State Lawmakers Walk Out During Muslim Prayer

[ShoNuff]

From CNN.com:
Link to the article. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/prayer.walkout.ap/index.html)

OLYMPIA, Washington (AP) -- Two lawmakers left the floor of the Washington House of Representatives during a prayer by a Muslim religious leader this week, citing patriotism and a lack of interest.

Republicans Lois McMahan of Gig Harbor and Cary Condotta of East Wenatchee walked to the back of the chamber during Monday's invocation by Mohamad Joban, imam of the Islamic Center of Olympia.

McMahan said she did not oppose having a Muslim deliver the prayer but left because "the religion is the focal point of the hate-America sentiment in the world."

"It's an issue of patriotism," she said. "Even though the mainstream Islamic religion doesn't profess to hate America, nonetheless it spawns the groups that hate America."

Condotta said he was talking to another lawmaker and "wasn't particularly interested" in the prayer. He would not elaborate.

In his prayer, Joban asked for God or Allah to bless the state of Washington and guide the House in making good decisions.

For politicians, who couldn't get to a microphone to profess the importance of faith during the flap over the recent pledge of allegience controversey, this is a surprisingly intolerant act.

How can they possibly claim that walking out on a Muslim prayer is a patriotic act?

[Odesio]

Originally posted by ShoNuff
[b]From CNN.com:


For politicians, who couldn't get to a microphone to profess the importance of faith during the flap over the recent pledge of allegience controversey, this is a surprisingly intolerant act.


Shouting them down might have been intolerant but walking out certainly isn't.

[b]
How can they possibly claim that walking out on a Muslim prayer is a patriotic act?

I have no idea.

Marc

[2Thick]

Originally posted by ShoNuff
From CNN.com:


For politicians, who couldn't get to a microphone to profess the importance of faith during the flap over the recent pledge of allegience controversey, this is a surprisingly intolerant act.

How can they possibly claim that walking out on a Muslim prayer is a patriotic act?

I used to believe that hypocrisy was one of the worst traits a human could possess. With experience, I have realized that hypocrisy is rampant and politicians are the biggest hypocrites the US has.

[erislover]

Stunning logic and foresight. Can I have a picture of her so I can make utterly pointless comments about her appearance in order to "demonstrate" her abilities as a politician? Hmm... I need to get into her opponent's campaign...

[Guinastasia]

Not intolerant, exactly, but unprofessional and rude.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

After reading that whole article, I must conclude that these 2 showed complete and utter ignorance and disrespect for the Muslim faith. It is their right to protest anything that they deem worthy of their disapproval but it merely proves to to those who are more tolerant and knowledable that they disapprove of what they do not know.

Counterproductive at best. It proves to militant Muslims that our "leaders" arent willing to see things past their myopic viewpoint.

[Kalhoun]

Personally, I don't see how ANY prayer has any place in a government assembly. I'd have walked out any time ANY religious leader put his or her theistic two cents in during state business. Shame on anyone who doesn't see how insulting it is to those of us that don't subscribe to any diety.

[NoClueBoy]

IIRC, the whole idea behind the separation of Church and State in early America was to keep the Church from having such a huge influence as it did in many European countries of or near that time period.

Now, it's just a mess. On both sides of the issue. Look at our money saying "In God We Trust" and school prayer being legislated against.

If there were truly a way to separate the two, I would be for it. (Wow, I made a staement.)

[Kalhoun]

I don't like having to carry money that bears a slogan I don't believe in. I also don't like being told I'm not patriotic unless I embrace a diety. It's very easy to separate the two. Just do it. And quit treating the rest of us like a side dish you didn't order!

[JRR]

Interesting. Apparently separation of church and state only applies to judeo-christian religions now.

[Saen]

Originally posted by NoClueBoy
IIRC, the whole idea behind the separation of Church and State in early America was to keep the Church from having such a huge influence as it did in many European countries of or near that time period.



Where on earth do you get that from making no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

IIRC the focus is on not establishing a religion or preventing the execrise of one.

The two lawmakers did not do anything against anothers rights according to that. As a matter of fact they exercized their own on walking out.

In my state we always have at least couple of Senators walk out during prayer, and even making a scene about it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47219,00.html

House guidelines were set up for visiting religious leaders after protests were filed over prayers some lawmakers felt were inappropriate

That is "preventing the free exercise thereof".


It is seperating Church and state, however.



Owen said he invited Meek because he was a military veteran and gave invocations at his American Legion post.

That is not making a law establishing religion.

It is not seperating Church and state.

Do you see where the two conflict?

Walking out on a prayer may be "rude" or "unprofessional", but it is not inappropriate to exercise you freedoms as long as you do not restrict the freedoms of others in the process.

[erislover]

JRR: huh?

[Cervaise]

As a resident of Washington State, I can confirm that McMahan, at least, is a well-known bozo, and that neither of them will be judged harshly for this act in their respective districts. It sucks, that that's politics.

[DreadCthulhu]

Well, this seemed a bit rude, but if one doesn't agree with the message, then walking out isn't that bad of a thing.

[foolsguinea]

Well, good for them. Islam isn't "just" a religion, it's a way of life, & a political movement. If the Muslim true believers had their way, the government would be Muslim, & no "freedom of religion" would apply. The Mohammedan religion offers little tolerance, & should get little tolerance in return. Really, they shouldn't have assented to those people praying in the legislature.

[Apos]

I'm not sure why prayers are part of public business of a legislature anyway, when the members who want prayers are perfectly capable of getting together to pray or listen to prayers on their own. This is precisely the sort of thing that shouldn't even come up as an issue.

[NoClueBoy]

Okay, I probably should've said "one of the ideas," instead of "the whole idea." At least, that's how it was presented to us in our small town (Houston, Tx) school. Wouldn't be the first time I found out my teachers were doofs, though, if they were totally off the mark on this.

Whatever the case, I find the mixing of religions and politics to be scary. Funny thing is, it happens all the time. It's not just an issue with Islam, look at what comes up in our politics concerning abortion vs women's rights. The God Card gets played quite loudly.

Whether it's Allah, Yahweh, or just "God," I would rather see the Church and State truly separate.

