Comments (73)

Wow, so many Xtians willing to excuse the miserable behavior of this person.

Explains Why Bush still has a 20% backing though.

"I wonder if the outrage would be as great if an Imam kicked a photographer?"

If that Imam was elected to a Public office, and chose to assault someone DURING the swearing in, yes, it probably would.

Richard Hartsell:
I wonder if the outrage would be as great if an Imam kicked a photographer?

For the record:

The issue is a man elected to political office taking an oath and kicking another human being that too a reporter (and a Hispanic gentleman) simply doing his job.

What it has to do with an Imam and why the same post is displayed three times is something the moderator may wish to explain.

Trust a red-neck bigot to come along and introduce extraneous issues.

I wonder if the outrage would be as great if an Imam kicked a photographer?

I wonder if the outrage would be as great if an Imam kicked a photographer?

I wonder if the outrage would be as great if an Imam kicked a photographer?

"Why doesn't the press realize they are hated?"

That part is true. Why don't *you* realize that sanctimonious loving Christians who kick people are about as religious as a doorknob, and make people like me ill anyway.

There's no law against disrupting "public prayer," especially when it's being performed to win points with the public - or the religiously-deranged portion of the public.

Since he was assaulted, maybe a better course for the photographer would've been to stand up and knock Bruce's teeth down his throat in defense.

No court would've convicted the photographer.

"Why doesn't the press realize they are hated?"

That part is true. Why don't *you* realize that sanctimonious loving Christians who kick people are about as religious as a doorknob, and make people like me ill anyway.

There's no law against disrupting "public prayer," especially when it's being performed to win points with the public - or the religiously-deranged portion of the public.

Since he was assaulted, maybe a better course for the photographer would've been to stand up and knock Bruce's teeth down his throat in defense.

No court would've convicted the photographer.

If ye touch cocka ye will stink like doodoo. Ya Ya!

Think before ye acts!

If no have nice to say, then no say.

< ?: + )/ I

iT's all prophecy & ye all ain't seen nuttin yet!

HALLALEUjA!

Who is this Matthew I see quoted herein. Why should we quote him? Were his writings subjected to peer review as to authenticity and veracity?

Yo Anonymouse, they were right, you're wrong. Read my post just above for what really happened and please, in the future consider moderating your comment when speaking on that of which you're unaware.

Knowledgeable comment by local legal folks mostly concludes that Bruce probably would have been found guilty of misdemeanor assault had the photog pressed charges (which, after consulting with his Publisher, he decided not to).

The 64-1 bipartison vote from the folks who do know the whole story (the members of the House) indicates what really happened. Everyone who commented for the record (including Republican Ron May, the very conservative House Minority Leader) stated the photographer had done absolutely nothing wrong, and was welcome to continue, through his news photography in the House Chamber, to contribute to the public record of the People's business.

John and Bob s., Practice what you preach. Neither of you are above the law. From what I gathered in your post you both seem to think that the laws of the land and biblical laws are for others only, but guess again. Just take a moment and think about the actions here if charged what would a court do about such behaviors.

If the practices are so "clean and above the law" why hide them? For some sick entertainment hacking in the back room. What people do in secrete will be shouted from the rooftops.

A good rule of thumb is never assume anything. So forgive me for confronting the few of those who spewed rumors, lies, and treachery with their tongue here. I guarantee the # of those involved are well above “few.” How many 20, embarrassing for great numbers involved spreading rumors, lies, false accusations, and treachery with their tongue. People become so entrenched with their ways that it now seems normal and okay to do. But it is not; anytime a person has to hide their practices it is wrong. Not rocket science, plain and simple.

The issue here is two-fold, one Christian behavior while praying and a Christian’s response to invasion of his privacy. I guess Bruce didn’t know that he was supposed to keep the reporter’s bad behavior a secrete and just “suck it up.” It appears that Bruce had enough and struck out at one of the ones that were invading his privacy. Maybe he shouldn’t have gotten physical but I can guarantee you one thing, I bet that reporter will never invade his privacy again. No pat on the back for this reporter, I recommend that he avoid Bruce altogether and never speak to him again. I’m sure that is what Bruce wants he just didn’t have time to tell him.

