NationStates Jolt Archive

I think having a chaplain praying before the start of the work day in Congress is a bad idea, personally, but that doesn't excuse this kind of behavior. (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTljYmY4NTIwMzBiODJmNGYwNWVhM2VjMGYyZjQ3MzY=)

Harry Reid had a Hindu chaplain say the opening prayer in the Senate this morning, a first — it didn't go over well with some monotheism fans. What ensued this morning was very unfortunate — he got heckled from the balcony.

There's video of the exchange at the link. Go watch it and be disgusted.

That's horrible. How would they like it if their religion was mocked like that?

They'd come to NSG and bitch about liberal bias.

Why the hell did they have a Hindu priest perform the prayer anyway? I thought this was a "God-fearing, Christian Nation (TM)"

On that note, how much did they have to pay him to get him to give that prayer?

That's horrible. How would they like it if their religion was mocked like that?

They'd come to NSG and bitch about liberal bias.

There's liberal bias, so there might as well be conservative bias.

It would have been classier just to turn and walk out of the room.

There's liberal bias, so there might as well be conservative bias.

It would have been classier just to turn and walk out of the room.

yeah, because demonstrations of extreme religious intolerance is real classy coming from the highest heads of our government :rolleyes:

I still can't wrap my head around this.

What the hell was this supposed to be a statement of? Support for Hindus? Support for India? What's the motive?

There's liberal bias, so there might as well be conservative bias.

It would have been classier just to turn and walk out of the room.

or alternatively to realise that there is no state religion in the US and that freedom of religion should extend to all religions.

Fuckin' figures. They preach about god's love, acceptance, forgiveness, etc. then turn around and act like idiot savages when actually put to the test. Is anyone actually surprised anymore at the depths to which christian right fundie morons will sink to?

yeah, because demonstrations of extreme religious intolerance is real classy coming from the highest heads of our government :rolleyes:

Nowhere does it say that anyone has to participate in anyone's display of religion.

If you're an atheist, I have no problem with you walking out on any display of religion.

If you're not of the belief being displayed, I have no problem with you walking out on any display of religion.

That's not "religious intolerance".

If that's true, then everyone on this forum who ever posted anything critical of Christianity is an anti-Christian bigot asshole.

And I don't see anyone willing to wear that mantle.

Nowhere does it say that anyone has to participate in anyone's display of religion.

If you're an atheist, I have no problem with you walking out on any display of religion.

If you're not of the belief being displayed, I have no problem with you walking out on any display of religion.

That's not "religious intolerance".

If that's true, then everyone on this forum who ever posted anything critical of Christianity is an anti-Christian bigot asshole.

And I don't see anyone willing to wear that mantle.

No, I agree with you on this one. As long as the person wasn't being disruptive, I see no reason why he should be forced to stick around during a prayer by someone of a different faith, if he felt that went against his beliefs.

I would do the same (and have) when Christian friends were saying grace at dinner.

It's just a prayer. Both the Senate and the House have chaplains who start the day with an invocation--bless us while we do the people's work sort of thing. Reid invited a Hindu to handle it this morning, and he got that reception.

Oh, ok. So this is a common practice, but with a Christian priest?

Then it makes sense.

I was under the impression they just called him in out of the blue.

There's liberal bias, so there might as well be conservative bias.

It is amazing how people cannot grasp both sides of that coin sometimes. . .

It would have been classier just to turn and walk out of the room.

Or, instead of disrespect, just shut up.

That's horrible. How would they like it if their religion was mocked like that?

It is mocked like that, every day on these forums. For example, the anti-Catholic remarks that flooded the board when the Pope made his announcement about the Tridentine Mass.

Gee, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I still can't wrap my head around this.

What the hell was this supposed to be a statement of? Support for Hindus? Support for India? What's the motive?

It's just a prayer. Both the Senate and the House have chaplains who start the day with an invocation--bless us while we do the people's work sort of thing. Reid invited a Hindu to handle it this morning, and he got that reception.

It's just a prayer. Both the Senate and the House have chaplains who start the day with an invocation--bless us while we do the people's work sort of thing. Reid invited a Hindu to handle it this morning, and he got that reception.

Sorry, I would have walked out.

They shouldn't be wasting time with prayers at all. :mad:

That's a disgrace.

Sorry, I would have walked out.

yes, well, we all know what kind of person you are, so this is hardly surprising.

Nowhere does it say that anyone has to participate in anyone's display of religion.

If you're an atheist, I have no problem with you walking out on any display of religion.

If you're not of the belief being displayed, I have no problem with you walking out on any display of religion.

That's not "religious intolerance".

If that's true, then everyone on this forum who ever posted anything critical of Christianity is an anti-Christian bigot asshole.

And I don't see anyone willing to wear that mantle.

no-one's making the heckler bow his head or anything. he could have just sat their and let it go. is it against anyone's religion to hear the religious orations of those of another faith? i don't think so.

Some people don't have a single decent bone in their bodies, y'know?

Would there have been the same reaction from you guys if it was a christian prayer?

There are a lot of atheists at the ACLU who believe that they shouldn't have to listen to the prayers of a Christian in public..

and?

actually, i don't think that's what they're saying. the ACLU doesn't want public buildings and land being used to foster any particular religion over any other. they aren't on a crusade to ban street preachers as far as i'm aware. like trying to get rid of those ten commandments from that law building. they could also have said, if you're going to have those then here's some from the Qu'ran and here's some from the Bhagavad Gita and here's some animist teachings to put along side them. can you imagine that working? no. better to have no religious edicts fixed in public areas than flood them with them.

Would there have been the same reaction from you guys if it was a christian prayer?

That's a stupid question.

Sorry, I would have walked out.


Why, do you hate Hindus?

no-one's making the heckler bow his head or anything. he could have just sat their and let it go. is it against anyone's religion to hear the religious orations of those of another faith? i don't think so.

There are a lot of atheists at the ACLU who believe that they shouldn't have to listen to the prayers of a Christian in public..

Would there have been the same reaction from you guys if it was a christian prayer?

Depends on the content of the prayer.

Look, it's simple.

If someone wants to pray their prayer in a government meeting, then I have the right not to be forced to listen to it, or participate in it.

I'm surprised that the former liberals on this forum suddenly have changed their positions on that matter.

There are a lot of atheists at the ACLU who believe that they shouldn't have to listen to the prayers of a Christian in public..

Find one argument by the ACLU in court where they have argued there should be no prayers in public spaces.

Find just one. Should be easy, if there are "a lot" of them. Go on, get me one argument by the ACLU saying public christian prayer should be banned.

Would there have been the same reaction from you guys if it was a christian prayer?

you mean like if it were a catholic prayer and it got heckled by the protestants?

or a mormon elder giving it and the non-mormons walked out?

or a 7th day adventist prayer and no one paid attention?

yeah it would be just as rude.

yes, well, we all know what kind of person you are, so this is hardly surprising.

You know, I don't have a problem with someone walking out on an invocation like that. When I was a JW as a kid, we generally found ways to avoid being in a room when people not of the same faith were praying aloud, because we felt we couldn't participate with them--comes with the idea that you have the "one true faith." But we never would have been disruptive. It's the rudeness in that display that got me, the total disrespect, the assholishness of those people that bugs me.

Depends on the content of the prayer.

Look, it's simple.

If someone wants to pray their prayer in a government meeting, then I have the right not to be forced to listen to it, or participate in it.

I'm surprised that the former liberals on this forum suddenly have changed their positions on that matter.

