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

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

[Terridan]

Can we stop now? Again, I say, who cares? No muslim need conduct prayers period. Good bye.

[Illbay]

For that matter, NO ONE need conduct prayers.

Freedom of religion for all, or for none. There's no in-between.

[brownie]

No, you are confusing 2 arguments. I was responding to your statements that what the legislators did was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I was not responding to whether what they did (or allegedly did) was right or wrong, smart or foolish, moral or immoral. I am still correct that what they (allegedly) did was not illegal or unconstitutional. You are still incorrect on that point.

Whether they did or did not do it does not change my argument. Whether you agree with walking out on a prayer does not change my argument. My argument was, is, and will be, that walking out on a prayer is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

So there.

[Illbay]

I was responding to your statements that what the legislators did was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I said that what they ALLEGEDLY did was a violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution. I didn't say that it was an overtly "unconstitutional" act.

The constitution is more than simply a set of rules. It embodies a set of PRINCIPLES.

The First Amendment goes beyond the simple words enjoining the Congress from passing laws respecting religion. It enshrines the principle of government neutrality with respect to religion.

This is a PRINCIPLE that an elected official has sworn to uphold. Look on the NEWS forum for Rep. McMahan's reply to my email. She acknowledges that respect for and freedom of religion is a PRINCIPLE that she personally would give her life for.

You do NOT have to "like" a particular religious philosophy, whether Islam or anything else. But you ARE required to show due respect, if you are acting in your post as an elected official. That's showing respect for the CONSTITUTION.

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

RE: To: mombonn

"I would have stood quietly until it was over, and then continued on with business." That's because you have a shred of common decency. Too bad that couldn't be said of these nitwits. 20 posted on 03/04/2003 4:24 AM PST by Illbay

Irag is running short of human shields due to recent defections, perhaps you would like to volunteer for the position.

[brownie]

I believe we will have to agree to disagree. I have never heard or seen this interpretation of the establishment clause in any of my studies or historical readings, and certainly think it would surprise many of the founding fathers. (I can just see some of the founders agreeing to sit and listen to muslim prayers and/or scientologist rantings - not).

You are reading what you believe into the constitution, which is what I have a problem with. Again, that is why you try to rely on a "principles" argument, because you cannot rely on a constitutional argument.

The estabishment clause is what it is, i.e., a rule that the United States Congress shall not establish a religion. that is all. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Illbay]

So if I'm FOR religious freedom, that means I must SUPPORT Saddam Hussein?

Maybe you're confused. You see, it's countries like IRAQ that foster YOUR sort of philosophy, where anyone who doesn't agree with you is oppressed.

Perhaps YOU might feel more comfortable as a "human shield," since YOU are the one supporting oppression of religious minorities.

[Illbay]

You think it would surprise the Founders, that an elected official ought to exemplify government's neutrality with respect to religion?

How odd.

The estabishment clause is what it is, i.e., a rule that the United States Congress shall not establish a religion. that is all. Nothing more, nothing less.

So by your logic, if the city where you live wanted to, they could establish a "city church" paid for by city taxes, as the "official church of [YOUR TOWN]," right?

[brownie]

Well, as a matter of fact, they could have, until the supreme court ruled that the bill of rights applied to state and local government through the 13th amendment. (that is, of course, supposing that the State's constitution did not ban such a thing). And that, my friend is a legal historical fact. The bill of rights did not apply to states until the Supreme Court decided it did in the early 20th century, through the process of what is called "reverse incorporation".

You may not actually realize this, but the constitution was originally written to set up, and restrict the powers of, the federal government. It was not meant to apply to state (or local) governments. If you believe otherwise, there is nothing I can do other than tell you to read some history books.

And yes, this idea of government "neutrality" you keep talking about is a figment of your imagination. You are inserting your own ideas into the constitution. The framers were concerned that the federal government would establish a national religion, as the english had, that is why they inserted the Establishment clause. That is it. That is the clauses purpose, to keep the federal government from establishing a national religion. It says nothing about neutrality. It says nothing about what "elected officials" do or do not do. The founders, as you apparently do not know, were mostly very religious people, and would be very surprised if you travelled back in time and told them that they could be forced to listen to some other religion's prayer in the name of "neutrality".

Now, what I have stated here is actual, historic fact. If necessary, I will pull out my old con law book and cite you the specific cases regarding "reverse incorporation." However, I doubt any actual facts will change your mind. And, If facts do not convince you, then there is nothing else to say. I cannot imagine where you picked up these strange ideas regarding history and american law.