But, I have a dilema. Where does freedom of speech fit in here? If someone wants to talk about God in a political venue, I guess we can't stop him, right? But, maybe give someone else equal time? Jesus! I'm glad I'm not making the rules. I'm just complaining about them.

[Monty]

fools: Your comments show almost as stunning an ignorance of Islam as those two legislators did. Christianity isn't just a religion either. Nor is Judaism. Nor Buddhism. Nor any other faith for that matter. BTW, I can't even recall the last time I saw something written after my birth where someone actually used the term "Mohammedan."

Saen: Those two legislators weren't protesting prayer in the House of Representatives. They were protesting Islam. & they made that quite clear.

[Kalhoun]

There's lots of places where "freedom of speech" isn't OK...yelling fire in a crowded theater, for one. It's another example of the religious superiority complex that has gripped this nation. Take it back to your clubhouse, ladies and gentlemen. I don't give a rat's ass what diety you hope will guide the vote your way. It has no place in politics.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)

Counterproductive at best. It proves to militant Muslims that our "leaders" arent willing to see things past their myopic viewpoint.

Yeah, because we really could have swayed those militant Muslims if it weren't for those few leaders. :rolleyes:

Marc

[Saen]

Originally posted by Monty


Saen: Those two legislators weren't protesting prayer in the House of Representatives. They were protesting Islam. & they made that quite clear.

Neither where my cites.


"I don't think it's appropriate for someone to lecture us on Roe vs. Wade in a prayer," Hagedorn said.

Epps said she walked out because of remarks that were belittling to women.

That wasn't a prayer. I felt he used it for his own political views," said Takis

& they made it quite clear.

My point is that expressing your religious views by walking out is not inappropriate. Seems it is only appopriate to to criticize when it is not PC or against judeo-christian hegemony.

[McDuff]

Islam isn't "just" a religion, it's a way of life, & a political movement If the Muslim true believers had their way, the government would be Muslim, & no "freedom of religion" would apply. The Mohammedan religion offers little tolerance, & should get little tolerance in return. Really, they shouldn't have assented to those people praying in the legislature.
Just like those pesky Christians. Damned monolithic block of thought. If "true" Christian believers, like Jerry Falwell and his buddy the Pope, had their way, the government would all be Christian and there'd be NO freedom of religion, just like under the Inquisition. The Pauline Faith shows little tolerance to gays or women or jews, and should get little tolerance in return. We should make sure those people never practice freedom of religion in the legislature.

[BeatenMan]

If atheist legislators had walked out on a Christian prayer would that be hate speech? Would we be talking about it? Suppose they had walked out of prayer meeting in a Islamic country it would have meant jail or torture.
I don't think we should emulate prayer meetings like Islamic state run religions in other countries. It would make us look intolerant.

[NaSultainne]

Originally posted by Cervaise
As a resident of Washington State, I can confirm that McMahan, at least, is a well-known bozo, and that neither of them will be judged harshly for this act in their respective districts. It sucks, that that's politics.

Nice try, but you don't speak for all Washingtonians. I'm a native Washingtonian and longtime resident of the greater Puget Sound area; two years ago I moved away from the terrific community of Gig Harbor, the district Lois McMahan currently represents. She's certainly nothing like a "bozo".

As for her decision to leave the floor during prayer, so what? Being true to her faith does not require her to listen and give credibility by that action to a religion she likely considers in error.
She didn't raise a ruckus, she didn't shout down the imam, she didn't seek political action. What did she do that was so gosh-darn awful? She left.


To all the whiners, I say, "Wah".

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by NaSultainne
She didn't raise a ruckus, she didn't shout down the imam, she didn't seek political action. What did she do that was so gosh-darn awful? She left.

Did you read the article? Did you see what she said about it afterwards? Here, I'll help you:

McMahan said she did not oppose having a Muslim deliver the prayer but left because "the religion is the focal point of the hate-America sentiment in the world."

"It's an issue of patriotism," she said. "Even though the mainstream Islamic religion doesn't profess to hate America, nonetheless it spawns the groups that hate America."

There isn't a :rolleyes: big enough for this crap. "Bozo" is too nice a word. The woman is ignorant as well as intolerant, and she tried to equate anti-Muslim fever with patriotism. These kinds of patriots, we don't need.

This event highlights the need for a clear and consistent separation of Church and State. There should be no religion practiced in government sessions; Muslim, Christian, Latter-Day Saints, or otherwise. When government officials cannot be tolerant of all faiths, then they should be subject to none. And we, as a free-thinking people, should not be subject to this sort of arrogance and foolishness from our elected officials. They are there to govern, not pontificate.

At least Condotta had the brains to keep his mouth shut. McMahan put her ignorance regarding Islam on display for all to see this morning.

[Saen]

Originally posted by Avalonian


This event highlights the need for a clear and consistent separation of Church and State. There should be no religion practiced in government sessions; Muslim, Christian, Latter-Day Saints, or otherwise. When government officials cannot be tolerant of all faiths, then they should be subject to none.

Then amend the Constitution. Because, until you do, and you attempt to prohibit the free expression of religion of anyone, including your pontificating officials, it is unconstitutinal and abridging the freedoms of others based upon nothing but your humble friggin O.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't think there should be prayers of any kind in state settings but if we're going to do it then we need to show the same respect for all religions. This cow, McMahan would probably be the first one to cry and bleat about bigotry if some Muslims had walked out during a Christian prayer, much less called Christianity a religion of hate.

It is really, really stupid to call the act patriotic. Patriotism means you respect diversity. you don't walk out on prayers because you think they're "in error" Should Catholics walk out on prayers by protestants? This was a pretty generic prayer anyway. The guy asked God to "bless the satae of washington and guide the State House in making good decisions." Only the worst kind of sanctimonious ass would feel the need to make a deliberate show of contempt for a prayer like that.

...and foolsguinea, come on..."Mohammedism?" Do you still say "Chinaman" too?

[amarinth]

Originally posted by Cervaise
As a resident of Washington State, I can confirm that McMahan, at least, is a well-known bozo, and that neither of them will be judged harshly for this act in their respective districts. It sucks, that that's politics. In fact, quite the opposite, given their districts.

