Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2 lawmakers spurn Muslim's prayer - Republicans step off House floor
Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | March 4, 2003 | ANGELA GALLOWAY

Posted on 03/04/2003 2:34:57 AM PST by sarcasm

OLYMPIA -- He prayed for the politicians, the state's prosperity and peace for all ethnicities and religions.

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.

"It's an issue of patriotism," Rep. Lois McMahan, a conservative Republican from Gig Harbor, said of her decision to stand in the back of the room.

"The Islamic religion is so . . . part and parcel with the attack on America. I just didn't want to be there, be a part of that," she said. "Even though the mainstream Islamic religion doesn't profess to hate America, nonetheless it spawns the groups that hate America."

Rep. Cary Condotta, a Republican from East Wenatchee, also left the floor. He said the timing was not a coincidence, but he declined to comment further on why he left, except to say he was talking to another lawmaker and "let's just say I wasn't particularly interested."

A prayer is given at the beginning of each Senate and House session, and attendance is hit or miss, particularly on Mondays.

The interfaith organization Associated Ministries of Thurston County schedules the daily chaplain, said Cynthia Zehnder, clerk of the 98-member chamber. They have selected clerics representing a broad range of faiths, she said.

Imam Mohamad Joban, of the Islamic Center of Olympia, presented yesterday's brief opening prayer.

In part, he said: "We open this session of House of Representatives in the name of Allah the one God Abraham, God of Moses, God of Jesus, and God of Mohammed, peace be upon them all. . . . We ask Allah or God to bless the state of Washington so it may continue to prosper and become a symbol of peace and tranquility for people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds. We pray that Allah may guide this House in making good decisions for the people of Washington.

"At this time, we also pray that America may succeed in the war against terrorism. We pray to God that the war may end with world peace and tranquility."

Joban said the walkout was not hurtful, but ignorant.

"They're unable to distinguish between Islam as religion and way of life, and bad Muslims," said Joban, who has also given the opening prayer to the Senate. "They are easily able to distinguish between Christianity and bad Christians.

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

Kathy Erlandson, director of Associated Ministries of Thurston County, found the small walkout disappointing, but not surprising.

"It makes me embarrassed to know that some of our legislators can't even treat someone with that common respect," she said. "He's an American citizen and he's praying for their work, then how can it be an act of patriotism to walk away?"

McMahan said she does not oppose having a Muslim cleric deliver the prayer.

Her departure was not a protest, but a personal decision not to participate because "the religion is the focal point of the hate-America sentiment in the world."

"My god is not Mohammed," McMahan added.

Joban said that if he were invited to give the opening prayer, he would do it again.

"Even if half of them leave it's OK for me," Joban said. "As a Muslim we have to respect what people believe and . . . we have to forgive something because of ignorance.

"The Holy Quran says that (one should) always respond to bad action with good and those who used to be enemies become friends."


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520521-529 last
To: Illbay
Can we stop now? Again, I say, who cares? No muslim need conduct prayers period. Good bye.
521 posted on 03/05/2003 10:05:29 PM PST by Terridan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: Terridan
For that matter, NO ONE need conduct prayers.

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

522 posted on 03/06/2003 4:56:28 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
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.
523 posted on 03/06/2003 5:59:03 AM PST by brownie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: brownie
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.

524 posted on 03/06/2003 6:35:41 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
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.

525 posted on 03/06/2003 6:42:05 AM PST by Augustine_Was_Calvinist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
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.
526 posted on 03/06/2003 6:48:16 AM PST by brownie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: Augustine_Was_Calvinist
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.

527 posted on 03/06/2003 7:13:43 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: brownie
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?

528 posted on 03/06/2003 7:16:54 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
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.
529 posted on 03/06/2003 1:28:40 PM PST by brownie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520521-529 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson