Police Chaplains Banned From Using “In Jesus’ Name” During Prayer

(bilerico.com)

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department has banned chaplains from praying “in Jesus’ name” during public events.
It’s offensive.
The Blaze reported:

Volunteer chaplains in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department have been banned from using Jesus’ name during prayers that are uttered during public events.

Rather than serving as a discriminatory practice, the new policy is intended — at least according to Major John Diggs who oversees the chaplain program — as an effort to respect people of all faiths.

“[It's a] matter of respecting that people may have different faiths and that it is not aimed at any one religion or denomination,” Diggs told WSOC-TV.

1 2 Newer Comments >>
`

#1 June 20, 2012 at 12:36 pm
bg commented:

++

inch by foot by yard by mile by sharia in America..

==
#2 June 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm
KevinS commented:

As Christians, we are to pray in Jesus’ name. Here is an article from Russell Moore, Dean of The School of Theology at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, concerning this issue and how Chaplains should handle the issue.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/as-a-chaplain-must-i-always-publicly-pray-in-jesus-name-75270/
#3 June 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm
bg commented:

++

oh yeah, btw:

“YOU AIN’T SEN NOTHIN’ YET!” ~ BHO

==
#4 June 20, 2012 at 12:40 pm
bg commented:

++

“ONE WORLD RELIGION”

and then there were none..

==
#6 June 20, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Freddy commented:

I do not ‘get it’. If you are banning Jesus, then you are also banning Mohammed and every other specific entity.

What is the point of praying to some ‘generic god’? Either you believe in one or you don’t.

Apparently these chaplins are volunteers. Who is left to volunteer? Chaplins that have no beliefs?

Does this mean only chaplins that believe in polytheism are going to be allowed?
#7 June 20, 2012 at 12:51 pm
bg commented:

++

By Newt Gingrich – June 20, 2012

Obamarule and the killing of the Constitution of the United States

If last Friday’s dictatorial action by President Obama is allowed to
stand, historians may someday look back on June 15, 2012 as the
day the Constitution died.

The rule of law has been replaced by Obamarule.

The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution
to limit the power of politicians.

They had fought an eight year war
against the tyranny of King George.

Arbitrary personal decisions that allowed the King to pick winners
andlosers was a significant part of their grievance against the
British Monarchy.

They relied on Montesquieu’s theory of divided power
to protect freedom and liberty from politicians.

Now, in one bold move worthy of Cesar Chavez or Vladimir Putin,
President Obama has added the role of Congress to that of president.

This may sound melodramatic, but that is only because of the cynicism
and shallowness of the modern news media and modern politics.

In declaring that his administration will not deport those who came to this
country illegally at a young age, President Obama has suspended the law
for approximately 800,000 young people.

In truth, no one knows how many people will be covered by Obamarule.
Will more come into the United States while the regulations are being
written? Which bureaucrat decided in secret it covered 800,000 people
and what was their analysis based on?

Why people 16 and under? Why not 15? Why not 17? Why was serving
less than one year in jail okay? Why not zero jail time? Why not 18 months?

How can we verify they have earned an authentic
G.E.D. certificate rather than merely bought one?

Why is it a two year waiver rather than a five year waiver?

If Obama has had this power all along
why didn’t he use it in January 2009?

The point is not that the United States does not need comprehensive
immigration reform. Indeed, immigration reform could help spur the
economy and create domestic stability for families here illegally. The
point is that we must debate such policy ideas within the proper
channels of the legislative branch instead of by executive fiat.

One of the major purposes of the legislative process is to get
questions like these out in the open so citizens can see the
answers.

Another major purpose of the constitutional division of
power is to ensure that no one person can write laws.

In this case the Constitution is clear that Congress
sets the rules for naturalization and citizenship.

Finally, the power of Congress to control the executive
branch includes the power of the purse.

No money has been appropriated to pay for Obamarule. Any money
spent on its implementation without Congressional authorization and
appropriation would be clearly unconstitutional and illegal.

No president in our history has been as willing
to destroy the Constitution as Obama.

Under the shallowness and cynicism of our Washington establishment
we are drifting toward a genuine Constitutional crisis.

By Barack Obama – January 18, 2001

Breaking Free From The Constitution (#37)

==
#8 June 20, 2012 at 12:59 pm
bg commented:

++

Freddy #6 June 20, 2012 at 12:49 pm

here you go, click, scroll, click, connect the dots..

“The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will
in fact become like the Ten Commandments”

~ Maurice Strong

“I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.”

~ Barack Hussein Obama

==
#9 June 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm
HackedOffAmerican commented:

One day speaking that mans name will get you killed……..and that day is fast approaching.
#10 June 20, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Greenstew commented:

This is our Christian religion. This is how we pray. If this offends you leave. Don’t tell us we can’T pray the way our Lord commands. John 14: 13-14 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it
#11 June 20, 2012 at 1:04 pm
J. W. commented:

“[It's a] matter of respecting that people may have different faiths and that it is not aimed at any one religion or denomination,” Diggs told WSOC-TV.

Good news, Christians: not only can you not say “Jesus,” but neither can Hindus.
#12 June 20, 2012 at 1:15 pm
bg commented:

++

no pro-Jesus, no con-Muhammed

==
#13 June 20, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Blacque Jacques Shellacque commented:

“[It's a] matter of respecting that people may have different faiths and that it is not aimed at any one religion or denomination,” Diggs told WSOC-TV.

I have a suggestion: Disband the chaplain program, and downsize Major Diggs.
#14 June 20, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Robert commented:

In February, the U.S. Army intervened regarding the reading of a pastoral letter sent to Catholic military chaplains. The letter was on the subject of abortion issues and Obamacare.

Also, the – ahem – Pentagon has been trying to pressure Navy chaplains to perform same-sax marriages. The directive was to allow the use of government facilities for the events, but was rescinded after pushback for the chaplains.
#15 June 20, 2012 at 1:44 pm
paul52 commented:

In faith, these chaplains have two choices: ignore this ridiculous mayor’s edict or pray even louder. First Amendment is still there, just barely, but still there! Onward, Christian soldiers; marching as to war!
#16 June 20, 2012 at 1:46 pm
paul52 commented:

Hope this gutless mayor has Nomex underwear; he may need it in the hereafter.
#17 June 20, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Interesting commented:

Quote: “It’s a] matter of respecting that people may have different faiths..”

DISrespecting the Christian faith is NOT respecting all faiths.
This is religious persecution and removal of freedom of speech/religion, plain and simple.
#18 June 20, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Restless commented:

If people are “offended” by hearing “in Jesus’ name,” they are simply demonstrating their intolerance and bigotry toward Christianity.
#19 June 20, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Blue Hen commented:

it is not aimed at any one religion or denomination

Forbidding the utternace of the dreaded ‘J’ word does take aim at one religion; Christianity. Ya know, that whole Christ thing. This guy is an idiot, but gives no indication that he’s a useful one.
#20 June 20, 2012 at 3:36 pm
tommy mc donnell commented:

the only one that would be ofended would be a muslim. another example of the dhimis yielding to oppression. that is what this is, religious oppression.