Neither where my cites.
& 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.
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.
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.
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”.
Did you read the article? Did you see what she said about it afterwards? Here, I’ll help you:
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.
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.
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?
In fact, quite the opposite, given their districts.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
[quote]
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
[sarcasm]
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.
[/sarcasm]
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:
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” 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” 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”).
See above.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