Reporters, you guys are a “pack of wolves in sheep’s clothing.” Can they even think for themselves, without running to the media and crying like a baby? Fact is the reporter got angry because Bruce called him on his bad behavior, somebody had too. Otherwise the reporter would continue down the road of demise. I think both parties need to chill and back off to reflect what they have done to diffuse further character/Christian bashing. This will certainly provoke anger and create unwanted verbal responses.

rikwelles's January 25, 2008 3:53 PM post explains the background well if you're interested and would like to review.

I'm, unfortunately, a constituent of the lamentable Mr. Bruce (new local nickname, Bruce Almighty), here in House District 15 of the Colorado state legislature (mostly Colorado Springs). Every bad thing anyone has said about him? They're all true.

A few additional points. We did not elect Bruce--he was appointed (by a 'Vacancy Committee consisting mostly of the local County Republican Committee) to fill out the last half of a two-year term after the resignation of the incumbent.

After being appointed, he started the controversy by delaying his swearing in until several days after the start of the 2008 legislative session so as to be eligible, by serving a few days less than half the term, for election to an additional term (term limits would have stopped him at two more...this way he'd get three more). Somehow I don't think that will mean anything--we fully anticipate voting him out in the upcoming Republican primary.

Second point, he decided he he would consent to be sworn in only during a formal session of the House (this has never been done before), and demanded he be allowed to address the House for 90 seconds at that time. When the (Democratic) House Speaker (Andrew Romanoff--isn't that a great name?) predictably declined, Bruce said he'd enter as a guest of a member every day until he shamed the leadership into acquiescence (really, he said "I'll come there Monday, I'll come there Tuesday, I'll come there Wednesday...we'll see who gives up first"). Speaker Romanoff said, in essence "sure, knock yourself out," but offered to show up at 8:30am on any day of Bruce's choosing to conduct the swearing in.

Bruce then complained about the time...he'd have to get up too early, there'd be traffic on the freeway, roads might be icy (really, he did say all those things). Romanoff then offered four times (8:30a, 10:30a, 1:30p, 4:30p).

All 23 Republican members of the House then voted, 22-1, to ask the Vacancy Committee to choose someone else to hold that seat, unless Bruce agreed to be sworn in immediately. Mr. Bruce then agreed to be sworn in at 1:30p the following day.

The next morning, not yet a member, he entered as a guest of a member, predictably followed by a much larger than typical press contingent (including a couple of television crews and photographers from at least three newspapers). Most of Mr. Bruce's conduct was caught on tape by the television crews.

As a guest, he stood against the wall, along with most of the press. During the normal opening of the daily session, he told all the press to not get close too him, then not to film him during the Pledge of Allegiance, then not during the prayer. The photographer got a great picture looking up at 'Angelic Bruce' with his head bowed, hands folded around a Bible, the backlit wall forming a halo (it was in all the papers).

Bruce then opened his eyes, quickly extended his foot and placing the sole of his shoe against the knee of the photog (on one knee in front of Bruce) pushed, causing the photog to lose his balance and knock over another camera. This was caught on tape but the foot and knee were out of frame. I'd describe the movement as less than a full kick but more than a shove.

Nothing more happened at the time. The House completed its short daily session and, later at 1:30p, Bruce was sworn in by Romanoff without further incident.

My judgment? This (and its follow-up) was simply the typical and predictable action of a man who was well-known long ago to be a self-centered attention-seeking jerk. It has almost no component of 'Religion' as an issue (could have just as easily have happened during the Pledge). To their credit, Bruce has never been well-regarded by Colorado Springs' large and influential Evangelical community (think James Dobson and Focus on the Family).

I'm glad it gave y'all a little entertainment though!

All this could have been avoided if he had been praying on his knees.

Malcolm - I think that several folks here are not reading your posts very carefully, and aren't noting where your quotations of previous posts end, and your own thoughts begin. Oh, well.

liar uncovered: You lost me at January 26, 2008 12:13 AM. You asserted that, "Malcolm and Almaden, no matter what you say the truth remains that you are both liars..."

Help me out here -

Malcolm quotes the apostle Paul in upholding public prayer: "I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing."
Posted by: Malcolm | January 25, 2008 11:25 PM

Almaden takes the other side, criticizing Rep. Bruce's rather emphatic protection of his prayer space: "I thought Christians were supposed to love their enemies, not kick them. Are press photographers exempt from this dictum?"
Posted by: almaden | January 25, 2008 11:48 PM

If Malcolm is lying when he says that public prayer is considered good and worth defending by Christians, and Almaden is lying when he says that it's not necessarily good to commit violence in the defense of prayer, then please share with me, oh wise one... what is it that you mean? You sound like perhaps you're just enjoying a little bit of Sophistry, without the courage required to state any actual convictions. I find it difficult to understand how you can believe that Malcolm & Almaden are both lying, when they present nearly diametrically opposite views.