[Blalron]

Then amend the Constitution. Because, until you do, and you attempt to prohibit the free expression of religion of anyone, including your pontificating officials, it is unconstitutinal and abridging the freedoms of others based upon nothing but your humble friggin O.

State Business is not the time to hold prayers to an Invisible Man. Especially when praying to your verson of the Invisible Man upsets other people who pray to a different Invisible Man.

[NaSultainne]

Originally posted by Avalonian
There isn't a :rolleyes: big enough for this crap. "Bozo" is too nice a word. The woman is ignorant as well as intolerant, and she tried to equate anti-Muslim fever with patriotism. These kinds of patriots, we don't need.


Okay, now I'm laughing. You're all uptight because McMahan is, let me get this straight, intolerant in withholding her official, albeit tacit, recognition to a local leader in the very religion whose radical elements are daily demonstrating their lethal intolerance of our very existence? My gosh, my sides are killing me, you are so funny!

Get a grip. She didn't lose her freedom of thought walking into the House chambers that day. If she believes that Islam has a ton of dirty laundry that perhaps, just perhaps it should spend time cleaning up rather than preaching to the intended victims, well, cry me a river. I won't even buy that nonsense. For all your platitudes about tolerance, you don't seem very tolerant of people who choose to disagree with you and demonstrate it with their feet.

And Diogenese, I don't know where you buy your dictionary, but respecting diversity is not usually part of the equation. Patriotism is the expressed loyalty to a nation or cause. Our nation is fighting the very radical elements of Islam that Rep. McMahan seems to believe mainstream Islam bears some responsibility for generating. Perhaps that is an unfair criticism, but it's not completely off base. Is it really so intolerant to speak your mind (or feet) and criticize Islam for its failure to corral the radical elements?

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by NaSultainne
For all your platitudes about tolerance, you don't seem very tolerant of people who choose to disagree with you and demonstrate it with their feet.

You miss my point completely. I don't have a problem with her leaving, I have a problem with her statements after the fact. Walking out is her free right. Citing her reason as patriotism is simply willful ignorance and grandstanding.

What she did was patriotic? Now that's funny! What a moron.

And Saen, I'd be happy to amend the Constitution... unfortunately, there's too many who believe the myth of America's founding in Christian beliefs who won't let it happen.

[NaSultainne]

Originally posted by Cervaise
As a resident of Washington State, I can confirm that McMahan, at least, is a well-known bozo, and that neither of them will be judged harshly for this act in their respective districts. It sucks, that that's politics.

Originally posted by amarinth
In fact, quite the opposite, given their districts.


I wonder how you two feel about State Supreme Court Justice Bobbe Bridges and her weekend hit and run and DUI? I'll bet you're a heckuva lot more tolerant of that potentially deadly behavior than someone's political expression, aren't you?



:dubious:

[Raygun99]

In principle, I have no problem with a lawmaker walking out of a prayer that he or she felt uncomfortable with. It's certainly their right. I would expect them to be courteous and discreet, however, and be able to back it up with something better than "It's the patriotic thing to do", which is utter nonsense.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

NaSultainne said:
And Diogenese, I don't know where you buy your dictionary, but respecting diversity is not usually part of the equation. Patriotism is the expressed loyalty to a nation or cause.[quote] Is it really so intolerant to speak your mind (or feet) and criticize Islam for its failure to corral the radical elements?
The great American "cause" is precisely freedom of expression. It is distinctly unAmerican and unpatriotic to decide that only one kind of prayer has a place in a State House.
Our nation is fighting the very radical elements of Islam that Rep. McMahan seems to believe mainstream Islam bears some responsibility for generating. Perhaps that is an unfair criticism, but it's not completely off base.
GWB has said repeatedly that we are not at war with islam, and if Ms. McMahan believes the mainstream Islam is responsible for 9/11 then she is disturbingly ignorant both of islam and of who we are fighting. It's not only off base, it's off the playing field.
Is it really so intolerant to speak your mind (or feet) and criticize Islam for its failure to corral the radical elements?
Yes it's intolerant. It's intolerant because it's misinformed and Ms. McMahan seem sto have no interest in becoming informed. Her attitude is smug and insulting. Should politicians walk out of Christian prayers and call Christianity a religion of "hate" because of its failure to corral anti-abortion terrorism, gay bashing or any number of other things done in the name of Christ?

[ShoNuff]

NaSultainne,

According to McMahan's logic, it's perfectly justifiable to walk out on Christian prayers becuase of Timothy McVeigh or the Christian Identity movement. After all, while Christianity doesn't profess hatred, "nonetheless it spawns the groups that hate America."

It just shows that these politicians are completely ignorant about Islam, and the idea of the American "melting pot" is completely foreign to them.

If you actually read the Koran, you will see that it is full of passages calling Jews and Christians fellow "people of the book." Sure, there are passages about the superiority of Islam and forced conversion, but so do the Old and New Testament.

Also, don't you think that a legislator has a duty beyond being pompous and self-righteous? They are Representatives, and should be sensitive to the beliefs of other patriotic Americans. I'm a Jew, and it would be completely irresponsible for me to walk out on a Christian prayer.

Patriotism my eye.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Separation of Church and State isnt the issue here.

Having a prayer, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish or hindu just before a state assembly was not the problem as written in the article.

If those two cited those reasons, they wouldve been well within their rights as leaders to do so. They wouldve been in the right. Instead of being ignorant.

The issue is the reason they cite after they walk out. I can half forgive the guy because all he said was he "wasn't particularly interested" in the prayer. A personal opinion. Screwy but sort of respectable. He coulda just stood there and instead of making a show about walking out on the prayer but hey....

The real ignoramus here is Republicans Lois McMahan of Gig Harbor. Her given reason is:

"It's an issue of patriotism," she said. "Even though the mainstream Islamic religion doesn't profess to hate America, nonetheless it spawns the groups that hate America."



Hey, Even tho she respects men, they do nonetheless spawn groups that commit most of the crime in america. We should lock them all up.

[Cervaise]

Originally posted by NaSultainne
I wonder how you two feel about State Supreme Court Justice Bobbe Bridges and her weekend hit and run and DUI? I'll bet you're a heckuva lot more tolerant of that potentially deadly behavior than someone's political expression, aren't you?Actually, I think she should resign immediately.

