Laws in the US that restrict the rights of Christians

Sorry, but that is simply more bullshit. Those soldiers who are Christians can certainly pray in Jesus name, and if it is a Christian Specific service, the Chaplain is free to preach a Christian centric service.Chaplains though are there to minister to ALL religions and NOT to peddle their particular brand of woo.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oops. I missed this bit: I found a chart of the religous faith of enlisted personnel in the U.S. armed forces, based on 2002 data. The relevant chart is at the bottom of the page.Now I notice that Roman Catholics, who do not tend to include "praying in Jesus' name" in their prayers, outnumber Baptists. I don't know whether Lutherans or Methodists pray "in Jesus' name", but if they do, then Protestants who "pray in Jesus' name" are barely a majority. Almost half are people of faith who do not include "in Jesus' name" as a formulaic part of their prayers and would, in fact, be offended by its inclusion since "praying in Jesus name" is associated mainly with evangelical Protestant denominations.Added by edit:The site to which I linked is to an "anti-cult" evangelical organization which seems to include any non-Christian relgion as a cult. If that bothers people, then I found another source; it is a PDF file -- see p. 25. Note that Protestant and Other Christian make less than half of the expressed religious preference of armed forces personel, which supports my point. According to this information, evangelical Protestants who explicitly "pray in Jesus' name" are not a majority.Added by further edit:And to underscore my argument, here is a link to an article from the Washington Post last year: "House Injects Prayer Into Defense Bill":

quote:

---

The House passed a $513 billion defense authorization bill yesterday that includes language intended to allow chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus at public military ceremonies, undercutting new Air Force and Navy guidelines on religion.
....
Among the provision's opponents is the chief of Navy chaplains, Rear Adm. Louis V. Iasiello, a Roman Catholic priest.

​

"The language ignores and negates the primary duties of the chaplain to support the religious needs of the entire crew" and "will, in the end, marginalize chaplains and degrade their use and effectiveness," Iasiello wrote in a letter to a committee member.

---

Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Lets liken this analogy to wheelchair access. Our pluralistic society protects the rights of the minority rather than voting with the majority, right? Hence, wheelchair access gives the one guy out of 20 an equal access, right? Neither the 19 able bodied people nor the one handicapped person are thus denied access to a facility.Now lets take a front line during battle. A Chaplain is dispatched to the front. There is a group of twenty men. 16 are Christians, (12 of those Evangelicals) 2 Jews, one Atheist/Agnostic, and one Rastafarian. The group is about to go out on a deadly mission and seeks prayers from the Chaplain.

If the Chaplain is given time to pray with each group, all will have equal access to his services, so to speak. If he is a good Chaplain, he will understand the diverse needs of each group of people and will accommodate them. His job is to listen, show compassion, and provide a loving, unbiased, and non-judgmental support for each and every member of the Armed Forces.

​

If there is only time for a quick group prayer, I can see where the issue becomes clear. What is happening is that the evangelical majority is demanding that only their type of prayer (involving Jesus name) be used since they may die that day and want what they consider to be last rites.

​

This is discriminatory against the minority faction present at that time and place, however.

​

I read an interesting Blog by a Military Chaplain concerning his private thoughts on the matter. He looks to be an evangelical yet has quite a mature outlook on knowing his role as a Chaplain.

​

I also found a good and balanced article on the subject of what a Chaplain is supposed to do here.

It is once again Christians asking for special privileges.The topic is laws that restrict the rights of Christians but what you are suggesting is that some Christians be given special rights.What you suggest also seems to show once again, the ignorance of many Christians about Christianity and what the Bible says.Did not Jesus say you should pray:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As I've stated in my previous several-times-edited message, it is certain Christians who are asking for special privileges.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

a prayer involving jesus' name is an unbiblical prayer.

Actually, John 14:13, 14 says:

quote:

---

I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If in my name you ask for anything, I will do it. (NRSV)

---

Because of this, many evangelical groups will end their prayer with, "In Jesus' name, we pray. Amen."