Malcolm: incredulous: Whatever this guy is, it ain't Christian. What happened to turn the other cheek? What a sanctimonious, holier-than-though blowhard. No wonder people are so suspicious of those who piously cloak themselves in Christianity.
****

People that live in glass houses should not throw stones. What is in your closet??? Any questions??

The fact is you will never belev no matter what, so give it up, will you?

Patrick is a p_ _ _y; he couldn't stand up for what he believed in if his life depended on it.

Touché Patrick you flake out. To bad you are in with those that are corrupt.

Malcolm wrote: "incredulous: Whatever this guy is, it ain't Christian. What happened to turn the other cheek?"

Whatever this guy is, it ain't Christian. What happened to turn the other cheek?"
Perhaps your self-righteous attitude can answer your own question, you seem to think that breaking the law and invading someone’s privacy is legal. Sooooooooooo maybe you have been caught in your own trap of deceit.

Never, and I repeat never underestimate the underdog; they might surprise you with conformation that you are not able to handle.

Capt. Lutz is able and waiting for the formal report.

Malcolm wrote: "incredulous: Whatever this guy is, it ain't Christian. What happened to turn the other cheek?"

Perhaps your self righteous attitude can answer your own question, you seem to think that breaking the law and invading someones privacy is legal. Sooooooooooo maybe you have been caught in your own trap of deceite.

Never, and I repeat never unerestimate the underdog; they might surprise you with conformation that ou are not able to handle.

Capt. Lutz is able and waiting for the formal report.

liar uncovered wrote:
Malcolm and Almaden, no matter what you say the truth remains that you are both liars to the 10th degree. Pity niether one of you measure up to tinker.
****

So you only believe part of the Bible? Why is that?

Lawyer wrote: "The photographer was breaking no laws, and was doing the job expected of photographers present at political events. Politicians don't get to choose how the press covers their events (unless they hire and pay them, like Dubya and Co. do). Mr. Bruce is clearly guilty of assault. It is really quite clear and beyond debate, legally speaking"

You need to go back to law school, that is if you attended and passed the board exam; which I doubt. Call upon Mimiarm Grice and the unhealthy dysfuntional biotch will guide you.........!

incredulous:
Whatever this guy is, it ain't Christian. What happened to turn the other cheek? What a sanctimonious, holier-than-though blowhard. No wonder people are so suspicious of those who piously cloak themselves in Christianity.
****

Matthew 13:41-42 = The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Anonymous+ wrote:
Bottom line, God judges the heart my friend, mistakes or no mistakes, we are saved by grace and until we reached the end we will continue to grow in the knowledge of Christ and become more Christ-like.
****

Matthew 5:20 = For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Malcolm and Almaden, no matter what you say the truth remains that you are both liars to the 10th degree. Pity niether one of you measure up to tinker.

I thought Christians were supposed to love their enemies, not kick them. Are press photographers exempt from this dictum?

Ryan wrote:
You know, there's an irony here lost upon most Americans. Any decent Christian would know that engaging in such a pompous display of religiosity is, in fact, completely UN-Christian. Jesus spoke directly about this issue and said not to be like the self-righteous who would go and pray on the street corner. Rather, he said, go into a room, lock the door, and pray to God.

That's what a Christian would do. Clearly, Bruce is not a Christian. I wonder what religion he is. ;)
****

Paul said in 1 Timothy 2:8 = I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing.

ANGIE, be honest with yourself. Remember the ugly reaction in the conservative media to a newly elected US Rep's harmless personal choice to swear in on a Koran? Do you recall the demand for a law to forbid him that right? Are you not aware of the many Christians trying to persuade Democrats not to nominate Barack HUSSEIN Obama because they fear he's a closet Muslim? Is anybody worried that Muslim Americans are closet Christians? No.

Ms. Hoffman, I'm with you. Despite popular support for a religious test for office, our wise founders voted it down on the grounds that nothing is more easily faked than piety. That so many voters persist in wanting such a test only to mistake good things for good deeds, good words for good works, proper stands for proper acts, despite what the founders' warned is truly demoralizing.

