2 lawmakers spurn Muslim's prayer - Republicans step off House floor

Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | March 4, 2003 | ANGELA GALLOWAY

[Michael2001]

It doesn't embarrass me. I would walk out on this guy as I would walk out on a Christian Identity pastor.

[ppaul]

Holy cow!!!!
I leave this morning with just a few replies on this thread, and come back tonite to find 461!!!
Wow!
Think we can hit 1000?

[Hamza01]

Why not? Same Allah, God, or Yahweh who commanded the Jews to "exterminate" the Canaanites. Look it up in the Old Testament.

[Terridan]

Not unless those were "Eloi" driven pilots flying into the World Trade Center...

[RecentConvert]

But when a Muslim cleric offered the opening prayer before the state House of Representatives yesterday, at least two lawmakers stepped off the chamber floor.

And how did this so-called cleric get past security and onto the floor of the House? Apparently internal security procedures have broken down... again.

Unbelievable!

[Terridan]

Your post is one of the only ones here that made sense... too bad the others didn't "get it"!
I loved that they walked out... Guts, and character.

[Terridan]

Unbelievable. I give, you guys go for it.

[RecentConvert]

Every member of the legislature should have walked out.

Absolutely. I consider those who stayed enemies of America. I know, I know! It may be a too-strong a term to call them enemies of America, but what else can you call them?

This may be the beginning of the muslimization of America and the middle of the end.

[nobdysfool]

Well, by YOUR logic we ought to applaud a MUSLIM legislator who stands up and rails against Christianity and Judaism and calls for their destruction. After all, he's just showing the "courage of his convictions," right?

I will not applaud a Muslim leader who does that, but I will not deny him his right to speak his mind in this country. But, I do not have to listen to it, or give my passive assent to it by sitting there and listening to it. As it is his choice to speak, it can be my choice to leave. What you think is I must listen to someone who offends me, but I dare not offend him by walking out on him. In other words, he has the right to offend me, but I do not have the right to offend him. That's just plain STUPID!!!

[Illbay]

I just answered this on another thread, in another context. You ignore the 14th amendment, and decades of judicial precedent that extends the restrictions of the Constitution to state and local government.

Are you suggesting that the town where you live, could establish a "town church" funded with city taxes? After all, your town isn't Congress, right?

[Principled]

Walking out of a meeting may exhibit bigotry and be American. No assertion was made otherwise. Are you asserting otherwise????

[Principled]

It was wrong in your eyes, illbay. it wasn't PC. Buy some kleenex and chocolate and get over people showing their feelings... even if poor li'l you is offended.

[Illbay]

...the legislators had no right to vacate the premises?

You still haven't responded to my points, that it isn't about rights but about responsibilities.

They had a RESPONSIBILITY to act appropriately in the office to which they are elected. You do NOT have the same rights when acting as an elected official, that you do when acting as a civilian.

If you doubt me, ask a member of the military if he has the same right of free speech as you do when he puts on the uniform.

RIGHTS vs. RESPONSIBILITIES. I used to think only the LEFT had a problem understanding that.

[Illbay]

Have you really not read a thing I have written? That seems to be the pattern here.

I have not said that anyone should be COMPELLED to participate in a religion. I said that these legislators, deciding to show up at the opening of this session, should simply have shown the RESPECT that they are RESPONSIBLE to show during this prayer. When a Baptist minister says a prayer during a Republican candidate's fund-raising breakfast (and I have been obligated to attend many of these), I am NOT compelled to "participate in his religion" by standing their with my head bowed and my eyes closed. I have no desire to associate myself with the Southern Baptists, but I DO have the desire to show respect--and I'm not even an elected official.

[Illbay]

That's because you can't see past your hatred for Islam.

[Illbay]

It's true I can't stand those pictures, but not for the reasons you imagine.

[Illbay]

If she chose not to attend, and did NOT walk out during the prayer, then I apologize to her.

[Illbay]

If you can prove that this cleric has funded and supported terrorists, then I'll think you have a point. Otherwise, you're just talkin' out your pie-hole.

[brownie]

Again, your are incorrect. It is in fact your argument that is foolish. Yes, the government is neutral toward religion. And again, this is very simple so pay attention, that does not mean that anyone has to listen to a prayer.

You have not made one single argument, nor pointed to one single clause of the Constitution, which requires anyone to sit through a prayer from another religion. How does the concept of neutrality require the two legislators in question to sit and listen to the prayer? Moreover, the only thing the constitution states regarding religion is that CONGRESS SHALL ESTABLISH NO RELIGION. How does 2 legislators walking out on a particular religious prayer equal the United states Congress establishing a religion?

Please, rather than calling me names, answer these simple questions. Also, you have failed to respond to my posts pointing out that the constituion is, in fact, law, and not just "principle", as you try to argue. Is that because you cannot make an argument based on facts? My guess is that you cannot, as there are no facts to back that position.

I enjoy your argument style. In typically liberal fashion, you continuously make personal attacks. I, am more than willing to respond accordingly, as I have. The most disturbing thing about your posts on this subject, to me, is the lack of any rational thought. You are basing your opinion on emotion, i.e. the legislators were "intolerant" and therefore wrong. I, for one, don't necessarily believe that tolerance is always a good in and of itself. I believe it was you who pointed out that people were tolerant of racism and jim crow in the past. Tolerance of everything is simply moral relevance, which I don't adhere to. I am tolerant of other religions, to the extent that they do not advocate killing or enslaving others, for instance. But, having the benefit of rational thought, I draw the line at tolerating certain beliefs and actions.

[aeronca]

.."But when a Muslim cleric offered the opening prayer before the state House of Representatives yesterday, at least two lawmakers stepped off the chamber floor."

Opening Prayer before the state House of Representatives: I'm confused--at the same time we have the 9th Circuit trying to remove the 2 words "Under God" from the pledge, so that separation of church and state can exist in public schools.