Hindu Prayed Down at Senate
For all of you who didn't get to spend today in front of the television watching C-Span 2 (I know, I know, you were watching C-Span 1 and missed it) we had a first in American politics. A Hindu Chaplain, Rajan Zed, opened the prayer in the Senate. Three members of Operation Save America were on hand to disrupt the "prayer" and were promptly arrested, after Senator Bob Casey called for the Sergeant at Arms to restore order to the chamber.
After I watched the video my initial gut reaction was one of "go get em, take one for the team. What's that pagan doing 'praying' in our Senate", but as I sat for several minutes trying to decide how I really should feel about this incident I wonder if my initial reaction was correct. I am familiar enough with political Christian activist to understand their reasoning. They were trying to protect America from this pagan, and one part of me emphasizes with their plight. But does America need protecting from Hindu's or Mormons or JW's or Muslims etc? What I believe about false religions is all over this blog, so it goes without saying that I disagree with this man. However, doesn't our constitution give him as much right to pray to his false godsssssssssssss' as I have to pray to the real one? Honestly I am surprised this is the first time a Hindu has opened the Senate in prayer. These political Christian organizations (which may be an oxymoron, I am still working on that) shout from the rooftops that we have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Ultimately, whatever legislation is going to protect us from Hindus is also going to protect them from Christianity. As much as I disagree with Rajan Zed he has a right to pray in spite of the fact that doing so violates the 1st commandment. As well the 3 people arrested have the right to stand on the floor of the Senate and protest. That is what makes our country great. I don't know if what they did was biblical, but I do know it was illegal, and honestly I know if what they did falls under legitimate civil disobedience.
Some might say they were protecting Christianity, but does Christianity really need protecting like that? According to the press release they were "taking a stand for Jesus as we know that He stands for them." Honestly, I don't think it furthered the cause of Christ in anyway. It kind of reminds me of the story Elijah and the prophets of Baal. God proved who had power and who didn't. It's His battle. I am glad to live in a country where I am free to worship the One True God. If that means I have to put up with a Hindu prayer occasionally so be it. If it comes down to a show down between Jehovah and Humbaba with the 17 arms (and it will) I know who will win.
Who knows I may have gone off the deep end here and you may be saying to yourself "Scott you have lost it". If you think I am wrong I would love to hear why.
Posts
33 Spoke Up:
Hi Scott,
Enjoy your blog.
John Armstrong has some good points on this. You can read them here if you like:
http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2007/07/how-appropriate.html
You're not wrong because this isn't a Christian country only a country with Christians in it....like every other country. It's time we realize that and start evangelizing like we should. Instead of interrupting his prayer, they should have instead gone up to him after the meeting and told him of Christ.
Scott,
I think that you're right. Imagine the uproar if a Christian had been opening in prayer and three Muslims had tried to drown him out with "Allah is great!"
This country is not a theocracy; it is a democracy...mostly. We're actually a Republic.
The entire intent of religious liberty is that individuals should be able to worship whatever they choose. The reason that Christians should be happy in that situation is because our great God and Savior is more magnificent than any other object of worship. Who drives a beat up Nova when one can ride in a Rolls?
So rudeness will not help in this situation. We must be tactful, gentle, and wise. This will demonstrate the majesty of our God and our Christianity better than shameful spectacle. There are other ways to witness for Jesus than red faced taunting.
Well Scott- at least that fellow admitted his religion was worthless as he prayed to be led from the "unreal to the real" and from "darkness to the light". Too bad they didn't take the time to listen to what he knew about himself and engage in a potentially valuable apologetic rather than acting like five year olds that someone grabbed their toys.
you were right on in your writing.
the church has spent millions and time and energy in proclaiming what it is against. Maybe we need to proclaim Christ and him crucified.
mb
Scott,
I fully agree with your post, and found myself in the same position. Oldvantillian made a great point... the prayer itself could have been used as an apologetic springboard. "From darkness to light huh? Let me tell you what Jesus said about darkness and light..."
Great post.
I'm in total agreement with you Scott.
I think the best environment for Christianity to prosper in is one in which no religion is favoured by the state, and all religions are free to express their beliefs.
They're all going to hell, of course, but at least the rules give us a chance to tell them the Gospel.
What these folks did
(a) Could only be done on a foundation that linked the church and the state. Where is this in NT theology?
(b) Played into the hands of the ACLU and others.