The photographer was breaking no laws, and was doing the job expected of photographers present at political events. Politicians don't get to choose how the press covers their events (unless they hire and pay them, like Dubya and Co. do). Mr. Bruce is clearly guilty of assault. It is really quite clear and beyond debate, legally speaking.

The swearing-in ceremony was a public event that, apparently, warranted coverage by the press. And it seems obvious that Bruce wanted the attention, too, since he wanted to wait until more people showed up before beginning the ceremomy. So why would he be upset enough to kick the photographer who was merely doing his job by covering a news event? If the photographer did indeed get too close, a simple request to back off would have been more appropriate than a kick--not more Christian, just more appropriate.

Anonymous:

So what was all that about Mr. Bruce, the tiger, and the zoo. Don't tell me he was taunting someone or something there, too. I think you have your facts rather mixed up.

"64 - 1 voted to censure" should tell you something!

I don't think there is any reason to defend this wacky, impetuous, self-centered, self-righteous guy.

Behavior like this is not becoming to a Republican or a Democrat, certainly not someone elected to public office.

Most photographers are there because they want to take photos. Is there something Mr. Bruce doesn't understand about that?

Bruce is anything but a Christian. Slum landlord, goofball, attention seeker, self-righteous, horrible representative of his constituency, all those things but hardly mr good guy. Most of us in Colorado have had enough of him. He's basically irrelevant in the legislature now that he's made his own bed there.

jsijordan: "Poor, poor christian. What a beast of burden."

The beast of burden is self-righteous pompous a/h's like you, always picking others apart while you are worse then those you put down. Whoops, not so Christian, huh. Oh, well just living up to your expectations of me as a Christian.

Have a nice evening.

Hi Anonymous - I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm sure there would have been anti-religious posts regardless of what Mr. Bruce did.

This argument, however, is IRRELEVANT!!! It does not matter who "might" have said something. The fact is he struck out violently at a fellow human being who posed no physical threat. That's pretty weak, Anonymous. I don't care if Mr. Bruce is Christian, Muslim, or anything else. It was wrong.

There is no inconsistency between Bruce's religion and the kick. He wears his religion on his sleve, not on his foot.

There is no inconsistency between Bruce's religion and the kick. He wears his religion on his sleve, not on his foot.

There is no inconsistency between Bruce's religion and the kick. He wears his religion on his sleve, not on his foot.

There is no inconsistency between Bruce's religion and the kick. He wears his religion on his sleve, not on his foot.

Peter, "In Colorado, photographers ARE allowed to photograh during prayer and opening session ceremonies. Mr. Bruce often forgets common decency and respect for others unless its to cully favor from others or improve his business positioning."

"a photographer from the Rocky Mountain News, who was crouched before him." Is this allowed in Colorado?

Alex: "Rep" bruce, who acted like a whiny two year old who kicked the photographer deserves to be censured for what he did. If he was soooo into whatever he was doing, a simple, polite, GROWNUP request to please move back would have sufficed. But nooo, this guy had to physically KICK a perfectly innocent bystander, just to show how wonderful he is. I'd be looking at having him arrested for assault, because that's what he did."

Perfectly innocent bystander? Right, just like the tiger being taunted who attacked to defend herself. But the boys who taunted were innocent, NOT!

Poor, poor christian. What a beast of burden.

Craig wrote: "Religious, Shmerligious...Mr. Bruce struck someone, period. Use your words, Mr. Bruce, use your words."

If Bruce used his words non-christians would find fault with that too; been there done that.

JBE, you want perfection look to God.

But I guess what I hear you saying that being a Christian and being "holy" whatever that means, is that you make no mistakes.

Did not what of God's greatest prophets and King over Israel sin by adultery and murder.

But yet God called David "a man after God's own heart." David was redeemed from his sin through genuine repentance.

People like you always look for the wrong in Christians and personify it. Ad God told us not to cast our pearls before swine and to shake the dust off our feet when leaving them that reject the truth repeatedly.

Enough has been said and done; yet you still do not believe/forgive. You seal your own fate, not Christians that who make a mistake.

Good Luck, I am done trying to convince.

A little background here may be instructive:

Bruce is a long, long, longtime burr in the saddle of Colorado's state political establishment as an unelected anti-tax crusader. So when he was appointed to fill out the unserved portion of a former legislator's term, he got the chance to mount his soapbox once more, but with a title and a seat in the House instead of just a petition or a ballot issue or a view from the visitors' gallery.