But it's so nice of you to try to hang a straw man around my neck and call it an albatross.

:rolleyes:

[MEBuckner]

Originally posted by NoClueBoy
But, I have a dilema. Where does freedom of speech fit in here? If someone wants to talk about God in a political venue, I guess we can't stop him, right? But, maybe give someone else equal time? Jesus! I'm glad I'm not making the rules. I'm just complaining about them.
There are (to me) black and white areas, and there's a gray area. The free exercise of religion of every citizen is guaranteed; that includes citizens who happen to be serving in the legislature (or the White House). Free exercise of religion includes the freedom to exercise that religion "in public"; Christians can congregate in "public places" (churches) and "publicly" express their views (even seek to peacefully persuade others to convert), where "public (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=www.findlaw.com&topic=e2/e21d8f5d32899563e83a02aca4b58b0b)" is used in the sense of "exposed to public view". There's nothing about the separation of church and state in this country which forces Christians to worship in secret down in the catacombs. Conversely, I would say government entitites, as such, have no business sponsoring prayers or making religious proclamations of any sort. (I also generally don't buy this "ceremonial deism" stuff.) The Washington State Legislature has no more business to be proclaiming beliefs about God than it would have to get married or adopt a child. The gray area comes in political speeches, and collective actions of legislators or government officials when they are not actually meeting as the government body itself. As to the first, there is a difference between a politican running for office making a reference to his or her religious beliefs (perhaps as a statement of how those beliefs affect his or her views on policy), and making a religious proclamation when speaking as senator, governor, president, etc. (This is not to say I personally approve of or agree with every religious utterance in a campaign speech, but disagreeing with a candidates point of view is generally best expressed at the ballot box and not in the courtroom.) As to the second, if a group of legislators wish get together to exercise their individual right to religious exercise--all meeting together at a weekly prayer breakfast, say, at a private place (where "private (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=www.findlaw.com&topic=2c/2c24e5a9c46f02fbaf8fadfb2598d5d8)" in this sense means "not related to, controlled by, or deriving from the state")--this is different from the legislature itself officially proclaming a prayer. That doesn't mean that some legislature or town council can just "adjourn" and then immediately take over the state capitol or city hall and hold a "private" religious revival--state capitols and city halls and courthouses belong to all the citizens equally, and no group of citizens should have any right to usurp those public places on behalf of any sectarian point of view (not even broadly drawn sectarian views--"Judeo-Christian" as opposed to "Reformed Presbyterian").
Originally posted by Saen
Then amend the Constitution. Because, until you do, and you attempt to prohibit the free expression of religion of anyone, including your pontificating officials, it is unconstitutinal and abridging the freedoms of others based upon nothing but your humble friggin O.
See above.

[NaSultainne]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
The great American "cause" is precisely freedom of expression. It is distinctly unAmerican and unpatriotic to decide that only one kind of prayer has a place in a State House.


Per the article, Ms. McMahan indicated that she did not in fact have a problem with a Muslim prayer. I think you and I fundamentally disagree on this issue. I think it would be fundamentally UnAmerican and unpatriotic to enforce one mentality on the body politic.

GWB has said repeatedly that we are not at war with islam, and if Ms. McMahan believes the mainstream Islam is responsible for 9/11 then she is disturbingly ignorant both of islam and of who we are fighting. It's not only off base, it's off the playing field.

Diogenes, let's be accurate about this, okay? We agree that we are NOT at war with Islam per se, but we ARE at war with the radical extremist Islamist element, which is the fringe of the Islamic faith. One can hardly declare the fringe to be of entirely separate cloth from the whole. You can call it a fringe, a distortion, or any other defining term of your choice, but at least admit that somehow Islam has been perverted by a sizeable number of people in a sizeable number of groups around the entire world aimed at destruction of our culture, and that of our friends and allies. Don't forget that written missive from ObL in which one of the conditions he related for the end of hostilities against the US was the conversion to Islam by Pres. Bush and the country. This must give you pause.

Yes it's intolerant. It's intolerant because it's misinformed and Ms. McMahan seem sto have no interest in becoming informed. Her attitude is smug and insulting.

Smug and insulting? You say tomato and I say tomahto. As to intolerant? How 'bout I call it perceptive. If I tell you that I don't think mainstream Islam has to date stepped up to the plate and taken on with all its authority those fringe elements corrupting the integrity of the faith, am I being intolerant? I sure hope that's not your point. If I can't have a disagreement with the nature of Islam as I see it presented, then your accusation of intolerance has become censorship.


Should politicians walk out of Christian prayers and call Christianity a religion of "hate" because of its failure to corral anti-abortion terrorism, gay bashing or any number of other things done in the name of Christ?

I'm glad you asked that, because undoubtedly that would be the common comparison to this situation. I do, however, have to ask you how many groups advocate anti-abortion terrorism (and you'd better mean violence here, or we're gonna go rounds on this, too) or gay bashing as part of their claim to Christian faith? And while you're tallying those numbers up, add up all the Islamist groups around the world killing themselves and others, and be sure to add in the State Dept. list of terror organizations that are Islamist in nature. I think the comparison of the two lists would be most instructive.

[NaSultainne]

Originally posted by Cervaise
Actually, I think she should resign immediately.

But it's so nice of you to try to hang a straw man around my neck and call it an albatross.

:rolleyes:


Nope, no strawman. Just want to see if your high-falutin' standards apply to political statements alone, or if actual felony criminal behavior merits the same degree of righteous outrage.
:(

[Apos]

Here's my take on separation and freedom of expression: it's only when prayer-time becomes an official part of state business, on the public time and on the public dole, that it's a problem. It's not a matter of expression, it's a matter of what authority we the public grant them to do. Religious activity is the sole right and provence of citizens, not the government. We don't pay them to pray for us or themselves or for anyone: if we please, we can pray fine on our own, and if they want to pray they can pray fine on their own. We pay them to represent our political interests, not our spiritual interests. They have no more authority to represent anyone's spiritual interests than a taxi driver does, and only scary illusions of granduer and unlimited authority make them think differently. There should never even be a question of whose prayers or religion gets the floor, because it doesn't belong on the floor: it's not open to debate, it's not an order of government bussiness.

