohibited praying "in Jesus name?"
A partially valid point - the policy as written allowed for commanders to err in restricting prayers at command functions. I happen to think that providing sectarian prayer at a non-sectarian event is rude to those servicemen and -women that are not members of your sect...but never mind that. What does any of this have to do with what Ed said? He was discussing the SENATE chaplain, not Naval chaplains - or did you believe Navy regs applied to the Senate?
Not to mention, of course, that you were court-martialed for violating an order. Whether Congress later overturned a policy or not is immaterial - you had the right to protest the policy through channels, or decline to participate in command functions under the policy - not to violate the order. Nor to participate in a political function in uniform, even if you happened to pray while there. Your own link notes that you were "court-martialed for wearing [your] uniform during a public event" that "was meant to protest against the Navy policy requiring non-sectarian prayers in all but chapel settings."
So your point 4 doesn't apply to what Ed said nor to your own disgrace and well-deserved criminal conviction. Why did you bring it up?
6) Credible academic sources (including this PhD at Berkeley) cite a 1907 historical book of George Washington's prayers, including the one I cited. Do you disagree with academically supported historian?
"This PhD" is apparently a Doctor of Mechanical Engineering, not of History. If you want us to decide the credibility of historians, you'll need to present them.
And speaking only for myself, I must point out how very glad I am that, were I to encounter you on the street while I was in uniform, I would no longer be required to salute you. You were a disgrace to your oath and your uniform, as well as to the Chaplain Corps of the various services. I find it unfortunate that your command chose not to convene a General Court-Martial for your crimes - they were apparently far more merciful than I.
Posted by: BobApril | July 17, 2007 1:10 PM
Posted by: mark | July 17, 2007 1:14 PM
Gordon: since you're flat-out LYING about Ed, the Hindu prayer, and the embarrassing conduct of your own supporters, in direct violation of a certain Commandment against "false witness," perhaps you're the "idolator" who should fear your God's wrath the most.
2) The Hindu chaplain did indeed pray to "spirits" when he said "may your spirits be as one."
The spirits he referred to were those of the Senators, not of any supernatural beings, good or evil. The full text of the prayer makes that perfectly obvious; and plenty of Christians use exactly the same language in their prayers.
I agree that idolatry is "legal" by Amerian law, which makes it doubly hard for you to repent, since you find "nothing wrong" with violating God's higher law.
YOUR God's "higher law," not ours. And no, the legality of an action does not make it any harder to repent of it.
Had the Pavkovics simply said "Amen" to the Hindu prayer, they'd have been viewed as "supportive" and never arrested. Admit that, at least.
No, they would have been viewed as well-mannered, obeying the rules of personal conduct that everyone else (including that Hindu guy) are required to follow in that situation, and doing unto others as they would surely want us to do unto them (as YOU OWN SAVIOR told us to do, remember?). And if they were keeping their manners, there would have been no need, or desire, to throw them out.
6) Credible academic sources (including this PhD at Berkeley) cite a 1907 historical book of George Washington's prayers, including the one I cited. Do you disagree with academically supported historian?
What do Washington's paryers have to do with this issue?
7) More likely, you're a historical-revisionist. You don't want George Washington to be a Christian, so you waive a magic wand and pretend he isn't.
Ed has explicitly admitted that Washington was a Christian, and has offered links to proof of this fact (in response to certain atheists who tried to pretend the Founders were closet atheists). Your lame attempt to imply otherwise is a lie.
8) But you cannot refute Americas founding fathers were CHRISTIANS, NOT DEISTS as well documented in this history book from the mid 1800's, which you can only ignore, but cannot dispute...
No one disputes that. WE merely state -- and prove -- that the Founders, whatever their own beliefs, explicitly said that freedom of religion was for ALL religions, including Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, atheists, etc.
ED, STOP YOUR ANTI-CHRISTIAN HISTORICAL REVISIONISM! And your sissy name-calling proves you're far less intellectual than scienceblog.com wishes you to appear.