Anyway, Bruce's arrival in the state Legislature was bound to produce fireworks (especially since he and the House leadership had sparred over just when and how he would be sworn in ... really trivial stuff). But Bruce is just that sort of guy. He relishes the controversy, however mundane the starting point.

All of which also meant that, inevitably, he would attract attention from the news media, who have the ability and right to move freely on the floor of the House to interview, take photos, etc., at public sessions of the body. And this public prayer by the legislators was the opening of their annual session.
Bruce let his personal peeve with newsgatherers get away from him. No, he probably didn't "kick" the shooter with the force of what we all would think is a real kick. (That silly detail has dominated local and regional coverage of the case here in Denver.)
But when he was called on it, he cried much-ado-about-nothing instead of apologizing and moving on. Bruce isn't the kind of guy content to "move on." He's playing this for all it's worth. ..

And I don't believe the photographer was remotely close to "invading Bruce's space," as some posters here have suggested. He's a public figure, in a public place, performing a public action (as the opening prayer at the Legislature is). The photographer was doing his job, period. Everyone who was there and involved (except for Bruce) knows this. It was Bruce who lacked civility in this case.

So forget the religious ramifications and alleged insults and such and just chalk this one up to a prickly guy -- one who also is far more cagey and media-savvy than people think -- helping the molehill grow into a mountain.
Yeah, the other legislators and, yes, the news media did their part in blowing this one up even more than it needed to be. That's the tendency in these times of hyperfocused and sometimes overblown media coverage of the utterly ordinary.
In the end, it's an insignificant sideshow involving a guy who has long been a sideshow performer. Nothing more.

Isn't that assault? Why was he not immediately charged with assault?

It is not a crime for anyone to interrupt a prayer - it is a crime to assault someone.

Douglas Bruce committed a crime and it's he only got censured - many people are locked up for such assaults every day.

Mr. Bruce knew entering this public House has rules of order and expected decorum of the position he managed to get elevated to. His selection was news to those that follow his antics, ravings and lunacies about Public Policy and governance in our state. He actively seeks very public positions and all the limelight that comes with. But, only on his own limited terms.

In Colorado, photographers ARE allowed to photograh during prayer and opening session ceremonies. Mr. Bruce often forgets common decency and respect for others unless its to cully favor from others or improve his business positioning. But, that is also short lived as his attempts at public policy changes have been derided and tagged as self-centered, benefiting few and more for his own business interests. In Colorado, he's a convicted slum lord who doesn't maintain his properties unless ordered to do so. He's callous and cavalier to those who support him as well as his detractors. He now intends to cut off discussion with the press which is a disservice to his constituency. The Republican Party insiders are actively being solicited to de-Bruce Mr. Bruce from their primary. As evidenced by the lack of support he's received from the state Republican Party elders, he's doomed.

My "personal space" is violated all the time. It doesn't mean I can just kick the person whom I believe is too close to me. Religion is completely irrelevant here; it's about civility.

A world where everyone felt empowered to just kick people at will would have a lot of bruised shins.

Assault is assault, and it's a crime and a tort. If he gets off with censure and not a criminal record or a lawsuit, his next prayer can be for thanks for getting away with it.

This Congressman does not seem to be a sandwich short of a picnic.

This is not about Christian, Religion or anything else. He was wrong and that he would not feel it somewhere inside of himself to feel that maybe that was not the correct course of action says a lot.

We all could use some prayer!

"Rep" bruce, who acted like a whiny two year old who kicked the photographer deserves to be censured for what he did. If he was soooo into whatever he was doing, a simple, polite, GROWNUP request to please move back would have sufficed. But nooo, this guy had to physically KICK a perfectly innocent bystander, just to show how wonderful he is. I'd be looking at having him arrested for assault, because that's what he did.

Praise the Lord and kick the paparazzi!

Josie23

Hypocrisy in UNCHRISTIAN.

Remove the mote from thyne own eye before removing the speck from another's...

Yes, christians are just like everyone else - but cliam to be holy. Kicking a man who is doing his job while you pray isn't just un-christian, it is UNCIVILIZED.

When evangelicals loudly condemn the behavior of thieving tv preachers, and politicians, and business people who use the bible and flag to cover their hideous, true, unchristian natures, crimes, and lusts you'll get a whoooole lot more respect from the world... Hey people might even take your evangelizing seriously!

But not until then.

Religious, Shmerligious...Mr. Bruce struck someone, period. Use your words, Mr. Bruce, use your words.

Anti Christ, what a name.

