[Illbay]

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.

[brownie]

You are incorrect. I am not very religious and do not have a dog in the fight. I would defend a lawmakers right to walk out on a christian minister, although I would not agree with it as, in recent history, mainstream christiandom does not call for killing or enslaving others. Your very mistaken belief that the constitution requires the lawmakers to sit through a prayer is without merit. You have yet to point to anything that supports it logically. Therefore, you are arguing on emotion.

I have supported my argument by demonstrating the following, all of which you have not responded to with any factual argument:

(1) that the constitution is the law of the land, not merely a set of "principles";

(2) that the constitution does not require anyone (which, by definition includes legislators) to participate in or listen to another's religious ceremony;

(3) that the constitution's ban on the U.S. Congress from establishing religion does not require state legislators to actively support any religion;

(4) that universal tolerance is akin to moral equivalency and is not a good in and of itself. People have to make decisions regarding what should and should not be tolerated.

I have, several times, pointed out your lack of factual, logical argument in response to my points. You have several times called me names. I admit, I called you names in response, but I also included factual, logical argument, which you have utterly failed to do. This leads me to believe that you are arguing based on your internal beliefs, rather than on a rational fact-based premise. Thus, you are arguing on emotion.

Now, it is apparent that you will not concede anything or offer any real argument in support of your position. As such, I won't bother to continue this discussion. Had you any such points to make, I would have enjoyed arguing them, and, if my positions were proven incorrect, may have conceded the point. However, that has not ocurred.

As to this specific instance, I agree with the legislators' actions. Until the muslim community in this counrty, or abroad, forthrightly, strenuously, and continuously reject terrorism, I do not have a high opinion of the religion or the community. If I had ever heard one muslim leader actually denounce terrorism, without equivocating, I would not think so lowly of Islam. To date, this has not ocurred.

Good day.

- brownie