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

but when he prayed, he ended his prayer glorifying the father. not himself. the son did not come to be glorified, but broken.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

Phat writes:

quote:

---

So whats wrong with Seculows argument?

---

Um....it's a bunch of crap? Military chaplains aren't prevented from praying "in Jesus' name."Instead, they are required to understand that the troop is not composed entirely of Christians and thus it would be a violation of the Soldier's religious freedom, not to mention exceedingly rude and obnoxious, to force a non-Christian Soldier to put up with someone ministering to him in a faith he doesn't share.In other words, Phat, if Christian Chaplain A and Christian Soldier B are having a private moment, then Christian Chaplain A is free to say "Jesus" as much as he wants.But if Christian Chaplain A is ministering to the entirety of Company B, then it would be dereliction of duty for him to simply assume that everybody there is a "good Christian." The military Chaplains are not there for themselves. Their mission is not to spread the word of god to the masses. It is not to do service to the religion. They are there to serve the needs of the Soldiers. And that means they must minister to and be respectful of the religious needs of those who are not Christian.Again, it would be not only exceedingly rude but also a violation of the Soldier's First Amendment rights to have his chaplain try to convert him.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Phat writes:

quote:

---

The issue, however, is that a majority of those being ministered to are Christians who are giving their lives for their country and would appreciate having Jesus being mentioned in prayers that they partake in.

---

Then when the mass service is over, they can schedule some private time with the Chaplain and he can minister to the Soldier in a more specific context.This "majority" whine of yours is irrelevant. So long as there is even the possibility that there is a single Soldier present who isn't Christian, then the Chaplain's duties are clear: Keep the denominational stuff out of it. The Chaplain is there to serve the Soldier's needs, not his own or the religion's.It would be a violation of the Soldier's religious freedom, not to mention exceedingly rude, to have the Chaplain force him to sit through a service for a religion he does not follow.And since we're talking about "Christian" and "in Jesus name," how very Protestant of you. What about the Catholics and the Orthodox? It seems you want the Chaplain to minister to the entire Battalion using a singular sect of Christianity. Since you're so big on this "majority" thing, why are you having the Chaplain force his minority views upon the rest of the troops?The Chaplain is there for the Soldiers, not for himself or for his religion. If the Soldier wants something more specific, then he can go to the Chaplain on his own.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Now that this chaplain business has been taken care of, I have to ask for an update for this thread. Has any kind of systematic attack on the rights of Christians in the U.S. been documented yet?I am kind of surprised. Me, I would have thought that in a nation as large as the U.S., with all the different bureaucracies, agencies, and local governmental bodies, there would be at least a few instances of discrimination or restrictions on the rights of Christians.I can think of a few attempts, but, ironically, the ones that come to mind were defeated with secular organizations like the ACLU taking the lead.But is there any systematic attacks against the rights of Christians?

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Are you serious?What would the Christians say if a Chaplain prayed to the entire group specifically to an Indian god "according to the dictates of their conscience?" How about Buddha? Or even Satan?It's a clear-cut demonstration of why, in order to guarantee religious freedom for everyone, the state (and the Chaplains are acting as officers of the state when performing their official duties) must be specifically neutral with regards to religion. Praying to one specific god violates the rights of every single soldier who does not believe in that specific god. The Chaplains are allowed to practice their personal religions privately, and they are supposed to help individual soldiers in accordance with the individual soldiers' beliefs as well, but when it comes to a group prayer...come on, Phat. Surely you can see the problem.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I don't think it's been taken care of. Phat seems to be reverting back to his fundy root. In which case, I'm pretty sure he's not convinced that the rights of christian chaplains aren't being violated, seeing how he tried to pull that majority/minority bullshit.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

The Chaplain issue is settled unless further facts come up later. I thought that Seculow, conservative though he is, would have a case. Apparently not yet.

What's wrong with taking the idea of religious marriage out of government?