Prove to me that Christians are perfect and do not make mistakes. You can't, to be human is to err and to forgive is divine.

Notice that to err as a human exist and it is mixed with divinity by having the ability to forgive.

Bottom line, God judges the heart my friend, mistakes or no mistakes, we are saved by grace and until we reached the end we will continue to grow in the knowledge of Christ and become more Christ-like.

patrick wrote: "Take the 9/11 incident. Prayer were most certainly offered to God, Allah, Mohammed, et cetera.

And then there was the drop of the bomb from the enola gay. Sure, the pilots prayed.

I Don't think prayer necessarily leads to good things, folks.

Uh, Patrick, 9/11 and a kick are two completly different things. Prove to me that Bruce is involved in a cult that caused his behavior then I will debate the issue with you.

As far as your comment that prayer doesn't lead to good things, here is a simple solution to that issue, DONT'T PRAY.

Sounds like one of these dangerous, violent Christians. Perhaps he should enlist in the military or spend time in airport bathrooms. His behavior is actually, quite Christian, in the perverted world in which Bruce and many of his supporters, live.

Another good reason to keep religion out of all state houses, gyms an stadiums. When religion seeps from the churches, we all get sullied.

"When Jesus chased the moneylenders out of the temple, I think he kicked a couple. Had his eyes open, though."

Actually, I believe the bible says that he whipped them while chasing them out.

"When Jesus chased the moneylenders out of the temple, I think he kicked a couple. Had his eyes open, though."

Actually, I believe the bible says that he wipped them while chasing them out.

Lets look at the facts here:

1. The photographer was too close, PERIOD.

2. How does Bruce's swearing in relate to this issue, I mean really, relationship please?

3. I'll tell you the relationship, judgmental attitude. if you look for wrong in something you will find it, even if it means digging in the past to validate your suspicion.

4. A kick did occur, but was he trying to get the photographer out of his way and being annoyed that he had no room to move? Writer please state the intent, you wrote the story. "After the prayer-turned-kick, Bruce was unapologetic, telling a local TV station that Manzano deserved his prayerful wrath:" Interpretation is not left up to you, state the facts behind the occurrence, give me the WHOLE picture, please.

5. Bruce said he deserved the kick; here are some facts for you that you did not elaborate on ""I think that's the most offensive thing I've seen a photographer do in 21 years," he said. "If people are going to cause a disruption during a public prayer, they should be called for it. He owes an apology to the House and the public."

6. Comparing a swearing in to a public prayer is like comparing oranges to apples. NEWS FLASH WRITER, swearing ins are a time for congratulations and the more the merrier, prayer are time of private especially for Christians and not to be invaded by some self-serving idiot for personal gain.

7. Bruce was a victim of the photographer invading his privacy. Are you going to tell me that the photographer did no wrong and that he was not aware that he was too close, NOT! He knew he crossed the line and Bruce called him on it. You media people are "hungry vultures" and will do anything to get a story, picture, or comment.

8. Can media provoke people Claire? Of course and if you would have invested the same amount of time checking history concerning the media invading people's privacy you would have been able to report a well-rounded non-judgmental review of the incident.

9. "And finally really? You kicked somebody while you're praying?" Talk about being sanctimonious, Claire, when people pray are they non-human and more God-like, perfect and void of making a mistake?? Really, I missed that part in scripture, I guess I better go back and re-read the bible again. Unless of course you can direct me to the scripture that says, "while we are praying we are God-like, perfect, and make no mistakes.

10. Finally, this is about two issues, Bruce's privacy being invaded and Claire's bias opinion of reporters.

No thanks to your story Claire, I as a Christian am not perfect when I pray. However, if someone invaded my privacy by being uninvited, doing a very private such as when I am praying it will provoke me to call you on it, END OF STORY.

prayer often leads to violence, among the faithful.

Take the 9/11 incident. Prayer were most certainly offered to God, Allah, Mohammed, et cetera.

And then there was the drop of the bomb from the enola gay. Sure, the pilots prayed.

I Don't think prayer necessarily leads to good things, folks.

Oh, I see, Blowing up Hiroshima was a good thing.

I understand now.

Then it's a non-story. Stuff like this happens all the time, and people either cheer or sneer - or worse. It depends upon WHICH god you pray to.

so what's the problem, folks? Are you intolerant?

When Jesus chased the moneylenders out of the temple, I think he kicked a couple. Had his eyes open, though.