I'm not at all surprised that you once again totally fail to grasp the concept. Do they have the right not to be forced to listen to it? Of course. Do they have the right not to choose to participate in it? Of course. Do they have the right to walk out? Of course.

But just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it not disgraceful. And this conduct by the leaders of our government is, frankly, disgraceful.

The certainly have the RIGHT, and nobody has argued otherwise. They have the right. But they look like complete and total assholes, and we're pointing out that they look like complete and total assholes, and merely because they had the right doesn't prevent them from being complete and total assholes.

No, I agree with you on this one. As long as the person wasn't being disruptive, I see no reason why he should be forced to stick around during a prayer by someone of a different faith, if he felt that went against his beliefs.

I would do the same (and have) when Christian friends were saying grace at dinner.

you mean you go to someone's house for dinner and walk out if they say grace?

Would there have been the same reaction from you guys if it was a christian prayer?

If it was heckled, yes.

Would there have been the same reaction from you guys if it was a christian prayer?

Yes--if there were people being disruptive in the same way during the christian invocation that takes place pretty much every other day, I'd say it was just as shitty.

1. that is pretty disgusting. might expect some BNP idiot to do that, but not supposedly smart people in congress.
any transcription of what was actually yelled? i couldn't make out some of it

2. seems odd to me to open the work day at a political institution with a religious prayer. kudos for variety, but boo for not seperating church and state.

you mean like if it were a catholic prayer and it got heckled by the protestants?

or a mormon elder giving it and the non-mormons walked out?

or a 7th day adventist prayer and no one paid attention?

yeah it would be just as rude.

I doubt it, you would probably doing the same as RO and praising them for upholding of the alleged principles of seperation of church and state.

Find one argument by the ACLU in court where they have argued there should be no prayers in public spaces.

Find just one. Should be easy, if there are "a lot" of them. Go on, get me one argument by the ACLU saying public christian prayer should be banned.

At a government function, certainly.

You know, I don't have a problem with someone walking out on an invocation like that. When I was a JW as a kid, we generally found ways to avoid being in a room when people not of the same faith were praying aloud, because we felt we couldn't participate with them--comes with the idea that you have the "one true faith." But we never would have been disruptive. It's the rudeness in that display that got me, the total disrespect, the assholishness of those people that bugs me.

ahh, but there are two ways to "walk out".

One is to respectfully, quietly, remove yourself from the situation, while allowing those who wish to remain to do so in peace.

The other is to walk out for the sake of walking out, in order to make your distaste known and visible.

Now, knowing RO's history like we both do, which one do you think he was advocating?

At a government function, certainly.

oh, now you didn't say that did you? In fact, you will find many members of the ACLU including myself who have argued for NO prayer at a government function, period. Neither christian, jew, muslim, hindu or any other.

oh, now you didn't say that did you? In fact, you will find many members of the ACLU including myself who have argued for NO prayer at a government function, period. Neither christian, jew, muslim, hindu or any other.

If your chief method of argument is nitpickery, then you lose.

Which one is it then?

Should the Hindu pray, and we all be forced to listen, or is it ok if I walk out?

You seemed to think that I would be an asshole for walking out.

Should I be forced to listen?

I doubt it, you would probably doing the same as RO and praising them for upholding of the alleged principles of seperation of church and state.

you really shouldnt have used "you" in that statement. you dont know me well enough to say what i would and would not do.


and do you really think that RO is advocating the seperation of church and state? i think he is advocating that he doesnt need to show any respect for the prayers of a religion that isnt his.

i disagree with him.

I doubt it, you would probably doing the same as RO and praising them for upholding of the alleged principles of seperation of church and state.

They weren't heckling over the fact that it was religious, but because of his religion itself. There weren't cries of "Separation of Church and State!", there were cries of "Forgive us God for doing wrong in your eyes." (couldn't make out exact phrase with Reid laying smackdown)

This wasn't over religion in general but the religion involved.

you really shouldnt have used "you" in that statement. you dont know me well enough to say what i would and would not do.


I meant you as in NSG, not you personally.

You seemed to think that I would be an asshole for walking out.

Should I be forced to listen?

You seem again to think either that if you have the right to do something it renders you absolutly immune from all criticism from your actions. It is not that simple.

no, you should not be forced to listen. You should be free to choose not to listen. Should you choose not to listen, you would be an asshole for walking out.

They weren't heckling over the fact that it was religious, but because of his religion itself. There weren't cries of "Separation of Church and State!", there were cries of "Forgive us God for doing wrong in your eyes." (couldn't make out exact phrase with Reid laying smackdown)


Really? If this is true and it was solely based on this fact, then I guess it is a bit rude.

If your chief method of argument is nitpickery, then you lose.

If you can't figure out how to say what you mean, this is nobody's fault but your own. If you mean "at a government function" you should say "at a goverment function".

If you can't figure out what it is you are trying to say it is not my fault for your incompetance.

you really shouldnt have used "you" in that statement. you dont know me well enough to say what i would and would not do.

and do you really think that RO is advocating the seperation of church and state? i think he is advocating that he doesnt need to show any respect for the prayers of a religion that isnt his.

i disagree with him.

An atheist is, by advocating the separation of church and state, showing disrespect to all religions by that argument.

Walking out is ok. It's not insulting. It just means I'm not into someone else's idea of a religion.

Seems that Neo Art can't make up his mind whether or not I should be forced to listen or not - if I should be forced, I'm an asshole for walking out. But forcing violates his separation of church and state, so that would mean that he doesn't believe in that anymore.

Hey, at least heckling was the worst thing that happened to the Hindu priest. With a Muslim imam, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd shouted a whole lot more or even call for security to open fire.

Really? If this is true and it was solely based on this fact, then I guess it is a bit rude.

Did you listen to the video? Not to be a dick, but they aren't calling for the ghost of TJ there. :p

Really? If this is true and it was solely based on this fact, then I guess it is a bit rude.

Go watch the video. They're screaming things like "thou shalt have no other god before me." And it was Bob Casey who was chairing the Senate at the time--Reid had extended the invitation weeks before.

Hey, at least heckling was the worst thing that happened to the Hindu priest. With a Muslim imam, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd shouted a whole lot more or even call for security to open fire.

Not a credible scenario. The Muslim imam would be still at the security checkpoint, getting the rubber glove out of his upper colon.

Did you listen to the video? Not to be a dick, but they aren't calling for the ghost of TJ there. :p

There was a video? It's not showing up on the link. I'll look on youtube.

edit: ok yeah, that was pretty rude. I retract my former statments.

There was a video? It's not showing up on the link. I'll look on youtube.

edit: ok yeah, that was pretty rude. I retract my former statments.

S'ok.

They shouldn't be wasting time with prayers at all. :mad:


Agreed. Take prayer out of the gov't

"OUR INVISIBLE FRIEND IS BETTAR THAN URS LOLOLOLOOL"


Stupid politicians. :(

There is no justice in this world, there is no equality, there is no love.

Not a credible scenario. The Muslim imam would be still at the security checkpoint, getting the rubber glove out of his upper colon.

Which is still a lot more civil than your idea scenario of the imam heaped on the floor bloody bullet-riddled mess.

I guess I support the heckling senators because pantheistic religions are wrong by a lot. Monotheistic religions are only wrong by one.

Which is still a lot more civil than your idea scenario of the imam heaped on the floor bloody bullet-riddled mess.

Oh leave it already.

I guess I support the heckling senators because pantheistic religions are wrong by a lot. Monotheistic religions are only wrong by one.

According to the original story, it sounded like the heckling came from the balcony, so it would have been onlookers, not the Senators themselves.

