The original prayer delivered January 23, 1996 by the Rev. Joe Wright to the Kansas House.

Mike sent this to me, and it filled me with anger. I have to disagree with it, but I will address that after you read this “prayer.”

“The original prayer delivered January 23, 1996 by the Rev. Joe Wright to the Kansas House.

Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and seek your direction and guidance. We know your Word says, “Woe to those who call evil good,” but that’s exactly what we’ve done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values. We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of your Word and called it moral pluralism. We have worshipped other gods and called it multi-culturalism. We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building esteem. We have abused power and called it political savvy. We have coveted our neighbors’ possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our fore-fathers and called it enlightenment. Search us O God and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent here by the people of Kansas, and who have been ordained by you, to govern this great state. Grant them your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct us to the center of
your will. I ask it in the name of your son, the living savior, Jesus Christ.
Amen.”

One of the many problems I have with this is this part:

We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice.

First of all, I feel like I’m beating a dead horse, but homosexuality is not perversion! Goodness. Many gay people cannot help that they are gay, that is the way that they truly feel. So, if they truly feel this way, and do not know any other way to be, aren’t they just being themselves? Aren’t they being NATURAL?

Secondly, the welfare part. I hate it when people say that people on welfare are lazy. A very small percentage of people on welfare abuse the system. Most people are on welfare because they really cannot make ends meet, whether it be because of medical bill debts or because of a slew of other possibilities that have made it impossible for them to keep up with their bills. I HATE it when people make generalizations like this! Call me liberal, I don’t care, but not all people on welfare are lazy.

Lastly, why can’t a woman have the choice to terminate a pregnancy in her own body? This prayer makes no mention of circumstances of abortion but, call me crazy, call it choice, whatever; I think if a woman or the fetus or both are in danger of dying because of the pregnancy, it should be terminated. *sigh* I don’t know why people have to be so closed-minded.

11 thoughts on “The original prayer delivered January 23, 1996 by the Rev. Joe Wright to the Kansas House.

  1. The true nature of these issues is a little more gray than you or the Rev. Wright makes it out to be.

    So, if they truly feel this way, and do not know any other way to be, aren’t they just being themselves? Aren’t they being NATURAL?
    This same argument could be used to support murderers. There is an established link between brain damage and violence, since the part of the brain that governs self-control is often damaged in violent criminals (http://www.myhealthsense.com/F020326_violence.html). Perversion and naturalness are culturally relative terms.

    Welfare is a Catch-22. If you reduce it, those who are genuinely unable to support themselves and their families (those geniunely poor, disabled, etc.) fall further into poverty (although due to soup kitchens and charities, nobody should starve to death in America). Many of those on welfare are unwed mothers who first became pregnant as teenagers. I seriously doubt that these women truly want to have more children, just to get a bit more on their welfare check. This pattern is more due to social morals (or lack thereof) and lack of education about birth control/abortion.

    As for abortion, the vast minority are due to the pregnancy interfering with other responsibilities or not being able to afford it. Only 3.3% are due to risks to fetal health, and 2.8% are due to risks to maternal health (http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=abortion+statistics&y=y&e=259122&f=0%3A2766678%3A2718086%3A254845%3A6564259%3A259107%3A259122&r=Society+and+Culture%02Issues+and+Causes%02Poverty%02Welfare&u=womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm&w=abortion+statistics&d=52257BD954&c=482&yc=2166&icp=1). According to a pro-life site (whose accuracy should be called into question due to their agenda, as would a pro-choice site, I would need to check the cited reference), less than 2% of abortions are due to rape or incest (http://www.mccl-inc.org/abortion_statistics.htm). In any case, there are other studies that show a negative effect of abortions on the mother’s mental health. The controversy is over personal responsibility excluding rape and incest for pro-lifers and the unfair burden that women must have with pregnancy, which necessitates a balancing factor through abortion for pro-choicers.

    Just my 2 cents. I hope that everyone can see the advantages and disadvantages to each side and not assume that one is completely right and the other completely wrong.

  2. I’d really like to hear a plausible disadvantage to homosexual marriage rights. Your (Greg) analogy to a murderer is baseless and I know some people who would be offended in being compared to a murderer. You are correct in saying that many people have urges that should be curbed (hence the social contract) but the urge for two people to be in a relationship surely isn’t the same as someone who wants to kill me.

    Always remember that a society is judged by how it treats its minorities. Denying equality rights doesn’t speak very well of a society.

  3. “Always remember that a society is judged by how it treats its minorities. Denying equality rights doesn’t speak very well of a society.” — Tyler
    I have to agree. I think it’s more appropriate to compare homosexuality to a religion — lots of people may not agree with it, but the government is not allowed to infringe on those people’s rights. I also agree with Greg’s statement about seeing the advantages and disadvantages — there are pros and cons to each side, but banning something altogether doesn’t make anyone happy, there should be compromise.