Here, where I live in NC, we're having problems with the ACLU coming into local towns and huffing and puffing about public prayers in city/county council meetings, saying that either no prayer or "non-sectarian" prayers alone are allowable. The target is, of course, the phrase "in Jesus name."
Now on the one hand, the churches need a wake up call on the constant invokation of that phrase. It's an ecclesiastical tradition that borders on violating the 3rd commandment, because it views the Lord's name as a magic pass to the throne of God, eg. "word magic."
On the other, the ACLU has recruited a bunch of Unitarians to oppose sectarian prayer in this county, because, unlike the city, the county stood up and said it would not dare tell anybody how to pray. The irony, and I truly hope the Alliance Defense Fund points this out @ trial is that the "nonsectarian" God is the god of these Unitarians, so, in bringing the lawsuit, they are arguing not against sectarian prayer, but non-sectarian prayer, since they think only "their" god is the one to whom a public prayer can be made. In other words, their lawsuit is self-refuting.
In the process, one of the big complaints from them and the local skeptic bunch has consistently been, "Would the Christians object to a Muslim or Hindu prayer?" I have consistently answered, "No." People like those about whom you wrote would clearly disagree, and that only plays into the hands of the infidels.
Fide-o writes:
"If that means I have to put up with a Hindu prayer occasionally so be it. If it comes down to a show down between Jehovah and Humbaba with the 17 arms (and it will) I know who will win."
It can't come down to a showdown. There is only one God. The Hindu prayed to what he knows of that one God, whom he sees in many forms. It's like saying the Muslims' Allah is not really God. Their statement of faith says "There is no God but God", meaning Allah, Arabic for "the God".
Roberta. The question is not the word 'God', it is the content that word is given. Since Christians and Muslims disagree as to the nature of God, we cannot worship the same God. Our God is a trinity, Allah is a radical unity. Hinduism is different, existing as it does in different forms, some more philosophical than others. It is either polytheistic (many gods), or pantheistic (all is god). Neither of these positions are Christian.
Now, my Bible tells me in Romans chapter 1 that all false religions have their origin, not in ignorance, but in deliberate rebellion. We do not like God, therefore we create our own user-friendly gods. We know there is only one true God. But there are idols and false gods a-plenty (just read the triasl of the false gods in Isaiah). Since Scripture uses the concept of a 'show-down' between Jehovah and the idols, Scott can.
And I agree with Scott, unless we are radical theonomists we have no business trying to force our religious views on the government. 'Faith cometh by hearing'. and 'except a man be born again, he CANNOT see the Kingdom of God.' The Separatist/Congregational/Baptist recovery of the doctrine of the Pilgrim Church was behind the first amendment. And I would say that telling a Hindu he cannot pray to his gods because America is a Christian country is definitely seeking to establish one religion. It is wrong.
Thing is, religion is unescapable. Someone's religion will be the religion of the State. There is no neutral secularism.
Now, I don't agree with the methodology of the Christians in this piece, but it is time we got over the myth that the State can refuse to pick a side. If America becomes Christian, or Hindu, or whatever, it ought to be because the vast majority of the people have been convinced that is the right way to go; not through poliitical machinations.
Ben Cole is running a very interesting series on the current, de facto religion of the US Public Schools at his blog (baptistblog.wordpress.com) that illustrates my point better than I can.
Our best biblical example seems to come from Paul at Mars Hill. Paul did not subvert their meeting in order to be given an opportunity to "defend Jesus" He instead did the ground work in Athens to be invited to speak.
We desperately want simple declarations in defense of Jesus name to take the place of the hard and complicated work of living the way He asks us to live. I cannot pretend that investing a few hours to accomplish the former will make up for the neglect of the daily attending to later in my community.
Congrats on getting a mention at Evangelical Outpost's 33 things!
Good time fellowshipping with you last night. Even if you did preach out of "Men Are From Mars. . ."
Gordan, you're right. But so long as the majority in government (remember I am from England, where we have a national established Church) are not REAL Christians, the religion of the state will be at best a sort of moralistic deism (look at the history of Britain if you do not believe me). My point is not that the state should be neutral (it can't be, there is no neutral ground), but that the state should not force its religion on others (which is what happened with apalling results in 1662 in Britain).
