Replies

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.

...that does not mean that anyone has to listen to a prayer.

I never said anyone had to listen to it. In fact, as far as I'm concerned they can stand there and work algebra problems in their heads.

But the initial report--which according to late information may not have even been correct--stated that they had WALKED OUT during the prayer. There is a HUGE difference between passively showing respect, and actively showing impunity.

There is no justification for a show of blatant disrespect to a Muslim cleric based on the fact that you don't believe in the religion, if you are an elected official. Period.

If these people simply stayed away from the invocation, that's one thing. If they staged a walkout during the prayer, that's something else.

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.

Yes I did, you just don't like it. As I said: Government is to show neutrality with respect to religion. It has no opinion. People can have an opinion, but elected or appointed officials cannot. It is a violation of their constitutional responsibilities, PERIOD.

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...

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

In my case, no emotion applies. I don't care what the religion is, you do. Your argument would change if this was a Christian minister, mine wouldn't.

Your argument is subjective, mine is objective.

Therefore, your statement applies to yourself, not me.