Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Clash Over A Prayer

A morning prayer delivered by a man at the state Capitol in Omaha disturbed several of the lawmakers who objected to the content. The reason? They didn't like what they were hearing.

They didn't want to hear anything in a prayer that might make them have to face the fact that they have had a complacent attitude in allowing the horrible sin called abortion to go on for 33 years.

They didn't want to hear anything in a prayer that might make them have to face their need for repentance.

They didn't want to hear anything in a prayer that might make them have to face the fact that they need to humble themselves before a Holy and Righteous God and ask for forgiveness.

Tom Swartley, a minister at First Christian Church in Elm Creek. Standing at the front of the legislative chamber with his comments broadcast statewide, Swartley asked God for forgiveness for abortion, which he called a, "33-year-long nightmare."

"We go to work and school and come home and watch TV while genocide, infanticide and homicide is being committed against our own children," he said.

Swartley also asked forgiveness for "teaching the religion of evolution to our young citizens."

"We put our children in the same category as other mammals and then we wonder why some act like animals," he said.

Wow. No wonder one of the senators ran out absolutely enraged and furious!

Omaha Senator Ernie Chambers, who makes it a point not to be present during the daily prayer, rushed from his first-floor office up the stairs to the chamber in time to criticize the remarks shortly after they were completed.

"I have not been as enraged and furious in the Legislature as I am this morning," said an obviously upset Chambers.

Chambers, who described Swartley's prayer as divisive, insulting and wrong, renewed his call to do away with the morning prayer altogether. If Chambers doesn't get his wish you can bet your bippy* that "praying about moral issues" will certainly be stricken from that chamber's future prayers!

But I wonder. What if the person conducting the prayer had been from a progressive, liberal church and had stated the opposite in ideology? What if he had praised God for a "woman's right to choose" or "that Intelligent Design theory is being rejected" in many states? Would there have been such a firestorm of protest? I doubt it.

"You don't bring that kind of subject," Cudaback said of Swartley's prayer. "You're here to make us feel good."

Ah yes. The "feel good" approach to prayer. Sounds like the philosophy of many liberal, progressive churches that do not bother to "teach Jesus Christ and Him crucified." Need an example? Visit this false gospel site. I checked their "witness" and "about" page and the only thing that I could find about Jesus was a short blurb that read, "In Luke 10, as Jesus prepares to end his ministry..." There was nothing about the cross of Christ, the need for repentance and forgiveness of sins through His shed blood, or the need to ask Christ into their hearts for salvation.

If you are currently attending such a church, my advice is to run! We are to Beware the Crossless Gospel!

Back to the prayer feud.

I know what some will say here. The legislative chamber is not a church and this type of prayer was inappropriate. But was it? Where are the laws that promote such things as abortion and 'evolution only' created? If someone doesn't agree, why can't they express it in a prayer? Is it right to censor a prayer simply because someone might have their conscience seared by it? It's free speech, isn't it?

As Mr. Swartley contends, he wasn't endorsing a candidate or political party. He had read the guidelines sent in a letter from the clerk's office inviting him to deliver the prayer, and he didn't think praying about abortion would be in violation.

Get ready. Those guidelines will now definately change! Can't have anyone's moral convictions disturbing those who lack them!

"I feel bad about the turmoil, but I don't feel bad about my convictions, which are based on the Bible," Mr. Swartley said.

If I had been there and had the chance, I would have run off and handed out copies of Jill Stanek's article. But people like this guy Chambers would most likely not even read past the title. I envision him as the kind of person who would just tear it to pieces and throw it away. Wouldn't want to ruin his day with what Jill reveals in her article about the terrible and awful truth concerning the further consequences of abortion:

"It would seem to be the greatest irony of abortion, that the foremost tool feminists say will facilitate women's equality with men is actually the foremost weapon used to kill them.

It's another one of those anti-life dichotomies.

While abortion proponents in San Francisco were shouting, "You don't care if women die!" to pro-life marchers last Sunday, abortion proponents in India were slaughtering 1,370 girls via abortion the same day.

Meanwhile, a 2002 UNICEF study concluded that 74 million women in South Asia are "simply missing," with as many as 50 million from India. Sex slave and marriage trafficking in the region is "booming," according to the Child Rights Information Network.

USA Today reported that by 2020, 40 million unmarried Chinese men will comprise "more than the current female population of Taiwan and South Korea combined."
USA Today quoted the Chinese magazine Beijing Luntan predicting that "such sexual crimes as forced marriages, girls stolen for wives, bigamy, visiting prostitutes, rape, adultery ... and weird sexual habits appear to be unavoidable."


*On the lighter side, anyone here old enough to remember where that term came from and what show made it famous?

1 comment:

Christinewjc said...

*On the lighter side, anyone here old enough to remember where that term came from and what show made it famous?

Answer: Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In