I don't know if I agree that the state cannot be neutral. The way our government is set up the state is individuals. It is not an entity unto itself. So even if the "state" were to chose a side, it would in reality be pretty worthless since you can't force religion on anyone. Which is the whole point of "freedom of religion". What happened in 1662 in England is what drove people to the Americas in the first place. I would say our state is currently neutral as far as neutral goes. The government hasn't taken a religious positions, unless you want to include global warming in your list of religions.
Scott,
It's a pagan government run predominantly by pagan men according to pagan thinking. The Hindu praying there is consistent with this. The imposition of pointless Christian rehtoric was not only useless but also I fear a needless stumbling block to gospel ministry, testimony and example. Paul reasoned with the religious men in Athens not shouted at them. I'm not afraid of an 'offensive' Christianity, I just want it to be offensive because of the redemptive imperative not because of acts like this. It reeks of what I identify as cultural fundalmentalism.
Lisa. The trouble is you CAN force false religion (not TRUE religion, which is spiritual) on people. One of the reasons I am writing this in English, not speaking French, is that in the 17th century the French monarchy tried to force the Roman Catholic religion on all its citizens. While thousands fled, tens of thousands more were made Roman Catholic by force. Islam has been forced on tens of thousands. What is the secular movement as whole doing if it is NOT forcing its own religious views on people?
When I say that the state cannot be neutral, however, I do not mean to say that freedom of religion is impossible, thankfully religious freedom IS possible, but only if the state deliberately decides to stay out of the area of religion (this is why the First Amendment to the US constitution was written). However, since government is by people, those individuals cannot be neutral. They are either for God, or they are not.
I agree, the US constitution is as neutral as it is possible to be. One of the reasons for this is that it is government by laws, not by men (thus what happened in France and Britain in the seventeenth century is far less likely, since both were acts orchestrated by despotic monarchs). Keeping the civil government AS government out of the Church and the Church AS Church out of the civil government allow religious liberty.
Now, before someone mistakes my meaning, I do not say that individual Christians should not be involved in politics. They should be. But they should be AS individual Christians, and as Church members.
I do agree this is a tough one. I believe that the protesters were wrong for doing what they did because I do not find it biblical but does that mean we stand back and let such astrocities as that go on? certainly not. We all as Christians should pray everyday for this falling country and especially for its leaders.
Whenever it comes to Religion in America people always make a very similar comment: "This Country was built so that we can have the freedom to worship what we please".
I 100% disagree with that statement! Its wrong. This country was built on Jesus Christ and nothing else. Am I saying all men that came here were for Christ no, but the leaders of this country made it clear that it was for Christ that they came here, not for Allah, not for Buddah, not for Moroni, not for Harry Potter, for Jesus Christ. The senate meetings in this country from day one opened and closed with prayer. Prayer to whom you ask? To the one true God.
People say ALL religions have the right to express themselves. Well Islam expressed itself on 9/11. Are okay with that? And don't tell me that were radicals, they were fundamentalist Islamics, in other words, they followed the teaching of the Koran.
So in closing: was it wrong for thes "christians" do what they did? No.
Was it wrong HOW they did what they did?
Yes.
Pray without ceasing.
“It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”
-Patrick Henry, Founding Father
America would not have the freedoms it still does have if we did not hold up the truth in all areas of life. All aspects of life is the key.
I don't think these people want to take away the rights of others as much as they want to exercise their right to proclaim the truth of one true God.
Big Jimmy, what does our first amendment mean when it says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
I think Thomas Jefferson clarified this position in 1779 when he wrote
"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
I know religion in America doesn't look like it did in 1776, but the founding fathers had to have known this when the wrote the first amendment.
What you imply in your post was not a 1st amendment freedom of religion, but a British religious toleration. There is a vast difference. In fact the difference is so vast that the Puritans left England, and our forefathers started another country and wrote the first amendment.
When you have a right such as the freedom of religion you have to take the good with the bad.
So in closing: was it wrong for thes "christians" do what they did? No.
Was it wrong HOW they did what they did? Yes
Big Jim what's the difference?
Was it wrong for the Senate to have a Hindu pray at the Senate opening?
Yes Scott it was wrong (the hindu prayer). 100% undeniably wrong, in my eyes and I believe it was a slap across the face of our soveriegn Lord.
I believe that these people went about it the wrong way. They obviosly were just trying to get attention and publicity but I believe another tactic would have been much better and made a point a 1000 times stronger. I think that if all the Christians in that room, whether it be senators or whom ever (which i suspect theres quite a few ) just quietly got up and walked out it would have been much more affective.
