‘California, Stand Up for Jesus’ rally set for Lodi

The Lodi City Council in Northern California is considering a vote to ban use of the name ‘Jesus’ from public prayers offered before city council meetings as the result of an atheist group’s lawsuit threat.

PRESS RELEASE

Lodi Mayor Larry D. Hansen fears a lawsuit by atheist groups if he doesn’t silence Christian prayers, and has requested to hear your public opinion. The clerk and city council members have scheduled a public debate (and possibly a vote) on Aug. 5.

Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt of The Pray in Jesus Name Project is the organizer of a prayer event/rally on the day of the public hearing.
Pray in Jesus Name Chaplain leader
The prayer rally is scheduled for outside on the Carnegie Forum steps at 6pm, Wednesday, 5 August 2009, before debate at 7 pm. Klingenschmitt will lead the rally with many California pastors. (Pastors please call “Chaps” right now at 719-360-5132.)

Pastor Everett Robinson of The Will Of God Christian Center will lead coordination efforts on the ground. (Bus coordinators and volunteers please call Pastor Robinson at 707-333-1282.)

Carnegie Forum is located at 305 W. Pine Street. Zip code: 95240

Take action nation-wide! Sign the online petition, receive email updates and alerts (optional): http://tinyurl.com/JesusPetitionLodi

“California, it’s time to take a stand for Jesus.” — Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt (“Chaps”)

Contact: Chaplain Klingenschmitt, 719-360-5132, chaplaingate@yahoo.com; Pastor Everett Robinson, 707-333-1282, ambassadorev@yahoo.com

Photo: Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt at White House.

Press release available on ChristianNewsWire.

LATEST: Lodi: Facebook Users Rally For God

6 thoughts on “‘California, Stand Up for Jesus’ rally set for Lodi

  1. Lodi Mayor Larry D. Hansen fears a lawsuit by atheist groups if he doesn’t silence Christian prayers…

    Sheesh. No one is trying to ban prayer. Any council member can pray on their own at a council meeting – but not as a secular public institution! Ever heard of the ‘separation of church and state’?

  2. @ Shamelessly… “Any council member can pray on their own at a council meeting – but not as a secular public institution!”

    What does that mean? Sorry, to be nit-picking, but the sentence is not grammatically correct…leading to further confusion.

    “Pray” is a verb and “secular public institution” is a noun. So, how can the two be compared?

    Second point, it’s freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

  3. Please read the Information at hand thoroughly before making a comment! No where does it say a ban on prayer. It says “ban the use of the name of Jesus” ! The concept of “separation of church and state” Has not been adopted by the united states of America. Stand up California!

  4. Ahh, but the concept of “separation of church and state” HAS been “adopted”, as you say, by the United States of America. Just, not in so many words. And it is in fact, NOT freedom OF religion, as Alexander claims. Those exact words are not used. Here is the actual text of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    This means that Congress (meaning the lawmakers, further meaning the Governments of this country, federal, state, and local) shall not recognize an establishment of religion. Period. Solid and finite. THAT amendment has not been repealed. And while government cannot “prohibit the free exercise” of any religion, they shall not “recognize” it. To quote the amendment directly. Allowing any form of prayer or religious show within a government proceeding(i.e. City Council meeting) is “respecting” such acts.

    So, Alexander, in light of the fact that you use someone’s not-so-perfect grammar to argue your case against their views, I believe it’s time YOU studied the language your country’s Constitution is written in more thoroughly before stating your case.

  5. @Erin…can you show me where it says the word “recognize” in the text?

    Are you substituting “recognize” for “Congress shall make now law respecting?”

    Not so “solid and finite” as you have laid out. It’s talking about making no law regarding religion. Where did you extrapolate “recognize?”

  6. This is not about stopping prayer. It’s about stopping a government body from having a specific sectarian prayer during public meetings. They can have a non-demoninational praryer. They can pray to god. But as soon as they say “Jesus” (or “Allah” or “Vishnu” etc) they have crossed a legally established line. It is perfectly easy to have a simple prayer that doesn’t refer to Jesus by name and doesn’t exclude every non-christian citizen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s