That's my take.

But I'm in agreement with slayer anyway: if there is a specific issue here, it's with the expressed attitude about Islam, not with legislative prayers in general (which is its own separate issue).

[elucidator]

Blaming Islam for OBL and his ilk makes about as much sense as blaming the Amish for David Koresh.

And disdaining a Muslim prayer for reasons of "patriotism"....

Shit like this makes the Baby Jesus puke his little guts out.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

NaSultainne said:
Diogenes, let's be accurate about this, okay? We agree that we are NOT at war with Islam per se, but we ARE at war with the radical extremist Islamist element, which is the fringe of the Islamic faith. One can hardly declare the fringe to be of entirely separate cloth from the whole. You can call it a fringe, a distortion, or any other defining term of your choice, but at least admit that somehow Islam has been perverted by a sizeable number of people in a sizeable number of groups around the entire world aimed at destruction of our culture, and that of our friends and allies. Don't forget that written missive from ObL in which one of the conditions he related for the end of hostilities against the US was the conversion to Islam by Pres. Bush and the country. This must give you pause.
The fact that Islam has been perverted is not the fault of Islam and is certainly not the fault of the cleric who was giving that particular prayer on that particular day. As for ObL's remarks vis-vis conversion, well that's silly but not especially scary. IIRC our own Anne Coulter wrote a column declaring that we should forcibly convert all Muslim countries to Christianity. Do we then assume that all Christians agree with that remark? Would it be apprpriate to disrespect a Christian clergyman at a State House because of Coulter's personal stupidity?
Smug and insulting? You say tomato and I say tomahto. As to intolerant? How 'bout I call it perceptive. If I tell you that I don't think mainstream Islam has to date stepped up to the plate and taken on with all its authority those fringe elements corrupting the integrity of the faith, am I being intolerant? I sure hope that's not your point. If I can't have a disagreement with the nature of Islam as I see it presented, then your accusation of intolerance has become censorship.
Mainstream Islam has done nothing but step up to the plate and condemn terrorism both before and after 9/11. These kind of Muslims just don't get as much TV time as the ObL's of the world.
Who am I censoring, btw? I haven't said that McMahan or anybody else doesn't have the right to behave like a bigoted jackass, I'm just going to call them on it when they do.
I do, however, have to ask you how many groups advocate anti-abortion terrorism (and you'd better mean violence here, or we're gonna go rounds on this, too) or gay bashing as part of their claim to Christian faith? And while you're tallying those numbers up, add up all the Islamist groups around the world killing themselves and others, and be sure to add in the State Dept. list of terror organizations that are Islamist in nature. I think the comparison of the two lists would be most instructive.
Well, why don't we throw in the IRA, and let's not forget the attrocities committed by Christians against Muslims in Bosnia. Let's also not just forget such historical Christian achievments as the crusades, the inquisition, a thousand year tradition of pogroms in Eastern Europe and, of course, the ultimate pogram under Hitler. (I'm not going to argue whether Hitler was a Christian. Hitler did not create anti-semitism in Germany. Anti-Semitism had already been preached from Christian pulpits for centuries. Hitler just exploited what was already there. He couldn't have done it without Christianity)

Let's count up everybody that's ever been killed in the name of Christianity and everybody that's ever been killed in the name of Islam. Christianity wins by a mile.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I should clarify that my pint with the above post is that it is absurd to hold a biilion people responsible for the actions of a few hundred. The percentage of Muslims who are actually violent terroists is miniscule.

[NaSultainne]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
I should clarify that my pint with the above post is that it is absurd to hold a biilion people responsible for the actions of a few hundred. The percentage of Muslims who are actually violent terroists is miniscule.


Gads, I hate arguing with people who won't concede the simplest point. So, I'll make it again, lest you be left with the impression that I advocate holding the 1 billion+ Muslims around the world hostage to the extremists in their ranks. I don't. Okay? I do, however, plan to hold their proverbial feet to the fire as the party (or group or organization or faith) most appropriate in responding to this fringe element. If you (I'm presuming you're not Muslim) or I walk to the ends of the earth declaring Islamists to be distorting the true nature of Islam, it will carry exactly zero weight in that community. Muslim leaders in particular must carry that message to those in the community vulnerable to the extremists and their hatred. And I'm sure you are satisfied with their efforts, but I am not. When I hear that the "fatwa" issued against Salman Rushdie over a decade ago has been lifted, I will consider that a significant sign. While you may be correct that the Islamic community is working actively to clean out these radicals and it's just not getting the press, may I simply say that I don't see it.

Oh, and your list of religious extremists going back hundreds of years...Let's work on the problem we have now and be honest enough to admit that the problem today is not in large part due to Christian fringe groups around the world. And I have to say, I truly resent your inclusion of Hitler, a non Christian. He was a devout believer in eugenics, hardly a Christian proposition.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The fatwa against Rushdie was lifted in 1998.

The vast majority of all Muslims and al Muslim clerics do, and always have condemned terrorism. It was boorish and gratuitous for McMahan to disrespect a Muslim cleric offerin a benign public prayer.

As I said before, Hitler exploited attitudes that had already been engendered by Christianity. Christians had ben killing Jews in Eastern Europe for centuries before Hitler.

[elucidator]

There is no such thing as the "Moslem community". Islam is a religion, not an identity. The fundamentalist fanaticism of OBL (May all ten thousand diseases of the camel fester in his groin!) is a galaxy apart from the subtle and Zen-like mysticism of the Sufi, just as Pope John XXIII and Jerry Falwell have nothing whatever in common.

[Cervaise]

Originally posted by NaSultainne
Nope, no strawman.It was exactly a strawman. To wit, you totally fabricated a position out of your own imagination and then pretended I held that position so you could attack me about it. It couldn't have been more textbook.Just want to see if your high-falutin' standards apply to political statements alone, or if actual felony criminal behavior merits the same degree of righteous outrage.I take a rather dim view of your continued clumsy attempts to cast aspersions at me by ham-handedly employing such loaded and inflammatory language. If this is the way you believe a debate is conducted, I see no purpose in further efforts to combat your ignorance. Especially since everybody else is already doing so well at handing you your ass.