Now to answer lisa:
Lisa now you quoted the infamous Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson as we know was a world renown deist. He actually created his own bible, called the Jefferson Bible. Well what he did was just cut out verses he didn't like and kept the ones he did.
Now what did other forefathers of the Constitution believe?
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry
John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]
John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.” John Jay
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.” James Madison
Noah Webster:
“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
[Source: 1828, in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language]
George Washington:
“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”
So you see Lisa the thoughts of a couple have corrupted the thoughts of a nation. Theres a lot more from where those quotes came from regarding this issue.
Big jimmy is the only one here that knows their stinkin US history.
One point yall keep bringing up is that "the state is neutral". Heck no you fools!
The state at this point is for the world. Being for the world is to be at enmity with God. So right now our country is messed up and against Christians. Why? Because it is not for Christians.
This is not what was intended by the freedom of religion clause you ignoramuses. People just didn't want other Christians being killed or under persecution or whatever. It didn't mean "Free to be A Freak". Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, and the other wackjob religions of the world were look at as what they are... heathen.
Now we gotta have tolerance and everbody's equal. No. All men may be created equal, but they don't stay that way.
A Hindu should never be allowed to pray within 200 miles of the Capitol, much less in it.
I know George Washington never would have allowed that blubbering moron in the Great White City.
As I have said already, the state cannot be neutral. It is either for Christ or against Him. But we CANNOT legislate men into the Kingdom. a state-enforced religion will become what the Medieval Catholic Church was, what the eighteenth century Anglican Church was - largely corrupt and self-serving. Yes, everyone may SAY they are Christians, but the pulpits will be filled with mere heathen morality, Christ will be named, but really denied. And men will sleep their way to hell, with the name of Christian and nothing more.
The only way for a country REALLY to be Christian is what shook the slumber of the Middle Ages and the slumber of eighteenth century England - and that is true revival. Why do you think Revolutionary America was built on Christianity? Because of the Great Awakening! Because many, many people WERE real Christians. The victory of God does not come by political protest, it comes by the sovereign work of God's spirit!
Romanists, Anglicans, and some Presbyterians, may be excused for thinking that the state should do the Church's job. As a Baptist, I disagree. Give us the freedom of the Gospel, and by God's grace, we SHALL cast down all the idols of the world.
this still doesn't mean that we sit here and say nothing about a Hindu (not American, I might ad) who did the opening prayer at the Senate.
"When tolerance is valued over truth, the cause of truth always suffers."
-John MacArthur
This is not what was intended by the freedom of religion clause you ignoramuses. People just didn't want other Christians being killed or under persecution or whatever. It didn't mean "Free to be A Freak". Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, and the other wackjob religions of the world were look at as what they are... heathen.
A. At that time, there were Jews living in the US, along the East coast, in cities like Wilmington, NC. Were they not free to practice Judaism, or were they just grandfathered in by way of Christianity?
B. The Constitution establishes no religious test for the election of a President.
C. It's true that the First Amendment's intention was to remove the basis of persecution, but it is not true that it's intention was to rule out all other religions besides Christianity. On that basis Jews would be ruled out along with Unitarians (who were growing in popularity @ the time) would be ruled out, and Catholicism - since our forefathers distinguished much more carefully between the true gospel and a false gospel in those days, would be ruled out as well.
this still doesn't mean that we sit here and say nothing about a Hindu (not American, I might ad) who did the opening prayer at the Senate.
"When tolerance is valued over truth, the cause of truth always suffers."
-John MacArthur
Scripture provides no directives for the legislative enactment of the First Table of the Law in the New Testament age.
Our Baptist forefathers agreed on that, and our Presbyterian brethren came along soon after.
Nobody is arguing that we should say nothing; the issue, rather is how should we address this?
I would remind you that the church is in disarray, so the reason that we're dealing with this phenomenon is our own general apostasy. We Baptists supposedly believe in a regenerate church membership, yet less than 40 percent of the SBC's membership shows up to church on Sunday morning. Please, let's react the right way.
The right way is to recover the gospel, not complain about Hindus on the Senate floor, and when I see churches passing petitions against gay marriage and deliberately ignoring ministries that need help like Harvest USA at the same time, while preaching doctrines about sanctification and eternal security that vacillate between Keswickism and antinominianism, whose own young people apostatize in droves when they leave for college, and so on and so on, I can't help but think that the church in America has more problems on its hands than a Hindu praying on the Senate floor. "Judgment begins with the House of God," Brother.