  4. *sigh* Just wanted to clarify…I don’t particularly agree with everything you said* Erin, but I completely agree with the idea that the vast majority of people are close minded, and not only are they unwilling to compromise, but they take the word of someone they feel is in a position of idealogical power and agree simply because of the speaker, and not the words themselves. Of course, I’m speaking of those in favor of Wright’s prayer. I personally feel the world would be a lot better off if people who take a few bloody moments to think for themselves…

    *Right… MY opinion…
    1)I’m not sure homosexuality is all that “natural” – I mean, it seems natural to try to get ahead in life by doing anything that’s necessary, including stabbing friends in the back, but that’s not the way human society and morals function. True, homosexuality might be ‘natural’ in a certain sense because it comes natually to some people, but the whole essance of human existance is NOT being natural… clothing, processed food, electronics, AI…we humans are anything but natural, chosing rather to deny the natuarality of our existance. In that sense I suppose I’m not sure if the ‘natural’ idea of homosexuality is a good or a bad thing; it does pull is back to our essential human animal, but simultaneously pulls away from the cultural ideal that has been in the making for hundreds of years…(not that homosexuality should not have a place in our cultural ideal – I’m just not sure).
    2) Yes, I feel bad for people on welfare who actually need the help. What concerns me more are the people who manage to get welfare (and not to mention driver’s licenses) who aren’t even legal citizens of the United States. You’d think there’d be *some* requirement…
    3) I don’t particularly agree with abortions, but I feel there are extenuating circumstances – like health for example, or cases of rape or incest.

    So that’s just my $0.02, not that it makes much of a difference, other than that Greg thought I agreed wholeheartedly with your comments, and I do want to assert that *gasp!* I have an opinion of my own. 🙂

  5. Your (Tyler) comments misrepresent my words. I was attacking Erin’s argument for homosexuality. I never equated homosexuality to being a murderer. You clearly read too far into that analogy. There are distinct differences in homosexual brains that are not present in heterosexual brains (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web1/Rana.html). The only thing that prevents these differences from being termed brain damage or at least “derivations from the norm” (both of these being culturally relative terms) is semantics. Also, I never mentioned homosexual marriage or insisted that homosexuals shouldn’t have civil rights. You might want to read my words more carefully before you start spouting out hateful statements.

  6. Er, to say that homosexuals and murders do have impulses which are able to be curbed is an equation at some level, is it not? I made the counter-point that all impulses that a human has are (or should) be resisted as per the social contract and then went on to make a general statement about marriage rights. Sorry, I guess I didn’t clearly dilineate the scope of my statements.

    As for the brain issue – So? Male brains are different from female brains [http://www.newhorizons.org/neuro/diamond_male_female.htm] Gender and sexual preference are multi-faceted issues and the brain is just one part. Nova had an interesting episode on the issue [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/gender/].

    If you’ll permit me to pull you out of impartiality, what is your opinion on the issue? I think it’s good that you try to see all sides of an issue and it’s a sign of wisdom but eventually a choice has to be made.

  7. wooo my commenting area has become a debate forum. 🙂 Not that it’s a bad thing, it’s actually interesting to read, hehe 🙂

  8. Er, to say that homosexuals and murders do have impulses which are able to be curbed is an equation at some level, is it not?
    I should have cleared up my usage of that analogy. It was not meant to be a moral judgement. It was meant to show that there are brain differences between the majority and minority that take on different acceptability levels. In this case, violent people have a lower self-control regulation than the majority (non-acceptable), and homosexuals have (among other differences) certain differences in areas of the hypothalamus and therefore hormones (contention if acceptable).

    I made the counter-point that all impulses that a human has are (or should) be resisted as per the social contract
    That is philosophy. It’s dangerous to use it as a counter-point to something that can be physically proven or disproven (i.e. science). The social contract is also “a fairly weak normative theory” (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/soc-cont.htm).

    Gender and sexual preference are multi-faceted issues and the brain is just one part.
    Agreed. Upbringing also plays a role, but from what I’ve heard from my profs, gender can be determined as early as age 3. Thus, I tend to believe (i.e. there’s no physical proof, mostly hearsay) that the causes are more physically based. Also, the strong genetic component lends credence to this.

    As for my opinion, I hesitate to throw my dice in with either camp. My own religion, Christianity, is fairly divided over the issue since it can only be inferred from certain teachings (ex. teachings against sex out of wedlock and definitions of marriage as between a man and a woman, whereas the passage about Sodom and Gomorrah is difficult to say definitively that homosexuality was the only cause for those cities’ prescribed destruction). Science remains vague on the issue. My major problem with this issue is that its increasing mainstream acceptance is based on rhetoric rather than science. What was the major impetus for the DSM to remove homosexuality as a disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology)? Social change. Not that there was much in the way of science proving it to be such before that point besides it being outside the norm and acceptance of the majority.

    Do I advocate equal rights for homosexuals? Yes. Do I advocate gay marriage? No. My reasoning on this issue is not scientific, so I try to keep opposing arguments in mind. If gay marriage were legalized, what would stop me from marrying a friend or roommate simply for the benefits? I believe that it has the potential to take a very special relationship and cheapen it. I believe the same thing about telling someone that I love them. So many people spout out those three words without truly appreciating what it means and that it includes the good and the bad. But that’s a bit off-topic. Thus, my opinion is not cemented in this matter. I have gay friends who are wonderful people, although they are not perfect like everybody else. The overly colorful and emotional manner that they display their sexuality disturbs many people and makes them think less of gay rights because of these displays. I’m sure that some sort of analogy could be drawn with polygamy, but I’ve written too much already.

Comments are closed.