Which is still a lot more civil than your idea scenario of the imam heaped on the floor bloody bullet-riddled mess.

Show me where I posted that in this thread, and I'll dance naked on Youtube.

Why does the government of a secular state open affairs with prayer of any kind?

Are there hecklers when the prayers are performed by a Christian priest?

Which is still a lot more civil than your idea scenario of the imam heaped on the floor bloody bullet-riddled mess.

Actually it was you who suggested that an imam would be killed. Just a few posts before this one.

Why does the government of a secular state open affairs with prayer of any kind?

Are there hecklers when the prayers are performed by a Christian priest?

One can deduce that, if there any at all, they are far fewer, and much more far between. Hence why people flip out just because a Hindu is doing it for once.

One can deduce that, if there any at all, they are far fewer, and much more far between. Hence why people flip out just because a Hindu is doing it for once.

Indeed. Heckling a Hindu leading the prayer while sitting happily through a Christian leading the prayer does smack of hypocrisy.

But then, opening the day in the senate of a secular state with a prayer is no better.

Show me where I posted that in this thread, and I'll dance naked on Youtube.
Don't you dare do it (or even try... better be safe than sorry) Gauthier! His ideas are more than enough, thank you.

retards should be banned from the senate.

you mean you go to someone's house for dinner and walk out if they say grace?

No, I mean to be about to eat dinner with some Christian friends (perhaps we've gone out or some such. I've got a few really devout friends who'll say grace even at restaurants...though I suppose in hindsight that may not be that unusual) and to call the waiter over and order another beer while they're finishing up their prayer.

I've never been called rude by them for it.

Edit: Or gotten up to use the can. While I won't be disruptive to them, I'm also not going to necessarily just sit there patiently while they finish up if there are other things I could be doing.

An atheist is, by advocating the separation of church and state, showing disrespect to all religions by that argument.

Walking out is ok. It's not insulting. It just means I'm not into someone else's idea of a religion.

Seems that Neo Art can't make up his mind whether or not I should be forced to listen or not - if I should be forced, I'm an asshole for walking out. But forcing violates his separation of church and state, so that would mean that he doesn't believe in that anymore.

yes you are an asshole for walking out. to hear a prayer from a religion other than your own has no effect on your religious beliefs. if you cant bear to hear one either show up late after the convocation or dont go at all.
there is no need to be rude about it.


supporting the constitutional idea of seperation of church and state has nothing whatsoever to do with it. (but you know that)

No, I mean to be about to eat dinner with some Christian friends (perhaps we've gone out or some such. I've got a few really devout friends who'll say grace even at restaurants...though I suppose in hindsight that may not be that unusual) and to call the waiter over and order another beer while they're finishing up their prayer.

I've never been called rude by them for it.

ahh so you arent really walking out. you are just busying yourself with an alternate activity. do they really take that long to say grace?

Stupid politicians. :(


I guess I support the heckling senators because pantheistic religions are wrong by a lot. Monotheistic religions are only wrong by one.

It wasn't politicians. It was 2 people in the balcony (IE, general public)

Show me where I posted that in this thread, and I'll dance naked on Youtube.

…

…and when they were finished, the imam would be heaped on the floor in a bloody bullet-riddled mess.

:D :D :D

*avoids YouTube for rest of life*

yes you are an asshole for walking out. to hear a prayer from a religion other than your own has no effect on your religious beliefs. if you cant bear to hear one either show up late after the convocation or dont go at all.
there is no need to be rude about it.


supporting the constitutional idea of seperation of church and state has nothing whatsoever to do with it. (but you know that)

I don't think he gets the difference between disrespecting any or all religions and being rude. It's the rudeness that really bugs me--thus the sarcastic use of classy in my thread title. Like I said, I'd rather there were no invocation whatsoever--to my mind, it undermines the very concept of religious freedom that this nation adopted early in its inception--but if we're going to do it, then people ought to be respectful when a leader of a religion other than your own (assuming you have one) is leading the invocation.

And I'd love it if Reid got past the major religions and invited a Wiccan or Scientologist or some other less than major religious folks to lead it as well.

And I'd love it if Reid got past the major religions and invited a Wiccan or Scientologist or some other less than major religious folks to lead it as well.
I suppose Pastafarian is too much to ask?

ahh so you arent really walking out. you are just busying yourself with an alternate activity. do they really take that long to say grace?

Depends on who I'm with. My old room mate has learned to keep it to less than a minute if I'm around, because otherwise I get a bit cranky. I've had friends take up to 3-4. And yes, I do have a short attention span.

I suppose Pastafarian is too much to ask?

It wouldn't happen. The devastation the simultaneous explosion of every Fundie head in the Senate would leave too wide a power vacuum.

Depends on who I'm with. My old room mate has learned to keep it to less than a minute if I'm around, because otherwise I get a bit cranky. I've had friends take up to 3-4. And yes, I do have a short attention span.

oh good lord.

i dont particularly like it when people say grace in restaurants (but i understand it). to go on and on is a bit much. it leaves the realm of devotion and enters the realm of public display of piety. big no-no for christians.

(unless hindus say long graces, in which case i have no opinion i would just avoid going to dinner with them)

It wasn't politicians. It was 2 people in the balcony (IE, general public)yep. if it were senators... you can bet their names would be posted/printed and plastered everywhere.

…

:D :D :D

*avoids YouTube for rest of life*No worries. people would flag it as inapprops and it would be removed.

I thought the prayer was beautiful. Anyone who, for religious uppityness, chooses to walk out of that is not doing themselves any favors.

If you're a Christian Fundamentalist, Hassidic Jew, Shiite Muslim or an Atheist, simple common courtesy should keep you quiet and respectful during such a prayer. Don't like the religion? Say your own prayer to yourself, or think about your grocery list silently.

I object strongly to the behavior of the hecklers. But people, understand something, it was INDIVIDUALS who acted like jackasses. Christianity does not teach such behavior. Anyone who says otherwise is either trying to justify their own asholishness or justify bigotry. There's no in between.

For those of you who made remarks to the effect of "This is how Christian fundies are" that remark is about as reasonable and accurate as someone saying that all Muslims support terrorism. It's an unfair and untrue generalization. You'd be offended if someone said the latter, don't make yourself a hypocrite by spewing the former.

For those who don't know I'm an example of the "religious right." I'm a Mormon, which has very little in common with Hinduism, but like I said I thought it was a very beautiful prayer, and I saw nothing in it that should offend anybody. (I especially liked how he prayed for the family of Ladybird Johnson at the end.)

God hears all prayers.

I don't think he gets the difference between disrespecting any or all religions and being rude. It's the rudeness that really bugs me--thus the sarcastic use of classy in my thread title. Like I said, I'd rather there were no invocation whatsoever--to my mind, it undermines the very concept of religious freedom that this nation adopted early in its inception--but if we're going to do it, then people ought to be respectful when a leader of a religion other than your own (assuming you have one) is leading the invocation.

And I'd love it if Reid got past the major religions and invited a Wiccan or Scientologist or some other less than major religious folks to lead it as well.

they really should draw up a list of all the possible religions in the US that might be willing to do the prayer thing and invite them all. it would be a great test of religious tolerance AND a great demonstration to those who hate it why it might be better to drop it altogether.

And I'd love it if Reid got past the major religions and invited a Wiccan or Scientologist or some other less than major religious folks to lead it as well.

That's not a bad idea at all. Maybe some people wouldn't have such a large stick up their arse if they had a regular exposure to other beliefs.

Why does the US have someone pray in congress in the first place...what happened to separating religion from state??

Why does the US have someone pray in congress in the first place...what happened to separating religion from state??