Further, might I also encourage you to take a lesson from church history. The Reformation sprouted in the nations of Europe in the midst of heavy persecution and religious wars. The Ante-Nicene Church flourished under the religious pluralism and regional persecutions of Christianity under Roman rule. It was when the Church was indexed to the state that nominalism grew out of control in the churches, ecclesiastical tradition took the place of their variation of Sola Scriptura, and a host of other errors entered into the Church.
Highland Host is very right. Listen to him. He lives in post-Christian Europe where all of those things took place. Hindus praying in the Senate isn't the problem. Indexing the power of the Church to the State is the enemy.
Big Jimmy let me rephrase the question. Under what law was it wrong, civil or moral?
Well Scott theres no actual law that would base this "prayer" as wrong. Though this be unusual (the Hindu prayer before the senate meeting) its not that unusual. I was very young at the time but you and others here may remeber this, I guess in '92 a Muslim recited a prayer before the meeting. As of now the Chaplain that usually prays before the senate is a Seventh Day Adventist. I don't know your views of them but I believe they started as a cult and are still a cult. I know a lot of people have included them as an evangelical denomination , if we include them we might as well throw in the JW's and Catholics.
I guess what i'm getting at is it annoys and irks the crap out of me that a country a country that was built on Christ has come so far to deny Him everyday. Its shameful. I believe that our forefathers are rolling over in their graves as we speak. I don't believe they would have let this happen nor do i believe they thought this would happen.
I think Ronald Reagan said it best:
“Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”
– Ronald Reagan
There is a great tension here in the arguments: how should we act in the political realm, should our Christianity stop at the door of the church, should we wait until every Christian and every church is living perfect before we venture out into the world and open our mouths, is the Church's only impact on the church and families within the Church or does the Church have any responsibility to impact the world in which she exists, etc. etc.
Lets suppose America was founded by all Reformed Christians with the intentions of providing a community (country) that reflects the teachings of God's Word. Would we let a Hindu pray in the Senate?
Or suppose America was founded by all Muslims but over time many Christians had moved to America. Would we think it Biblical for someone to lobby the Senate to have a Christian pray in hopes that we could honor the true and living God?
Or suppose that America was founded by a perfect mixture people of different religions. Would God be pleased if Christians tried to pray in the Senate and protested when non-Christians prayed?
Personally, I don't think the Church has been blessed by America. If anything, America has been blessed by the Church. I believe America is strong and prosperous because of the amount of influence she has had from the Church and Christians living according to God's truth. I believe America's laws reflect biblical truth in many ways.
So I feel a tension as well in my spirit. I have no problem with freedom of religion, or with different religions being within America, or even politicians not being Christian. Of course I wish all would be saved, and I do not find joy in the fact that many will not be saved but are rather condemned. But such is reality. So I find myself not comfortable when judging those who are more vocal in political issues and community issues, but I believe the most impact will come through the Church's efforts to fulfill the Great Commission. And that will most likely not be through a Senate bill, or a picket line, or a DC rally.
The tension is created because we do not wish to be judgmental but we are required to shepherd God's people -- and such responsibilities require us to make biblical judgments about the actions of God's servants. May God give us wisdom and compassion, patience and sympathy for His children.
Roberta,
Allah is actually the moon god, the god who eventually became the only one god of many desert gods during Mohammed's time. If you read any Islamic history, you'll see. Hence the crescent moon on the minarets. Even if in Arabic all-ah means "the god," it doesn't jive that because they have one god and Jews/Christians one God that they are then the same God. They are not.
Scott,
I'm in agreement with you. Around July 4 our pastor explained in Sunday School how God sanctioned authority in three separate areas in Scripture: the church, the state, and the family. Church and state are separate, even if Christians can be activists in politics. Silencing the enemy, however, I think it not activism, but censorship. I'm not thrilled with a Hindu up there praying, but so be it. My God put our leaders in power and I trust Him in His complete and absolute sovereignty. I wasn't thrilled when Bush put a Muslim in the pulpit after 9-11 to pray right there in a church as well! That was really offensive, in a house of God yet. But God places leaders over governments, and I'll trust what God is doing in this country and world until He brings about the new heavens and earth.
"I don't know if what they did was biblical, but I do know it was illegal, and honestly I know if what they did falls under legitimate civil disobedience."
How do you know it was illegal?
Post a Comment