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

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

[BOOTSTICK]

"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbeleivers, but merciful to one another" {surah 48:29}....Case closed!

[Senator Pardek]

We are not obligated to support "religious" groups that are antithetical to commonly held values.

We are not obligated to support any religious group whatsoever - but mass murder of civilians in the name of one's deity is antithetical to "commonly held values" - and Satanism has not done that.

[Senator Pardek]

Here is a fact you will bitch and moan about, but you will not deal with -

The next terrorist attack on the U.S. will not be done by a Satanist, but a Muslim.

Why is that?

[BOOTSTICK]

Lott said nothing wrong, let those who castigate him give the positive effects of the prevailing black culture upon America. Oh and good luck!

[RnMomof7]

 

Thanks Elsie


2 Corinthians 6:14-18
 14.  Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
 15.  What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?
 16.  What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."
 17.  "Therefore come out from them and be separate,  says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."
 18.  "I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters,  says the Lord Almighty."

[EternalVigilance]

I don't think that "Satanism" qualifies under even the most broad-minded application of standards.

You have repeatedly made reference to 'standards', and 'principles' and 'rules'...but have yet to tell us what they are.

Or is this the 'law according to Illbay'...ephemeral and applied at your whim?

[EternalVigilance]

You have no right to show "favoritism" toward or disrespect against a particular religious faith when you are acting in your office.

Sure she does...unless she is a member of the Congress, and it involves setting up a state religion.

[mczikk]

Good letter. It's funny how people scream the greatness of freedom only if it is in line with what they themselves think.

[EternalVigilance]

So, you must think, along with Illbay, that the legislators had no right to vacate the premises?

You all have a strangely reversed way of looking at freedom, I think.

[EternalVigilance]

By the way, welcome to Free Republic.

[Illbay]

I keep telling you--and somehow you keep missing the point--that it has LONG been established that the PRINCIPAL behind the Establishment clause extends beyond the strict reading of the words.

If not, we would not have a continuing series of questions in the courts to address the ramifications, such as the "public access" ruling that allowed student Christian bible study groups to use school facilities.

And the First Amendment extends to the STATES as well as the Federal government. That, too, has long been established.

Perhaps you could bone up a bit on Constitutional law. I know that many far, far right fanatics like to scream about "strict interpretation," but the majority of us conservatives are glad that there has been some elucidation over the decades.

[Illbay]

So, you must think, along with Illbay, that the legislators had no right to vacate the premises?

I think they had the RESPONSIBILITY to show respect.

By YOUR standards, if the President decided he just wanted to leave office for awhile and take a "break," he ought to have the "freedom" to do that. I guess you might theoretically be right, but it has never come up because Presidents for the most part are serious about the RESPONSIBILITIES of their office.

Too bad these legislators didn't see it that way.

[Dec31,1999]

"They need to understand that like (President) Bush said . . . Islam is a peaceful religion."

[EternalVigilance]

You still have not elucidated why you think the Constitution could even in the most elastic liberal interpretation COMPEL someone to participate in some other religion...especially one he considers entirely hostile to his own, and to the Republic and the Constitution itself.

The First Amendment also certainly cannot compel respect from me, elected official or no, for such a religion either.

You are being ridiculous.

Your arguments smack of compelling a religious test for every elected official...compelling them to be tolerant of the gods of diversity. "Do you swear to be tolerant of all religions while in office?"

We can call it 'the Illbay Test'.

[EternalVigilance]

By YOUR standards, if the President decided he just wanted to leave office for awhile and take a "break," he ought to have the "freedom" to do that. I guess you might theoretically be right, but it has never come up because Presidents for the most part are serious about the RESPONSIBILITIES of their office.

I have no idea where you get this silly notion that elected officials have some Consitutional mandate to be tolerant of every religion under the sun...or moon in this case.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Well, aside from issuing a fatwah calling for your death you mean? :)

Hmmmm probably. I understand the reaction, but still think we need to tread carefully. I'd hate to see some group opposed to prayer try and remove it from the Senate and House, because of what occured.

[Dec31,1999]

Illbay can't STAND those pictures. They just pop his dream- world wide open.

[applemac_g4]

Excellent post, Sarcasm. The wages of Islam are death, yet some are too quick to try and forget the historical reality of what has happened to us. Hopefully this post will help with the clarity problem.

[Libertina]

WEll I haven't read all 450+ posts, but I can say I personally know Louis and she is a fine lady. OF course, the paper has gotten much of this wrong, she did NOT walk out. She just chose NOT to attend, like many others when they are busy to decide not to. And it includes Jews, Christians, etc. This is much ado about nothing toward two Republicans. Disgusting. And with Pesident Bush being kind enough to invite Muslims into the WH, then find out later they are connected to terrorism, who can blame people? This is a matter of personal choice.

[Libertina]

And BTW, as I read the responses atttacking these two good legislators, I see most posters are not aquainted with how the House works. People come in and out all the time. This is not some kind of ceremony or ritual where everyone sits stands together in mandatory prayer. Lawmakers come and go to attend meetings, etc. No matter WHICH religious person is speaking, people are absent. Naturally, if the prayers are led by Christians and there are empty seats, we hear no cries of "rude" "discourteous" etc... Only if a muslim speaks and the paper tries to discredit Republicans. This really ticks me off!