I think the intent here is to serve the spirituality of the individual members of Congress. The only glitch I see with this is that the regular chaplain is on the Congressional payroll. it shoudl either be voluntary, or there should be a paid position for all religious sects. Personally, i'd prefer the former.

they really should draw up a list of all the possible religions in the US that might be willing to do the prayer thing and invite them all. it would be a great test of religious tolerance AND a great demonstration to those who hate it why it might be better to drop it altogether.
Excellent idea.
Why does the US have someone pray in congress in the first place...what happened to separating religion from state??

Stupidity?

I think the intent here is to serve the spirituality of the individual members of Congress. The only glitch I see with this is that the regular chaplain is on the Congressional payroll. it shoudl either be voluntary, or there should be a paid position for all religious sects. Personally, i'd prefer the former.

All religious sects?

I'm the only member of an unknown sect of a small religion, will I be offered a job? If so, I approve of that idea. :p

I still can't wrap my head around this.

What the hell was this supposed to be a statement of? Support for Hindus? Support for India? What's the motive?

The motive is that, in a pluralistic society, ALL points of view should be heard.

Personally, I think that praying before governmental meetings is a bad idea unless ALL religions are allowed. Otherwise, you're demonstrating -- at the highest level of supposedly representative government -- that only one religion is acceptable in this country.

The Senators who interrupted the opening prayer (which was completely innocuous, neither extoling the virtues of Hindu deities nor denigrating any other beliefs) should be censured, and made to answer for their childish actions.

Can you imagine the uproar if someone who didn't care for Christian prayer had dared to interrupt a Christian cleric? We're all said to be sinners, fallen short of the glory of God...it's just that those who truly believe that seem to fall a hell of a lot farther when they do.

Those Senators were assholes, plain and simple.

EDIT: The hecklers weren't Senators, they were spectators in the gallery. Apologies.

Why the hell did they have a Hindu priest perform the prayer anyway? I thought this was a "God-fearing, Christian Nation (TM)"

On that note, how much did they have to pay him to get him to give that prayer?
They just couldn't decide on which of the thirty-three different Baptist churches represent "true" Christians...

oh good lord.

i dont particularly like it when people say grace in restaurants (but i understand it). to go on and on is a bit much. it leaves the realm of devotion and enters the realm of public display of piety. big no-no for christians.

(unless hindus say long graces, in which case i have no opinion i would just avoid going to dinner with them)

The closest thing I've ever heard to grace was "God put that food on your table, eat it all up," when I was little. This generally in response to my incredulity at the eggplant or okra dish that had just been doled out onto my plate. Bleh.

All religious sects?

I'm the only member of an unknown sect of a small religion, will I be offered a job? If so, I approve of that idea. :p

hehe that would be a way to solve the unemployment rate, wouldn't it? :)

According to the original story, it sounded like the heckling came from the balcony, so it would have been onlookers, not the Senators themselves.

Aren't they required to be silent? Or is that the gallery at the USSC? Surely anyone that shouts anything from the gallery ought to be thrown out.

The closest thing I've ever heard to grace was "God put that food on your table, eat it all up," when I was little. This generally in response to my incredulity at the eggplant or okra dish that had just been doled out onto my plate. Bleh.
As anti-Southern as this sounds, God would never have created a vegetable like okra. At least eggplant doesn't cook down into a puddle of slime...

As anti-Southern as this sounds, God would never have created a vegetable like okra. At least eggplant doesn't cook down into a puddle of slime...

Agreed. I'm convinced that, should there really be a Christian God, the Devil Himself personally invented Okra, and taught people how to make it.

Vile, vile vegetable. Eggplant at least tastes good when it's prepared the Italian way.

They just couldn't decide on which of the thirty-three different Baptist churches represent "true" Christians...

Heh, where's Falwell to sort that out when you need him.

Aren't they required to be silent? Or is that the gallery at the USSC? Surely anyone that shouts anything from the gallery ought to be thrown out.

and Reid did request the sgt at arms to restore order.

Sorry, I would have walked out.

But the point is they didn't walk out. They started shouting bible scripture at him which shows them to be classless morons. Being unable to accept that someone from another background can say a prayer makes them "bigoted assholes" as you so eloquently put it. There is a prayer every day, check. Usually the prayer is done from someone of a Christian background, check. Today there was a Hindu priest who opened the day, check. Idiotic Christians who cannot handle acceptance of anything different tried to shout him down like a bunch of 12 year old nitwits, check. Your response that people on NSG will bash Christianity in its many forms holds no wait. This wasn't NSG, it was the fricken Senate of the United States of America. The place where tolerance and justice are supposed to reign supreme. I hope they find out who did the shouting and their constituents vote them out of office for being classless intolerant pricks. Alas their constituents are probably the same as they are and will accept their act as a blessing from God. The bottom line is that these people say something different and tried to shout it down and embarrass the man. This is pure and utter bullshit.

Aren't they required to be silent? Or is that the gallery at the USSC? Surely anyone that shouts anything from the gallery ought to be thrown out.

I think they were. If you watch the video, the heckling begins before the prayer does, and Bob Casey calls twice for the Sergeant at Arms (? I think) to restore order to the chamber. The heckling ended soon after the second call and the invocation finished without incident.

Nowhere does it say that anyone has to participate in anyone's display of religion.

If you're an atheist, I have no problem with you walking out on any display of religion.

If you're not of the belief being displayed, I have no problem with you walking out on any display of religion.

That's not "religious intolerance".

If that's true, then everyone on this forum who ever posted anything critical of Christianity is an anti-Christian bigot asshole.

And I don't see anyone willing to wear that mantle.

It IS intolerance when you actually INTERRUPT someone in the act of prayer merely because you haven't got the maturity of a seven-year-old and are doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOUUUU!" Which is exactly what the hecklers did. It's shameful, and it's certainly un-Christian.

RO/DK, you WOULD have a problem with me walking out of your display of religion if I did so in a huff or in any demostrative way. The PROPER response in that situation is to SHUT UP and THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE to occupy your mind while the invocation is being given.

I haven't said "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance since about age 7, but I would never make a loud noise or cough or do anything that would in any way publicly signify my distaste for that phrase. Why? 'Cause it's FUCKING RUDE, that's why. The fact that these idiots couldn't sit still for the two minutes it took the Hindu cleric to read his utterly respectful and inoffensive prayer (and in fact PROLOGNED the situation with their bratty outbursts) is exactly why NO Christian claim of "persecution" will EVER be taken seriously by ANYone with a properly functioning mind.

Sorry to be so angry, but this kind of crap sets my teeth on edge. And it pisses me off when atheists/antitheists do it just as much as it pisses me off when Christians do it. It's not a matter of religious superiority, it's a matter of simple respect. If someone's personal faith, their relationship with God, is SO AMAZINGLY PUNY that it can't stand sitting quietly for 100 seconds while someone who *gasp!* believes something MARGINALLY different from you (listen to the words the Hindu spoke and tell me how different they were from any Christian invocation aside from the necessary mentions of Christ), then the Hindu isn't the problem, the problem is THAT SOMEONE.

That's horrible. How would they like it if their religion was mocked like that?

It is mocked like that, every day on these forums. For example, the anti-Catholic remarks that flooded the board when the Pope made his announcement about the Tridentine Mass.

Gee, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Are you kidding me? Are you seriously comparing an online forum -- WHERE NOBODY CAN INTERRUPT ANYONE -- to a public speaker being HECKLED?!? Sweet Jesus, that's among the dumbest things I've ever heard in NSG, and THAT is saying something.

The bolded words in the quote you pulled make my point: mocked LIKE THAT. Y'know, like unto the OP video. There is a GULF of difference between posting back and forth and not allowing someone to speak. The fact that you don't know that is embarrassing.

But the point is they didn't walk out. They started shouting bible scripture at him which shows them to be classless morons. Being unable to accept that someone from another background can say a prayer makes them "bigoted assholes" as you so eloquently put it. There is a prayer every day, check. Usually the prayer is done from someone of a Christian background, check. Today there was a Hindu priest who opened the day, check. Idiotic Christians who cannot handle acceptance of anything different tried to shout him down like a bunch of 12 year old nitwits, check. Your response that people on NSG will bash Christianity in its many forms holds no wait. This wasn't NSG, it was the fricken Senate of the United States of America. The place where tolerance and justice are supposed to reign supreme. I hope they find out who did the shouting and their constituents vote them out of office for being classless intolerant pricks. Alas their constituents are probably the same as they are and will accept their act as a blessing from God. The bottom line is that these people say something different and tried to shout it down and embarrass the man. This is pure and utter bullshit.
err... according to the articles, the heckling came from the balcony... don't think any senator is seated up there. Public visitors maybe, but not anyone elected.

I think having a chaplain praying before the start of the work day in Congress is a bad idea, personally, but that doesn't excuse this kind of behavior. (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTljYmY4NTIwMzBiODJmNGYwNWVhM2VjMGYyZjQ3MzY=)



There's video of the exchange at the link. Go watch it and be disgusted.

I applaud the Senate for this move and condemn the fools who choose to heckle the person giving it because of his religion.

Eggplant at least tastes good when it's prepared the Italian way.

What is the Italian way? o_O

I think they were. If you watch the video, the heckling begins before the prayer does, and Bob Casey calls twice for the Sergeant at Arms (? I think) to restore order to the chamber. The heckling ended soon after the second call and the invocation finished without incident.
This sounds like a staged event -- not by Reid, but by some church group. I'm sure the Priest was on the calendar for quite a while and that would give a church plenty of time to plan a trip for the purpose of "taking back" the Senate. Pretty damned closed minded, if I do say so.

This sounds like a staged event -- not by Reid, but by some church group. I'm sure the Priest was on the calendar for quite a while and that would give a church plenty of time to plan a trip for the purpose of "taking back" the Senate. Pretty damned closed minded, if I do say so.

The heckling did sound very scripted.

This sounds like a staged event -- not by Reid, but by some church group. I'm sure the Priest was on the calendar for quite a while and that would give a church plenty of time to plan a trip for the purpose of "taking back" the Senate. Pretty damned closed minded, if I do say so.

I don't think it even was a 'Church Group'. Since there was only three people involved.

Apparently the hecklers were from Operation Save America/Operation Rescue, an anti-choice group. Link (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/07/hindu_prayers_and_christian_he.php)

I don't think it even was a 'Church Group'. Since there was only three people involved.

Small church groups are still church groups.

Btw, the British pwn Americans at heckling. :p Just look at prime minister questions, it's the politicians doing the heckling:eek:

Btw, the British pwn Americans at heckling. :p Just look at prime minister questions, it's the politicians doing the heckling:eek:
That's nothing. I worked at the BC Legislature, and some of the arguments and heckling was crazy. All from the politicans, too.

Some people are very insecure about the comparative size of their god's dick. They have to make sure everyone knows that their god has the biggest dick. Especially when someone starts talking about their own god's dick. They must interject and say, "Well that's all well and good, but my god has a much bigger dick."

Unless you're atheist. Then you must convince everyone that your own dick is bigger than God's. *nod*

:)

Small church groups are still church groups.

or it could've been three friends and not a 'church group'.

unless you can show me which church is responsible for this?

EDIT: Nevermind, Operation Save America... not a church, but an orgainzation. :rolleyes:

or it could've been three friends and not a 'church group'.

unless you can show me which church is responsible for this?

EDIT: Nevermind, Operation Save America... not a church, but an orgainzation. :rolleyes:

I can't. Why would I do such a thing?

They should have thrown the hecklers over the balcony.

Some people are very insecure about the comparative size of their god's dick. They have to make sure everyone knows that their god has the biggest dick. Especially when someone starts talking about their own god's dick. They must interject and say, "Well that's all well and good, but my god has a much bigger dick."

Unless you're atheist. Then you must convince everyone that your own dick is bigger than God's. *nod*

:)

Could God create a dick so big that even he couldn't suck it?

I can't. Why would I do such a thing?

someone posted a link that shows it to be a group. so... NVMD! :p

they really should draw up a list of all the possible religions in the US that might be willing to do the prayer thing and invite them all. it would be a great test of religious tolerance AND a great demonstration to those who hate it why it might be better to drop it altogether.
I like this idea.

Also, I'd like to note how generic, though beautiful, a prayer it was. It used phrases such as "supreme deity," etc., allowing the prayer to work for all religions (but not the lack of religion, sorry atheists). While I don't think that a prayer should start the Senate, daily or otherwise, since there is an institutionalized prayer saying, I'm glad they had representation from something other than Christianity - and a nonmonotheistic religion, too! :)

Eggplant at least tastes good when it's prepared the Italian way.

Basil eggplant. It's Thai, not Italian, but it's really good...

Btw, the British pwn Americans at heckling. :p Just look at prime minister questions, it's the politicians doing the heckling:eek:
I've watched that on CSPAN before. It's the one part of British government I'd like to see us adopt. Watching any President have to justify himself in front of a Congress full of folks vying for the best sound bite of the session would be hilarious... Even just questions and answers after the State of the Union speech would be great.

Come to think of it, that's what a press conference with David Gregory in attendance looks like...

What is the Italian way? o_O

I suspect he means Eggplant Parmesan. Breaded and covered with mozzarella. When it's good, it's a treat.

As a Jew, I would probably walk out quietly when Reid made the announcement - or, better yet, shown up late. Sorry, but Hinduism is an idolatrous religion. It's a major sin to participate in an idolatrous prayer.

That said, to show the kind of disrespect that the Hindu priest recieved would be a worse sin than praying along. See, people would use my action to attack Judaism. To cause this is a hillul Hashem - a desecration of His Name. It is the sole unforgivable sin in Judaism.

To conclude, fundies are jerks.

I've watched that on CSPAN before. It's the one part of British government I'd like to see us adopt. Watching any President have to justify himself in front of a Congress full of folks vying for the best sound bite of the session would be hilarious... Even just questions and answers after the State of the Union speech would be great.

Come to think of it, that's what a press conference with David Gregory in attendance looks like...

I would support a constitutional amendment requiring something like the PM's questions.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and open season on the president like that would do a lot to make the US a better place.

I suspect he means Eggplant Parmesan. Breaded and covered with mozzarella. When it's good, it's a treat.

It's delicious.

I suspect he means Eggplant Parmesan. Breaded and covered with mozzarella. When it's good, it's a treat.

Ahhh, that.

We in Brazil Parmesan LOTS of things. :p (We call it "(stuff) à Parmegiana"). Only, besides the cheese we include ham too. If you don't, try it.

Why is there even an opening prayer? I should run for Congress and demand an end to this BS practice. If any deity existed, I think we're blessed enough and why we would get anymore, especially after what we've done in the past 60 years.

Could God create a dick so big that even he couldn't suck it?

It's one of those Mysterieeeees of Science!

I think every session should instead start with naked midgets defecating on a burning effigy of George Bush.

It would symbolize innocence, truth and regularity.

I think every session should instead start with naked midgets defecating on a burning effigy of George Bush.

