Minnesota House speaker apologizes after prayer by pastor
May 20, 2011 at 6:18 am in Grand Forks Herald
Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Zellers is apologizing for a prayer in his chamber by a central Minnesota pastor who previously made controversial remarks about gay people. Continue Reading
The GOP should pray. They are going to be in a world of hurt when everything goes sour and it was because they would not meet the Governor half way. Jesus turned the other cheek but apparently the religious right can’t follow his example even for the good of the people of the state of Minnesota.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
14
Maybe the GOP has a different Jesus or God John.. LOL
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
9
I really don’t care one way or the other, but why do they start with a prayer in the first place. Isn’t there something that separates church and state?
But really, with the rapture coming, a person like Dean probably figures he won’t be around after noon on Saturday anyhow.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
8
Sectarian prayers in government circumstances are clearly unconstitutional. To be legal at all, they should be non-denomonational (at least according to court rulings).
Didn’t any of these dolts study the constitution they vowed to defend? Jefferson and Madison would be appalled!
There is absolutely no need to have this. Any member can pray personally as much as they want. If they want to hear semons, they can go to the church of their choice.
As for the sensibilities of picking a preacher known for controversial messages, there’s a way Zellers et al., can be shown the problem — have an Imam do the next invocation and curse infidels — what could be more uniting than that!
If only they took the state budget as seriously as their need to thump others with their fundamentalist bibles!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
8
Actually the Constitution states that the Government cannot force the population to follow a specific religion or believe in it’s message. What you are referring to has been Judicial activism, more the likely out of the looney 9th Circuit. What the pastor/reverend did was wrong, but don’t rant about constitutionality and other peoples lack of understanding when you have a clear misunderstanding yourself.
Like or Dislike:
6 
8
Guiltyspark, your post is as oxymoronic as your use of the term “clear misunderstanding!”
You are actually correct in your first sentence, but you obviously don’t understand both religion-related clauses of the 1st amendment.
Penalty: Read what Jefferson and Madison wrote on the topics, and then study recent court decisions. I think you’ll find that the most obvious recent judicial activism has come from the Scalia corner of the COTUS.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
We have had prayers in legislatures since…the Constitution was established. So I guess it isn’t unconstitutional. The government is not supposed to be anti-religious. Sometimes prayers will offend some people. No one has the right to not be offended. Get over it.
Like or Dislike:
7 
16
The government is not supposed to be promoting religious preference solondoz. If you don’t understand this a) read the COTUS and SCOTUS rulings on the issue, b) agree to a radical Imam doing the prayers.
Cue another Bill Donohue-like rant….
Like or Dislike:
12 
5
Having prayers in the legislature is not promoting a religious preference or establishing a state church. The Constitution says nothing about it. That isn’t a rant, it is a fact.
Like or Dislike:
5 
13
Zardoz, you are talking out of your solon again. What your opinion is doesn’t matter — it’s the courts who decide — and they have been fairly consistent (you could check instead of ranting). Now, how would you like to have an Imam insisting that Muhamad is the one true prophet at the opening of the legislature?
Cue a revisionist history screed….
Like or Dislike:
9 
4