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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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:
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…
…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.
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!
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”.
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.
“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
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.