[Monty]

"Amend the Constituion," huh? To do what? Mandate separation of Church & State. You must've missed the memo.

[Monty]

:smack:

Make that "Amend the Constitution."

[feath]

Did the Imam think it through? <i>Should</i> he had made a prayer at that time? Perhaps...perhaps not.
The woman - a rep. of these grand united states - walked out when he made an Islamic prayer. Why? <i> Hate.</i>
She did nothing other than repete what her superiors are saying. Muslims are the hate flavor of the month ... she walked out, she stated very clearly, because <i>it is patriotic to hate Muslims.</i>
Can't get any clearer than that.

[DoctorJ]

Freedom of speech does not include guarantee of venue.

I would not, in most circumstances, be allowed to stand before my state legislature and talk about how great my mother is. This is neither a denial of my free spech nor a denouncement of my mother by the state. I mean, I could talk for a long time about my mom, and I think we'd all be better off if we lived by the principles espoused by my mom, but I have to accept that other people have their own mothers who they feel are equally great, if not moreso. Besides, a legislative session is not a time to be singing the praises of my mother; it's a time to discuss and make laws.

(This analogy has a long history of going nowhere at the Pizza Parlor, but I remain fond of it.)

Dr. J

[amarinth]

Originally posted by NaSultainne
I wonder how you two feel about State Supreme Court Justice Bobbe Bridges and her weekend hit and run and DUI? I'll bet you're a heckuva lot more tolerant of that potentially deadly behavior than someone's political expression, aren't you? Pity I can't take that bet - I could use the money.

But, what Bridges did is completely irrelevant to this conversation.

[Kalhoun]

Dr. J, I love your analogy. I'm baffled as to why people of nearly every religion feel they must spout about it during political business. Our representatives are being paid to govern -- not pray. And it would be nice if they'd choose to represent the non-religious in their constituencies once in a while. Seeing as its the law and all.

Anyway, McMahan was a jerk, but no jerkier than anyone who feels they must prostelyze at work. I'm disgusted with the whole lot of 'em.:mad:

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by DoctorJ
Freedom of speech does not include guarantee of venue.

I would not, in most circumstances, be allowed to stand before my state legislature and talk about how great my mother is. This is neither a denial of my free spech nor a denouncement of my mother by the state. I mean, I could talk for a long time about my mom, and I think we'd all be better off if we lived by the principles espoused by my mom, but I have to accept that other people have their own mothers who they feel are equally great, if not moreso. Besides, a legislative session is not a time to be singing the praises of my mother; it's a time to discuss and make laws.

While I agree completely with what you're saying in principle, DoctorJ, and especially with the last sentence there, your analogy doesn't exactly apply to this particular situation. The imam didn't just arrive there unannounced and start praying, he was invited to come and open up the session with a Muslim prayer. In fact, he has been invited to do so again this Friday.

In this context, walking out could be considered rude but acceptable. However, mouthing off after the fact and saying that you don't like that other person's mother because of patriotism is simply idiocy. I agree with what Kalhoun says here...

Anyway, McMahan was a jerk, but no jerkier than anyone who feels they must prostelyze at work. I'm disgusted with the whole lot of 'em.

...but with the important difference that McMahan is an elected representative, with a wider audience than your average workplace idiot. She should know better than to flap her gums about Islam when she is plainly ignorant on the subject.

[Kalhoun]

Avalonian, you're right...she is worse because of her position. But listen to Dubya (or any recent President, really) always blessing this and blessing that and god blessing America at every. single. photo-op. It's no wonder the religious right thinks god is part of the democratic process!

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Mainstream Islam has done nothing but step up to the plate and condemn terrorism both before and after 9/11.

Cite, please. Certainly in the aftermath of 9/11, Muslim leaders gave us an awful lot of (unfounded, as we see now) complaints about how non-Muslim Americans were going to commit a huge wave of Hate Crimes against Muslims, not "nothing but" condemnation of terrorism. In fact, all of the various speeches and statements that I looked at read an awful lot like "you Evil White Men are going to hurt us good Muslims, oh yeah and that plane-crashing this was bad" than nothing but condemnation of terrorism.

Condemning terrorism seems to be an obligatory bit tossed into the side of speeches about how evil non-Muslim Amercians are and how we're just chomping at the bit to commit Hate Crimes, not somthing that would be characterised as "nothing but".

[Avalonian]

Well, for what it's worth, I just saw on our local news channel (no cite, sorry) that McMahan apologized for her comments this morning, publicly, at the beginning of this morning's legislative meeting. What I saw of the apology itself seemed genuine. She stated that she "did not intend to slight anyone" in her comments on Monday, but now realized that her comments could be "hurtful," and specified the Imam in particular as well as all Muslims. She seemed quite sincere about it.

The Imam had offered McMahan to make a visit to his mosque, and today she replied that if that invitation is still open, she would accept and apologize to him personally.

Well... she realized that she misspoke and she apoligized for it, and the effect it may have had. In today's hyper-politicized world, in which every statement becomes a political platform, it's nice to see someone own up for their individual responsibilities now and again. I think McMahan was wrong to make those comments in the first place, but I admire her standing up today and admitting she was wrong.

Good show.

[Cervaise]

Republican leaders distance themselves from McMahan (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134646239_prayer05.html)

"I feel it is unfortunate, and I think it paints us with a broad stroke. But I hope people realize that each member is an individual, and we let them have all the rope they want, and what they do with it is their choice." — House Deputy Minority Leader Richard DeBolt, R-Chehalis

[Kalhoun]

McMahan said she did not oppose having a Muslim deliver the prayer but left because "the religion is the focal point of the hate-America sentiment in the world."

"It's an issue of patriotism," she said. "Even though the mainstream Islamic religion doesn't profess to hate America, nonetheless it spawns the groups that hate America."

Avalonian said, "What I saw of the apology itself seemed genuine. She stated that she "did not intend to slight anyone" in her comments on Monday, but now realized that her comments could be "hurtful," and specified the Imam in particular as well as all Muslims. She seemed quite sincere about it."