It would symbolize innocence, truth and regularity.

*starts drafting a bill*

Ahhh, that.

We in Brazil Parmesan LOTS of things. :p (We call it "(stuff) à Parmegiana"). Only, besides the cheese we include ham too. If you don't, try it.
I've got a trip to Brazil planned in August, I think. When depends a lot on the government and their letter of credit, but I will be going to Cuiaba.

I think every session should instead start with naked midgets defecating on a burning effigy of George Bush.

It would symbolize innocence, truth and regularity.
and the need for air fresheners, a powerful Air Conditioning system, and cast iron stomachs.

*burning Feces.... *urk*

As anti-Southern as this sounds, God would never have created a vegetable like okra. At least eggplant doesn't cook down into a puddle of slime...
Wow... we finally agree on something! :p

Death to okra!!!

yeah, because demonstrations of extreme religious intolerance is real classy coming from the highest heads of our government :rolleyes:

Maybe someone who could access the video can verify:

Who was heckling the hindu? Congress or the public? The OP just says "the balcony," which would mean public spectators. Not that I'm a fan of the recent Congress - just wondering.

Wow... we finally agree on something! :p

Death to okra!!!
Let's try for two. God never intended for peanuts to be boiled, either. Only roasted.

Let's try for two. God never intended for peanuts to be boiled, either. Only roasted.

Ugh. Not a fan of them boiled. Not that you were asking, but it's just not right. :p

Nowhere does it say that anyone has to participate in anyone's display of religion.

If you're an atheist, I have no problem with you walking out on any display of religion.

If you're not of the belief being displayed, I have no problem with you walking out on any display of religion.

That's not "religious intolerance".

If that's true, then everyone on this forum who ever posted anything critical of Christianity is an anti-Christian bigot asshole.

And I don't see anyone willing to wear that mantle.



uhhh..... i would, i guess, cuz i'm an atheist in a very Christian school, and i gotta say something about the Christian kids: talking to each other they try to act all nice and god-fearing, but then, they go and threaten me and pretty much contradict things they themselves say. So i think that Christianity and other religions never really did anything positive for me and many other people ("witch"-burning)

Nowhere does it say that anyone has to participate in anyone's display of religion.

If you're an atheist, I have no problem with you walking out on any display of religion.

If you're not of the belief being displayed, I have no problem with you walking out on any display of religion.

That's not "religious intolerance".

If that's true, then everyone on this forum who ever posted anything critical of Christianity is an anti-Christian bigot asshole.

And I don't see anyone willing to wear that mantle.



uhhh..... i would, i guess, cuz i'm an atheist in a very Christian school, and i gotta say something about the Christian kids: talking to each other they try to act all nice and god-fearing, but then, they go and threaten me and pretty much contradict things they themselves say. So i think that Christianity and other religions never really did anything positive for me and many other people ("witch"-burning)

Nowhere does it say that anyone has to participate in anyone's display of religion.

If you're an atheist, I have no problem with you walking out on any display of religion.

If you're not of the belief being displayed, I have no problem with you walking out on any display of religion.

That's not "religious intolerance".

If that's true, then everyone on this forum who ever posted anything critical of Christianity is an anti-Christian bigot asshole.

And I don't see anyone willing to wear that mantle.



uhhh..... i would, i guess, cuz i'm an atheist in a very Christian school, and i gotta say something about the Christian kids: talking to each other they try to act all nice and god-fearing, but then, they go and threaten me and pretty much contradict things they themselves say. So i think that Christianity and other religions never really did anything positive for me and many other people ("witch"-burning)

Let's try for two. God never intended for peanuts to be boiled, either. Only roasted.
Eww... Why on God's green Earth would you want to BOIL peanuts?!

Eww... Why on God's green Earth would you want to BOIL peanuts?!

Aye, roasted or raw. Boiled just seems...unnatural.

I've got a trip to Brazil planned in August, I think. When depends a lot on the government and their letter of credit, but I will be going to Cuiaba.

Ugh, it's the rough equivalent to Montana here. :p

Listen though. We may have our severe disagreements, and on and on, but you WILL try to see if you can get a good Feijoada (in a decent restaurant) and what we know as "Churrasco" - our bar-b-cues, usually found in "Churrascaria" places. Trust me, you'll go back home wondering how did you spend that frickin' long believing Texans had good BBQs. :p

or alternatively to realise that there is no state religion in the US and that freedom of religion should extend to all religions.

DING!


*hands over a cigar. A chocolate one, if IR doesn't actually smoke.*

As a Jew, I would probably walk out quietly when Reid made the announcement - or, better yet, shown up late. Sorry, but Hinduism is an idolatrous religion. It's a major sin to participate in an idolatrous prayer.

That said, to show the kind of disrespect that the Hindu priest recieved would be a worse sin than praying along. See, people would use my action to attack Judaism. To cause this is a hillul Hashem - a desecration of His Name. It is the sole unforgivable sin in Judaism.

To conclude, fundies are jerks.

Said the Jewish fundie.

The problem with religion...well, one of the problems with religion. One of the many problems with religion...right.

It's a "major sin to participate in idolatrous prayer" -- but exactly how is just sitting there and shutting up (while occupying your mind with something else...perhaps a verse or two from the Torah?) in ANY way construed as "participation"? Nobody asked anyone to "pray along", so "participation" was strictly optional.

It's that utter holier-than-thou arrogance that pisses me off. "I'M so holy I can't even be in the same ROOM as someone saying a Hindu benediction!" What a load of shit. I can't imagine God needing to be THAT petty.

Hinduism is idolatrous TO YOU. That's fine, but you're really reaching for drama if you think that merely hearing a Hindu prayer constitutes participation.

Hinduism is idolatrous TO YOU. That's fine, but you're really reaching for drama if you think that merely hearing a Hindu prayer constitutes participation.

To an atheist, merely hearing a prayer of any kind in a government place constitutes forced participation or intimidation into participation.

To an atheist, merely hearing a prayer of any kind in a government place constitutes forced participation or intimidation into participation.

Then would an atheist block EWTN?

And its pirates? (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Mother_Angelica)

To an atheist, merely hearing a prayer of any kind in a government place constitutes forced participation or intimidation into participation.

Since public prayer is obviously offensive to just about everybody, then - shouldn't we just stop the nonsense?

Then would an atheist block EWTN?

They would object to it being paid for with government funds, from being broadcast in a public school, or from being broadcast in a government building.

To an atheist, merely hearing a prayer of any kind in a government place constitutes forced participation or intimidation into participation.

Nah, I think most atheists are a bit more reasonable - to think that a religion is 'established' by a morning prayer is just as silly as to think that the hindu prayer just established that religion as the state religion. :p

They would object to it being paid for with government funds, from being broadcast in a public school, or from being broadcast in a government building.

Why wouldn't they block it, since even hearing a prayer other than their own is an affront?

Nah, I think most atheists are a bit more reasonable - to think that a religion is 'established' by a morning prayer is just as silly as to think that the hindu prayer just established that religion as the state religion. :p

Why does the ACLU sue to prevent prayer at public schools under circumstances essentially identical to the one in the video?

On behalf of aggrieved atheists?

No, they're not "more reasonable". They are aggrieved. And they sue to become "unaggrieved".

To an atheist, merely hearing a prayer of any kind in a government place constitutes forced participation or intimidation into participation.

See, now even when I was an atheist, I was never that petty. It's just stupid to have your sensitivity dialed up so high on purpose.

Why does the ACLU sue to prevent prayer at public schools under circumstances essentially identical to the one in the video?

