Hindu Prayer Interrupted in US Senate

[Jefferson]

Hindu Prayer Interrupted in US Senate

This is the show from Friday July 15th, 2007.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

In 230 years, the first time we were going to have an outright pagan pray in the U.S. senate. And so I thank God that that blasphemous event was marked by a Christian testimony.

SUMMARY:

* Leslie Hanks: Vice-president of Colorado Right to Life, joins Bob in studio to discuss the Open Letter project and the recent uproar in the US Senate.

* Operation Save America: protesters interrupt a Hindu prayer to open session in the US Senate. Ante Pavkovic and family can be heard loud and clear standing up for Christianity and Jesus Christ during the first ever act of its kind in the United States 218 year history. The video can be seen here.

* National Event: Operation Save America's national event is next week in Birmingham, Alabama. Bob Enyart will be speaking Tuesday night. Details at OperationSaveAmerica.org.

Today's Resource: Dave from Ormond Beach Florida ordered twenty copies of our 40 Years in the Wilderness DVD! Have you ordered your extra copies yet for your friends and church library?

 

[Stripe]

*LOL* I loved Short Circuit.

"I am thinking you have hit the nail between the eyes".

That was from the sequel though, I believe.

 

[Stripe]

Scream and run

 

[Balder]

This issue was discussed on the Michael Savage Show too. Savage was also against Hindu prayer being allowed in the Senate. An Indian called in, though, and pointed out that Christians were welcome to lead prayer in sessions of the Indian government, as were Muslims and members of other religions. He also pointed out that there are not only national holidays for Hindus, but also for Christians and members of other religions in India. His point was that India was a more religiously tolerant and pluralistic culture than America. Savage agreed that that was actually a good ideal, but was concerned that the reason for allowing the prayer NOW was suspect, and was part of an overall war on Christianity, rather than an effort to realize a truly pluralistic culture which honors and keeps intact the Christian roots of this nation.

 

[Stripe]

This issue was discussed on the Michael Savage Show too. Savage was also against Hindu prayer being allowed in the Senate. An Indian called in, though, and pointed out that Christians were welcome to lead prayer in sessions of the Indian government, as were Muslims and members of other religions. He also pointed out that there are not only national holidays for Hindus, but also for Christians and members of other religions in India. His point was that India was a more religiously tolerant and pluralistic culture than America. Savage agreed that that was actually a good ideal, but was concerned that the reason for allowing the prayer NOW was suspect, and was part of an overall war on Christianity, rather than an effort to realize a truly pluralistic culture which honors and keeps intact the Christian roots of this nation.

What an idiot.

 

[Balder]

What an idiot.

Who?

 

[Stripe]

Michael Savage

 

[Balder]

Well, he actually didn't say whether Hindu prayer should or should not be allowed in the Senate. He just said that the religious tolerance of India, at the level of law and social policy, was admirable.

In my opinion, the people who shouted down the Hindu prayer are the biggest idiots in this whole scenario.

 

[Stripe]

Sure, but that's only because you don't care who is right.

 

[Balder]

Not exactly. I think those who say, "ours is the only way and the only truth," are wrong.

 

[Stripe]

So are you wrong when you say "those who say, "ours is the only way and the only truth," are wrong"?

 

[Balder]

No, I don't think so. And it is not a performative contradiction.

 

[Cracked]

Not exactly. I think those who say, "ours is the only way and the only truth," are wrong.

I understand why you think this Balder... but you've should try to understand that is EXACTLY what the Bible teaches - there is only one savior and one true God - it leaves no room for other religions.

 

[Stripe]

Are you wrong when you say, "it is not a performative contradiction"?

 

[Balder]

I understand why you think this Balder... but you've should try to understand that is EXACTLY what the Bible teaches - there is only one savior and one true God - it leaves no room for other religions.

It does seem that way. That's how I interpreted it, and one reason (among many) that I ultimately left Christianity years ago. But I've come across some Christians recently who do make a decent case for Christiani universalism.

But these things aside, I think the question really is one of social practice, rather than religious doctrine. We live in a country founded on the right of individuals to follow whatever religion they want. If some members of the Senate are Hindu, and many of the Senators' constituents are Hindu, why should we forbid Hindu prayer in the Senate while also allowing Christian prayer?

 

[Stripe]

Because they pray to rocks?

 

[Balder]

Because they pray to rocks?

That's just silly. Not true at all. Hinduism has a theological tradition at least as rich and subtle as the Christian one, and arguably richer.

 

[Stripe]

Are you wrong when you say "Hinduism has a theological tradition at least as rich and subtle as the Christian one, and arguably richer"?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Not exactly. I think those who say, "ours is the only way and the only truth," are wrong.

If you mean that "it is ok to believe whatever you want to believe as long as you are sincere", I must say, "that won't do". While sincerity is a virtue, it is possible to be sincerely wrong and to put your faith in a belief or in someone that cannot save the soul. In effect, you can be worshipping or have faith in idols (false gods). Certain things must be known, understood, and believed for a person to have saving faith.

There are not many paths to God; there is only one.
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Christ’s own words make it very clear:
Luke 12:51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.

Christ's words lay to rest any theory that He came to unite all humanity (godly and ungodly) into a single “universal brotherhood of man.” Rather, He divided them as they have never been divided before!

 

[Stripe]

Christ’s own words make it very clear:
Luke 12:51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.
Christ's words lay to rest any theory that He came to unite all humanity (godly and ungodly) into a single “universal brotherhood of man.” Rather, He divided them as they have never been divided before!

That's a poor reading of the passage AMR. If everyone had accepted Christ's words then Jesus would have joyfully retracted his words. The fact that he was right only shows how smart and clued up he was with the human condition.

Jesus came to Earth to give everyone a chance to be saved. That people would reject his sacrifice was a no-brainer.