While I agree that its a good thing that she owned up to being a dope (as opposed to a "doper"), I don't believe she feels one bit bad about what she said. She may REGRET it and what it has possibly done to her career, but I'll bet she meant every word of it.

[foolsguinea]

Originally posted by elucidator
Blaming Islam for OBL and his ilk makes about as much sense as blaming the Amish for David Koresh.He was a Seventh-Day Adventist, not Amish.

And disdaining a Muslim prayer for reasons of "patriotism"....

Shit like this makes the Baby Jesus puke his little guts out.Jesus hasn't been a baby in a looong time.

In general, I don't blame a Christian, or a Jew, or a pagan, or an atheist, or anyone else whose life would be in danger if he expressed his religion in a "Muslim" country for walking out on a "Muslim" prayer. It seems to me exactly the right approach. By not waylaying the follower of Mohammed after the service & beating him to a bloody pulp, we shame the Muslims by our tolerance. I don't think you understand what their "submission to the will of Allah" actually entails.

Imagine a Christian clergyman giving a prayer in the Japanese Diet. Would you be mortally offended if a few strongly Shinto members walked out?

Why, when "Islam" is at war with us, should we be surprised that those of us who think Mohammed was a liar refuse to sit still for his deceived followers?

I occasionally say "Mohammedan" instead of Islam, because I believe in God, & it sticks in my craw to call that religion (a religion that kills women for flirting; a religion that would call "tolerance" the policy that it is permissible, but not required, to leave people alive unless they pray to idols; a religion with dogmatic devotion to the savage customs of ancient Bedouins) by a name that is supposed to mean "submission [to the will of the true God]". If this "Muslim" clergyman is not of that stripe, if he's actually a Sufi or something, then perhaps I'm being unfair. But if you get up and call yourself a loyal follower of woman-haters & genocidists, expect me to dislike you.

[tomndebb]

or anyone else whose life would be in danger if he expressed his religion in a "Muslim" country for walking out on a "Muslim" prayer. Given that of the several dozen "Muslim" countries, there are few (if any) where a non-Muslim's life would be in danger for expressing their religion, you are beginning from a point of rather vitriolic ignorance. when "Islam" is at war with us,Another statement that has no basis in fact.

Y'know, we're supposed to be fighting ignorance here, not promoting it.

[Blalron]

He was a Seventh-Day Adventist, not Amish.

David Koresh was a Branch Davidian, more accurately, he was the leader of a Branch Davidian splinter group.

[Boo Boo Foo]

foolsguinea? You're freakin' me out man. If was to put your post (in the abscence of tomndebb's wonderful riposte) up on any postboard in the Middle East or the Subcontinent right now... I shudder to think how the general perception of your country's esteem would plummet.

Everything, absolutely everything your country stands for in principle, was just trashed in one fell swoop by that post of yours. Your post was filled with hate...

By not waylaying the follower of Mohammed after the service & beating him to a bloody pulp, we shame the Muslims by our tolerance.In my time here on the Straight Dope Message Board, I think that's probably the scariest, most reckless thing I've ever read... let alone immeasurably unwise...

As I said, you're freakin me out man... it scares the shit out of me that they're might be more Americans like you lurking around the traps. If so, you're all doomed to a life of despair I predict.

It matters not whether you believe you're right - what counts is the huge fucking bullseye you're putting on yourself, and your fellow American citizens. Talk about dooming your fellow Americans to a dreadful stereotype.

Thank goodness I know for a fact that this wonderful messageboard reflects that your opinions are the opinions of a lunatic fringe element.

[Milum]

It's all a matter of the new math.

The Christian Bible = The Qu'an = The Tora = The Book of Mormans = The horoscope in the morning paper.

Ain't diversity wonderful? And stupid. And dangerous. And an affront to all free-thinkers of this earth who seek objective truth.

You'all who haven't, must really read the better translations of the Koran.
( although you'll find that in it is written that Christians and Jews aren't permitted to read the Holy Writings that are found within.)

And rightly so, to the unbeliever, the semantics found within the Koran reveal an religion of dogmatic, unpolitically correct dictates that are warlike and sorely lacking in the tempering effects of "forgiving love" that permeates the inspired teachings of Jesus Christ.

(Sorry, one has to be true to his attempts to understand reality.)

(And sorry, that I found it necessary to write that last sentence.)

[blowero]

Originally posted by foolsguinea
Well, good for them. Islam isn't "just" a religion, it's a way of life, & a political movement. If the Muslim true believers had their way, the government would be Muslim, & no "freedom of religion" would apply. The Mohammedan religion offers little tolerance, & should get little tolerance in return. Really, they shouldn't have assented to those people praying in the legislature.
Ugh!:rolleyes:

[blowero]

Originally posted by foolsguinea
Why, when "Islam" is at war with us, should we be surprised that those of us who think Mohammed was a liar refuse to sit still for his deceived followers?

I occasionally say "Mohammedan" instead of Islam, because I believe in God, & it sticks in my craw to call that religion (a religion that kills women for flirting; a religion that would call "tolerance" the policy that it is permissible, but not required, to leave people alive unless they pray to idols; a religion with dogmatic devotion to the savage customs of ancient Bedouins) by a name that is supposed to mean "submission [to the will of the true God]". If this "Muslim" clergyman is not of that stripe, if he's actually a Sufi or something, then perhaps I'm being unfair. But if you get up and call yourself a loyal follower of woman-haters & genocidists, expect me to dislike you.
Oh, great, there's more. Foolsguinea, your intolerance and hatred is truly astonishing. This is too over-the-top to even warrant a serious response. Attitudes like yours are what's wrong with the world right now.

[elucidator]

Anyone need any further proof as to whether or not ignorance is worth fighting?

[rjung]

Another scary thought: of the Americans who support the current war in Iraq, how many of them think as foolsguinea does?

(Yes, I know Iraq != al Qaeda, but you can bet they don't...)

[RTFirefly]

“It has come to my attention that comments that I made Monday afternoon have cause misunderstanding and offenses,” [McMahan] said.

“I want to make it clear that it was not my intention to offend anyone by my actions or words.

