Cut and pasted a few relevant paragraphs where?
Look, dude, many of us don’t go clicking on any old random link some joker thinks to put up here. The effort to cut and paste a few paragraphs is something we appreciate.
I agree with you in principle, but I’m worried that the intended result (restricting official prayer to the Judeo-Christian flavor) will be achieved.
In this case, though, you should find that the thread title summarizes everything pretty well. There was a Hindu prayer in the Senate for the first time, which was disrupted by bigots from the American Family Association. That’s pretty much it.
The first five paragraphs in the above story link don’t really add much more relevant information than that, except that the clergyman’s name was Zed, and that he was dressed in a bright orange and burgundy robe. Really, what more do you need?
One problem-
The AFA & other Religious Right groups objected to this- check
Three people disrupted the prayer- check
However, I fail to see any evidence the three disrupters were part of the AFA.
Here’s an analogy- Cindy Sheehan wants Bush out of office. Someone shoots at Bush.
Does that mean she got that person to shoot at him?
The moment someone cites a source that shows the three people were acting on behalf of the AFA, I’ll retract this. Till then, the OP title should be amended to “Religious Right bigots” or something similar.
Does anyone know if the “regular” press picked up on this? I’ve never even heard of the site that ran the story.
Yep. Went to Google News and searched on “senate prayer disrupted.” The first link was to a story from the Times of India; there were 188 stories associated with that link, from all manner of sources, including Reuters and AP. Here’s the Reuters piece posted on the ABC News site.
GT
Thanks! You da man! (woman?) Whoa, man!
Talking Points Memo provides a piece describing an interview with the leader of the group from which these yahoos were spawned - Operation Save America.
These quotes are awesome:
The Pavkovics are the family that caused the disturbance - a couple and their daughter.
I think that this incident exposes a raft of bullshit about “ceremonial deism” and about Christianity. If reasonable Christians, whoever they may be, don’t want to have Christianity associated with attempts to shout down Hindus, and with the thinking of those like the complete fucking cunt in this article, I hope they become more vocal and less supportive of the next political movement that voices support for ramming Christian beliefs down the throat of America.
Right on. This fucking prayer bullshit has no place in our government’s process. I’m offended by the AFA and the Pavkovics, but not nearly as offended as I am by the people (and SCOTUS) for allowing one goddamn second of prayer in governmental business. Anyone who thinks this is “harmless ceremonial deism” needs to wake up.
Exactly. I complain about unexplained links, but this link is obviously explained.
I’m with those who hope this puts another chink in the armor of ceremonial deism–a concept that should insult atheist and theist alike.
Interesting thing about your cite- Rev. Flip Benham’s Operation Save America did indeed spawn these yahoos and he stood by them.
Who denounced the action? Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association.
Now, I’m no fan of Don Wildmon & the AFA. I almost religiously disregard any calls
he makes for boycotts & protests, and I think they are totally off the wall for even objecting to the Hindu cleric praying. BUT it’s now evident- AFA bigots did NOT disrupt first-ever Hindu prayer in Senate; OSA bigots did.
Oh yeah, and I’m all for Ceremonial Deism (tho I think it should more accurately be called “Ceremonial Theism”, as the common view of Deism is that of acknowledging a remote uninvolved God, which even the most heterodox of the Founders- Franklin, Jefferson & Paine, did not regard God as being.
FriarTed appears to be correct. The AFA might oppose the Hindu prayer, and that might make them bigots (or not, as you see fit), but they weren’t the ones behind this action, and their head has explicitly opposed it.
And, in a case of blatant irony, (unintended, I am sure), the sidebar directly to the right of the author’s opening remarks links to an article headlined ‘Why do you Persecute Me?’ - The Worldwide Struggle for Religious Freedom
Hypocritical and ironic.
Being “for” it, and being “for it in matters of government” are two different things. Do you think they should be wasting our time on something that isn’t representative of everyone’s feelings about the subject? Do you see how offensive that is to people who don’t buy it? I really don’t care what their views are on the subject. That’s for them to ponder during their free time. You can’t acknowledge something you don’t know is there, and you certainly can’t acknowledge it on behalf of everyone.
So the instigator of all this was a guy named “Flip?!” These people actually took it upon themselves to disrupt the U.S. Senate on the word of a man who calls himself “Flip?” Because ultimately, when the dust settles, all they’ve really done is call attention to the fact that the leader of their spiritual organization is named “Reverend Flip.” No religious insight of any importance has ever originated from a guy named “Flip,” and this is unlikely to change in the future.
Let’s face it, Jesus chose guys with square-britches names like “John” and “Matthew” to be his disciples. No doubt there were plenty of other deeply spiritual men around with names like “Herpetagoras,” “Bryce,” and “Shlomo the Waxy,” but Jesus wanted his message to be taken seriously. Personally I think he was pushing his luck with Saint Tad. But then I guess no one makes fun of the guy toting a cudgel.
Meanwhile, Reverend Flip’s latest attempt to foil the plans of Director Zed met with humiliating failure. Is this the end for Reverend Flip? Find out next week in Flip vs. Zed: Raiders of the Holy Neon Orange and Burgundy Robe of Doom!
What?! What about the Church of What’s Happening Now?!
I stand corrected. 
Ironic, certainly — but in their worldview, “Religion” = Christianity (As They and They Alone Practice It); so persecution of anything other that C(ATaTAPI) is not persecution of religion, while anything which puts the slightest restraint on C(ATaTAPI) is.
They are most certainly asshats, but at least they’re (internally) consistent asshats.
Agreed.
Ceremonial deism, my aching ass. If you’re praying to Big Juju in The Sky, regardless of what name you use, that’s religion. And religion has no place in our government.