On behalf of aggrieved atheists?

No, they're not "more reasonable". They are aggrieved. And they sue to become "unaggrieved".

I gotta go with the last poster who mentioned that the ACLU has never sued to prevent public prayer. Not once. You can't find an example of it because they don't exist. Public schools, with their captive audience, are a whole 'nother kettle of gefilte.

Would there have been the same reaction from you guys if it was a christian prayer?

Absolutely not the same reason I do not walk out on a christian prayer for health and thanks at friends and family dinners

I bow my head be respectful shut the hell up and take it as intended a wish for the best regardless if I feel it is baseless or misguided

Ugh, it's the rough equivalent to Montana here. :p

Listen though. We may have our severe disagreements, and on and on, but you WILL try to see if you can get a good Feijoada (in a decent restaurant) and what we know as "Churrasco" - our bar-b-cues, usually found in "Churrascaria" places. Trust me, you'll go back home wondering how did you spend that frickin' long believing Texans had good BBQs. :p
Actually I kind of like Montana. Plenty of fish and wide open spaces. Not many people. It sort of suits me.

I've had a couple people tell me about the Churrasco, although an Argentinian neighbor tells me that they do it better "in the South".

Eww... Why on God's green Earth would you want to BOIL peanuts?!
It's either a tradition or a staple food down here. I try one every four or five years just to make sure that I really hate them. It usually takes about three beers to wash the awful taste and texture out of my mouth. My wife, however, actually looks for the roadside stands that sell the trash and makes me stop to buy some. Then she has the audacity to pretend that she likes them. I know the day has become a total loss when she pines for some fresh okra to go with the tomatoes...

Actually I kind of like Montana. Plenty of fish and wide open spaces. Not many people. It sort of suits me.

I've had a couple people tell me about the Churrasco, although an Argentinian neighbor tells me that they do it better "in the South".

Well, yes, southern Brazil and Argentina have better churrasco. Minas - where I live - has the best cheese and best Feijoada. BUT... You can find these plates in most of Brazil. As for the difference between the quality of churrasco in southern Brazil and in Argentina... Tell your neighbor a Brazilian guy said it's like soccer. He'll understand. ;)

It's either a tradition or a staple food down here. I try one every four or five years just to make sure that I really hate them. It usually takes about three beers to wash the awful taste and texture out of my mouth. My wife, however, actually looks for the roadside stands that sell the trash and makes me stop to buy some. Then she has the audacity to pretend that she likes them. I know the day has become a total loss when she pines for some fresh okra to go with the tomatoes...

The only use I've ever found for okra is in gumbo, but it's good in that.

Well, yes, southern Brazil and Argentina have better churrasco. Minas - where I live - has the best cheese and best Feijoada. BUT... You can find these plates in most of Brazil. As for the difference between the quality of churrasco in southern Brazil and in Argentina... Tell your neighbor a Brazilian guy said it's like soccer. He'll understand. ;)

Your team's always better, even when you're equal?

Why does the ACLU sue to prevent prayer at public schools under circumstances essentially identical to the one in the video?

On behalf of aggrieved atheists?

No, they're not "more reasonable". They are aggrieved. And they sue to become "unaggrieved".

Are you being serious? :p

I think I can answer in one "word:" $$$ ;)

Find one argument by the ACLU in court where they have argued there should be no prayers in public spaces.

Find just one. Should be easy, if there are "a lot" of them. Go on, get me one argument by the ACLU saying public christian prayer should be banned.

Should we tell him that the ACLU has actually brought cases forth supporting public prayer, or let him find out himself?

I'm not sure which would be funnier.

Should we tell him that the ACLU has actually brought cases forth supporting public prayer, or let him find out himself?

I'm not sure which would be funnier.

One thing is certain: RO is never going to find out himself. He won't even find out when you post links to the cases and copy the suits verbatim.

One thing is certain: RO is never going to find out himself. He won't even find out when you post links to the cases and copy the suits verbatim.

He no brain so good, me thinks.

I think having a chaplain praying before the start of the work day in Congress is a bad idea, personally, but that doesn't excuse this kind of behavior. (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTljYmY4NTIwMzBiODJmNGYwNWVhM2VjMGYyZjQ3MzY=)



There's video of the exchange at the link. Go watch it and be disgusted.

No offense to the Hindus, but what you can you expect? Most people in Congress aren't Hindu, and so it's just stupid to have a Hindu chaplain pray on behalf of them. They should have gotten a Christian chaplain.

It's either a tradition or a staple food down here. I try one every four or five years just to make sure that I really hate them. It usually takes about three beers to wash the awful taste and texture out of my mouth. My wife, however, actually looks for the roadside stands that sell the trash and makes me stop to buy some. Then she has the audacity to pretend that she likes them. I know the day has become a total loss when she pines for some fresh okra to go with the tomatoes...
My sympathies. I should send you some natto for her to try. It sounds like she might even like the stuff.

No offense to the Hindus, but what you can you expect? Most people in Congress aren't Hindu, and so it's just stupid to have a Hindu chaplain pray on behalf of them. They should have gotten a Christian chaplain.

That's what they usually do. They were just doing this to be fair, and oh, I don't know, what's the word... tolerant? And to better represent ALL of their constituents, rather than just a rather noisy, pretentious, and self centerred lot.

You do know that our representatives represent more than what they personally stand for, do you not? They represent the people-all people. Not just Christians. If they can't understand that, they should be kicked the hell out of their position. Unfortunately, even citizens don't realize this point, so these morons and all-out douchebags just get re-elected.

No offense to the Hindus, but what you can you expect? Most people in Congress aren't Hindu, and so it's just stupid to have a Hindu chaplain pray on behalf of them. They should have gotten a Christian chaplain.
Pssst... don't look now, but the Congress represents the people of the United States of America and there are Hindus in the US.

Pssst... don't look now, but the Congress represents the people of the United States of America and there are Hindus in the US.

And? The Hindus are a minority, and a tiny one at that. Congress represents the people...in general. The congress represents the people...as a whole. The congress represents the people...as an entirety. The people in general, as a whole, and as an entirety are not Hindu. They are Christian.

Furthermore, the people who pray aren't praying for the benefit of America as a whole, but for the people in Congress who want prayer...who are...yet again, Christian.

Again, no offense to Hindus, but their Chaplains have no place praying in Congress.

That's what they usually do. They were just doing this to be fair, and oh, I don't know, what's the word... tolerant? And to better represent ALL of their constituents, rather than just a rather noisy, pretentious, and self centerred lot.

You do know that our representatives represent more than what they personally stand for, do you not? They represent the people-all people. Not just Christians. If they can't understand that, they should be kicked the hell out of their position. Unfortunately, even citizens don't realize this point, so these morons and all-out douchebags just get re-elected.

How comes they don't start the day without any prayer once in a while then?

And? The Hindus are a minority, and a tiny one at that. Congress represents the people...in general. The congress represents the people...as a whole. The congress represents the people...as an entirety. The people in general, as a whole, and as an entirety are not Hindu. They are Christian.

Wait, when did everyone in the US become Christian? Because you seem to be implying that he US as a whole and in its entirety is Christian.

Which is so incredibly wrong, I must now question how you are able to breath if you actually believe that.

err... according to the articles, the heckling came from the balcony... don't think any senator is seated up there. Public visitors maybe, but not anyone elected.

my apologies and thank you for pointing out my mistake. Alas I was in error.

Wait, when did everyone in the US become Christian? Because you seem to be implying that he US as a whole and in its entirety is Christian.

Which is so incredibly wrong, I must now question how you are able to breath if you actually believe that.