“Specifically, I want to state that it was not my intention to slight or show any ill will toward Imam Mohamad Joban or any other American member of the Islamic faith.” This is the current popular form of insincere apology: one apologizes, not for what one has actually said, but for its effect on certain listeners.

Nowhere in here does McMahan say she was wrong to have said what she said. All she says is that she's sorry anyone felt offended or slighted by her words.

If there's a more complete text to her apology in which she apologizes for the content of her remarks, rather than their effect, I'll retract my claim that this is an example of the non-apology apology. But I'm not holding my breath.

[RTFirefly]

FWIW, I think McMahan was making a statement about the First Amendment just by the act of walking out.

I'm making one key assumption here: that McMahan would be against any efforts to end the official practice of beginning meetings of the legislature with prayer. I think I'm on safe ground there.

Given that assumption, her choice to walk out of an Islamic prayer is, in effect, a statement saying certain religions belong in such a context, and other religions don't.

IOW, she's in favor of establishment of religion.

[Simbelmyne]

I'd have walked out too. It is still legal to express your opinion. The US is at war with Islam, despite what the spin doctors are trying to sell, and no amount of pc rhetoric is going to change that fact in the minds of the Americans who know it.

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by Simbelmyne
I'd have walked out too. It is still legal to express your opinion. It certainly is. The message of walking out isn't merely "I disagree with what you say," but rather "I can't condone your saying/doing that here." And that does seem to be your message.

Now, this is a sweeping assertion:
The US is at war with Islamand I'm sure I'm not the only one who's wondering if you can back it up in the least.
no amount of pc rhetoric is going to change that fact in the minds of the Americans who know it. It's hard for me to buy into the notion of Dubya as a purveyor of PC rhetoric, but whatever.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by rjung
Another scary thought: of the Americans who support the current war in Iraq, how many of them think as foolsguinea does?

(Yes, I know Iraq != al Qaeda, but you can bet they don't...)

Far too many of them, rjung, based on people I've heard yammering on the radio or discussing things on the bus. I've lost counts of the times that I've heard about "those Mooslims," who'd be happy to "slit my children's throats just because they could," or some similar form of twaddle.

The problem is that people like Simbelmyne and foolsguinea are being willfully ignorant, because they simply choose not to learn more (the same could likely be said about Ms. McMahan). Some months ago, I was frustrated enough at the element of willful ignorance that I even started a thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=156632) about it. Though it was refreshing to hear that I wasn't the only one who noticed the problem, it hasn't alleviated my frustration with it... if anything, the willfully ignorant have only shown themselves to be more stubborn and self-righteous than ever, since in the intervening time the war has begun. They believe this proves all of their beliefs "right."

[NurseCarmen]

Well, McMahon realized that she is an idiot and promptly engaged in some backpeddling.

Where's NaSultainne?

[Simbelmyne]

what vapid arrogance they display by proclaiming opposing viewpoints to be "willful ignorance." Somebody's been watching too many Merchant Ivory films.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by Simbelmyne
what vapid arrogance they display by proclaiming opposing viewpoints to be "willful ignorance." Somebody's been watching too many Merchant Ivory films.

Not any opposing viewpoints, Simbelmyne, just viewpoints that substitute poor rhetoric for thought and are patently devoid of any factual information. I can respect an opposing viewpoint if it's reasonably constructed.

However, stating that "the US is at war with Islam" is pretty poor reasoning, and I'd challenge you to back it up with some facts if you can.

And I haven't seen a Merchant Ivory movie in years, though I confess to enjoying The Remains of the Day quite a bit... are they even still making moves?

[kaylasdad99]

Originally posted by NurseCarmen
Well, McMahon realized that she is an idiot and promptly engaged in some backpeddling.

Where's NaSultainne? Cut her some slack, man. Her last post here was damn near a month ago.

And no, I don't have a clue why foolsguinea felt compelled to start things rolling again yesterday. A quick look at his posting history doesn't indicate that he was away from the board for four weeks, or anything.

[ShoNuff]

The US is at war with Islam, despite what the spin doctors are trying to sell, and no amount of pc rhetoric is going to change that fact in the minds of the Americans who know it.

I would love to see someone who actually believes this to give some evidence to back up their assertions. And I mean using facts, not rhetoric and childish namecalling.

[Matsky1981]

Originally posted by Simbelmyne
The US is at war with Islam, despite what the spin doctors are trying to sell....

Must raise ol' Barbarossa and Saint Louis (VII or IX-I forget which one was the saint) from the ground and defeat ol' Saladin (Hussein) and Osama bin Laden

And I thought the US was fighting a country in a Muslim country, not the 5 'Stans nor Albania or Bosnia or Azerbaijan or Malaysia or Indonesia or...

/idiot

[Peter Doubt]

Originally posted by elucidator
Blaming Islam for OBL and his ilk makes about as much sense as blaming the Amish for David Koresh.

Originally posted by foolsguinea
He was a Seventh-Day Adventist, not Amish.

Wasn't the contrast between a relatively peaceful sect of Christianity like the Amish and Koresh's Branch Davidians the point of the original comment?

[diffdam]

When I see a person with a BOOK which he says I must just have faith in without being rational, I reach for my gun.There are dozens of such books, all disagreeing with each other.
Religion is being used as a figleaf for power wars. Bush is no more a Christian than Saddam is a Moslem.Bush was into booze & coke until he was told to shape up for top office then BANG! he suddenly sees the light. Does anybody believe in Saddam's piety?
These politicians who walked out on a prayer did it for votes, stupid. The clue is in their job title : politician, a lying scumbag who will say whatever you want to get your vote, then crap all over you.
Strange, when you kick a dog it remembers it.With people you can bull them into thinking you did them a favour(hey, I was dislodging your fleas!)
Use your brain, these are politicians!!

[Monty]

diffdam:

Please do two things regarding your posting just above:

[list] Look at the forum title & description. It says Great Debates; it does not say Muckraking Myths.
Provide some reputable evidence (aka, the opposite of myth) for each of the at least eleven things you've asserted there.[/quote]

[Monty]

And if a mod/admin who wanders by would be so kind as to do one thing for my posting above: change the close tag to a close list tag. Thanks!