He has never engaged in ANY such revisionism; and your accusation proves you're either a fool or a liar. And, in either case, you're a disgrace and an embarrassment to millions of decent people who sincerely try, every day, to live according to Christ's example.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2007 1:19 PM
When Adrienne said he should be "fisked" I immediately thought of "Fiskars" which is a brand of razor-sharp scissors, and yes, I thought she was inciting violence. Does Adrienne want to stab Kling... with sharp scissors?
Posted by: bruce | July 17, 2007 1:21 PM
PS: Gordon, as long as I'm correcting your laughable misstatements of fact, let me add that "fisking" is the point-by-point refutation of someone else's arguments on a blog, not a violent act; and the "London Underground" is not a political movement.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2007 1:21 PM
No, I don't want to stab the Klingenator, but I'd love to see Ed utterly eviscerate Klingenschmitt's ridiculous and insulting comments. Can't wait for the follow-up post.
BTW, I don't think Washington was a Christian, at least by the end of his life. More like a Unitarian. He did go to Episcopal services but left before communion, much to Martha's consternation. So after she complained about this, he stopped going to services altogether. But again, even if he were the equivalent of today's evangelical, that doesn't mean squat...it's the US Constitution that matters.
Also, re: the protesters shouting "Amen"...even if they had started shouting "Amen" as Mr. Zed began his prayer, they still would have been hauled out, and rightfully so. The Senate is not a Pentecostal church (at least, not yet). The protesters' being hauled out and arrested had absolutely nothing to do with what they were saying, as Ed and others have noted. It had everything to do with the fact that they were being RUDE and DISRUPTIVE of an official proceeding.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 17, 2007 1:32 PM
Raging Bee says:
Ed can speak for himself, but I'm pretty sure he would not say that Washington was a Christian, because he wasn't, despite the wishes of Mr. Klingenschmitt. Certainly not of the Klingenschmitt variety anyway. Washington was a deist (as that term was understood then), Ed might use the term 'theistic rationalist'. Washington, along with the other major lights among the Founders (Jefferson, Madison, Adams) believed in God, but rejected most of the trappings of Christianity. No Christian would claim them as one of their own, had they not been so well connected to history.
Posted by: Dave S. | July 17, 2007 1:39 PM
Please note Ed's Part 2 to this thread.
Where I have erred in describing Ed's position (and Washington's!), I stand corrected. The mistakes therein were mine alone.
Posted by: Dave S. | July 17, 2007 1:52 PM
Wanna bet this Pharisee is going to declare victory and go home (all the while, trailing blood and plucking pig stickers out of his carcass)?
Posted by: gwangung | July 17, 2007 1:56 PM
Posted by: bigdamnhero | July 17, 2007 2:17 PM
Hypocrisy, yum!
Posted by: mollishka | July 17, 2007 2:17 PM
Sastra you from Chucktown?
Sorry OT.
Gordon Klingenschmitt, what is it in the link you provided that you find so horrible? Are you that insecure in your faith that you can't handle the fact that others share a different one?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2007 4:23 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp wrote:
Nope, but I know Herb, and he is (Humanists of the Low Country). His invocation set off a letter war in the local paper -- most of it from Christians, and supportive. I thought he did a model job of both making it clear it was a nontheistic invocation, but keeping positive and 'ecumenical.' Reckon someone would have to be a regular Klingenschmitt to object to it.
Posted by: Sastra | July 17, 2007 4:47 PM
Yeah I'm here in Chucktown and it was a big stink. Now our School board opens with prayer because of Arthur Ravenel, Jr. Yes now head of Guilliani's SC campaign and father of former Head of Guilini's SC campaign and recent arrestee on mulitple charges of Cocaine possession/ distribution.
How nice.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2007 5:13 PM
Will you people please stop using the stupid, made-up word "fisk"? It's not a real word! I hate it when people use stupid made-up words like that.
Posted by: Allison Kirkpatrick | July 17, 2007 6:47 PM
Allison - You mean like when Shakespeare invented all those words?
Posted by: AnneS | July 17, 2007 6:54 PM
The Rev:
Gordon Klingenschmitt, what is it in the link you provided that you find so horrible? Are you that insecure in your faith that you can't handle the fact that others share a different one?
Apparently.
Other than the fact that the prayer in question was uttered by A Guy From Some Other Religion, I can't figure out for the life of me why Klingenschmitt is going nuts over it.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | July 17, 2007 7:59 PM
"He then recounts his amusing tale of going to the offices of Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, demanding that they give him equal time to pray a Christian prayer."
Actually Ed, I think this is the perfect solution! By all means let's give equal time to Jesus. That means one Christian prayer every 220 years!
Sounds about the right ratio to me.
Posted by: chiropetra | July 17, 2007 8:09 PM
During the Election of 1800, many devout Christians spoke against Thomas Jefferson and his "anti-Christian" beliefs:
THE VOICE OF WARNING TO CHRISTIANS
John Mitchell Mason, New York, 1800
Fellow Christians,
Ponder well this paragraph. Ten thousand impieties and mischiefs lurk in its womb. Mr. Jefferson maintains not only the inviolability of opinion, but of opinion propagated. And that no class or character of abomination might be excluded from the sanctuary of such laws as he wishes to see established, he pleads for the impunity of published error in its most dangerous and execrable form. Polytheism or atheism, "twenty gods or no god," is perfectly indifferent in Mr. Jefferson's good citizen.
A wretch may trumpet atheism from New Hampshire to Georgia; may laugh at all the realities of futurity; may scoff and teach others to scoff at their accountability; it is no matter, says Mr. Jefferson, "it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg." This is nothing less than representing civil society as founded in atheism. For there can be no religion without God. And if it does me or my neighbor no injury, to subvert the very foundation of religion by denying the being of God, then religion is not one of the constituent principles of society, and consequently society is perfect without it; that is, is perfect in atheism...
And whence, I pray you, are righteous laws to emanate, if rulers, by adopting atheism, be freed from the coercion of future retribution? Would you not rather be scourged with sword and famine and pestilence, than see your country converted into a den of atheism? Yet, says Mr. Jefferson, it is a harmless thing. "It does me no injury; it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg." This is perfectly of a piece with his favorite wish to see a government administered without any religious principle among either rulers or ruled.
Pardon me, Christian: this is the morality of devils, which would break in an instant every link in the chain of human friendship, and transform the globe into one equal scene of desolation and horror, where fiend would prowl with fiend for plunder and blood--yet atheism "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I will not abuse you by asking, whether the author of such an opinion can be a Christian? or whether he has any regard for the scriptures which confines all wisdom and blessedness and glory, both personal and social, to the fear and the favor of God?
Posted by: Rhampton | July 17, 2007 10:52 PM
Is "made-up" a word?
Posted by: Don | July 18, 2007 1:45 AM
Allison -
I really hate it when people get so cranky about new words. Give me a break. Personally, I think fisk is a rather odd word that I will probably not use myself, but as a lyricist I occasionally make up words myself. There is nothing wrong with this, especially when most people know what you're talking about when you use them.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 18, 2007 3:12 AM
That's okay Allison... whenever I find myself at a loss for the perfect word, I too often employ my wordmakeupage skills to complete my thoughts.....
Posted by: doctorgoo | July 18, 2007 6:48 AM
Whether the Founding Fathers were Christian or not....I quote from Article. VI. of the Constitution of the United States:
"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Posted by: John | July 18, 2007 1:30 PM
I have a simple, generic question for anyone who thinks their religion is the *only* way to God.
Does it mean that all the people who lived before your religion was established went to hell, and God gave them *no* opportunity to go to heaven?
For christianity, the question takes the form:
If Jesus is the only way to God, would God send all the people born in Eurpoe in the year 200 BC to hell just because they never had the option to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior?
Posted by: sak gatane | July 20, 2007 1:35 AM