The vast majority are, man.

And? The Hindus are a minority, and a tiny one at that. Congress represents the people...in general. The congress represents the people...as a whole. The congress represents the people...as an entirety. The people in general, as a whole, and as an entirety are not Hindu. They are Christian.

Furthermore, the people who pray aren't praying for the benefit of America as a whole, but for the people in Congress who want prayer...who are...yet again, Christian.

Again, no offense to Hindus, but their Chaplains have no place praying in Congress.

The hindu was there one day which is really a minority of the days ... seems rather fitting

And? The Hindus are a minority, and a tiny one at that. Congress represents the people...in general. The congress represents the people...as a whole. The congress represents the people...as an entirety. The people in general, as a whole, and as an entirety are not Hindu. They are Christian.
And? Congress and the Consitution, especially the Senate, are set up to represent the entierty of the people and prevent this kind of tyrany by the majority. Remember, Catholics are very much a minority in the US as well, and yet the US Senate has had Catholic priests in before to pray and bless the Senate.

Furthermore, the people who pray aren't praying for the benefit of America as a whole, but for the people in Congress who want prayer...who are...yet again, Christian.
But their actions are on behalf of all the people of the US and affect all the people of the US. All the blessings invoked on Congress's behalf note this, and this one was no different.

Again, no offense to Hindus, but their Chaplains have no place praying in Congress.
You are very offensive and their chaplins have every right to be in the Congress praying. Just as the Pope would have the same should he wander by, or even an Native American shawman (Which has happened BTW).

How comes they don't start the day without any prayer once in a while then?

Because they are morons, and such would piss off the religious. I do believe the only thing that could possibly piss the religious crowd off more than having a Hindu do the prayer is no prayer at all, as that would be "Teh Ebil Atheist Agenda" at work.

They should have an agnostic prayer.

"Heavenly father, if you exist, which you may not, or you may exist in a state that completely different than the Judeao-Christian sense, we ask of you, if you exist that is, to bless us with your grace, which you may or may not have. Oh Lord, or perhaps any other incarnation which you may, that is of course if you exist, thank you for the gifts you might have bestowed upon us".

:D

My goodness, this is one reason I hate my own country sometimes. Hell, a lot of the time, if we're being frank here.

And? Congress and the Consitution, especially the Senate, are set up to represent the entierty of the people and prevent this kind of tyrany by the majority. Remember, Catholics are very much a minority in the US as well, and yet the US Senate has had Catholic priests in before to pray and bless the Senate.


Funny thing about that, actually. As far as Christian Denominations go, Catholics make up the most Christians in the Country, with about 60,000,000 practicing.

Baptists are actually far behind with only 30,000,000 practitioners. Then Pentecostal with 11,000,000.

So really, all those religious fundies who think we should be a Christian Nation should really proclaim that we should be a Catholic nation by their own logic.

And somehow I don't think they'd like that.

They should have an agnostic prayer.

"Heavenly father, if you exist, which you may not, or you may exist in a state that completely different than the Judeao-Christian sense, we ask of you, if you exist that is, to bless us with your grace, which you may or may not have. Oh Lord, or perhaps any other incarnation which you may, that is of course if you exist, thank you for the gifts you might have bestowed upon us".

:D

I love that! Very cool.

The vast majority are, man.

so we should only have christians lead the prayer then, forever. What is wrong with just sitting quietly as a rabbi, cleric, pastor, etc. say an opening prayer? If you object you can say a prayer in your own faith, remain silent, or leave the hall. Why show your intolerant bigotry? Regardless of what the majority are there's no harm in having a hindu lead one day out of 231 years is there? Is just more religious dickwaving which is all bullshit. I'm a Catholic and oh my goodness, was in a Jewish wedding. I've actually been to a mosque, a Buddhist temple, a synagogue, etc. Am I any less faithful to my God? Straight bullshit.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel2.htm

Oh, and this is where I got my info from.

Now, if someone would look at the Baptist figures. They have dropped 5,000,000 people since 1996!

That's almost a 15% decrease in a matter of 8 years.

And yet they are many times the ones that claim they are part of the "moral majority".

Heh. Heheh. HEHEHEHEHEHEHE.

Wooo...

Because they are morons, and such would piss off the religious. I do believe the only thing that could possibly piss the religious crowd off more than having a Hindu do the prayer is no prayer at all, as that would be "Teh Ebil Atheist Agenda" at work.

They should have an agnostic prayer.

"Heavenly father, if you exist, which you may not, or you may exist in a state that completely different than the Judeao-Christian sense, we ask of you, if you exist that is, to bless us with your grace, which you may or may not have. Oh Lord, or perhaps any other incarnation which you may, that is of course if you exist, thank you for the gifts you might have bestowed upon us".

:D

I'd sit through that. In fact everyone could. It's very ecumenical.

:mittens:

Unfortunate on so many levels that I doubt I even have the time to possibly cover them all. Unfortunate for one thing that someone actually was stupid enough to think this was a good idea. Exactly just how many Hindus do we have in this country, anyway? Might as well bring in the Buddhists next. That makes just as much sense. What was even more unfortunate that the so-called Christians felt the need to heckle the poor guy. All differences in religious beliefs aside, the prayer itself wasn't too bad at all, I thought. I don't think any sane and reasonable American could disagree with the sentiments expressed therein. It certainly didn't deserve ridicule. The sergeant of arms should have rounded all the shouters, and put them up before the assembly to deliver an improvisational 2 minute speech called "Why did I feel the need to release my inner *sshole in front of everyone.", then encouraged the gallery to shriek insults and hurl invective at them for 20 minutes before they were allowed to slink back to their seats.

Makes you proud to be a Christian, this does.

Funny thing about that, actually. As far as Christian Denominations go, Catholics make up the most Christians in the Country, with about 60,000,000 practicing.

Baptists are actually far behind with only 30,000,000 practitioners. Then Pentecostal with 11,000,000.

So really, all those religious fundies who think we should be a Christian Nation should really proclaim that we should be a Catholic nation by their own logic.

And somehow I don't think they'd like that.
Ah, but see the Protestants still out number them damn papists. ;)

Unfortunate on so many levels that I doubt I even have the time to possibly cover them all. Unfortunate for one thing that someone actually was stupid enough to think this was a good idea. Exactly just how many Hindus do we have in this country, anyway? Might as well bring in the Buddhists next. That makes just as much sense. What was even more unfortunate that the so-called Christians felt the need to heckle the poor guy. All differences in religious beliefs aside, the prayer itself wasn't too bad at all, I thought. I don't think any sane and reasonable American could disagree with the sentiments expressed therein. It certainly didn't deserve ridicule. The sergeant of arms should have rounded all the shouters, and put them up before the assembly to deliver an improvisational 2 minute speech called "Why did I feel the need to release my inner *sshole in front of everyone.", then encouraged the gallery to shriek insults and hurl invective at them for 20 minutes before they were allowed to slink back to their seats.

Makes you proud to be a Christian, this does.
why not put up the Buddhists? If they are willing to sencirly wish for the betterment of this country and willing to go up and take a bit of crap they are more then welcome

Hell the continual reminder that their decisions affect all of us INCLUDING the non Christians is well worth it

Ah, but see the Protestants still out number them damn papists. ;)

Somehow I don't seem to believe that they will all rally together for a "common" cause.

For instance, Lutherans and Baptists... never gonna happen. Methodists and Baptists(Who are technically Calvanists, which is what Methodists are opposed to) are also two groups that would be unlikely to ally in such.

In reality, I'm just showing that the "Moral Majority" is anything but, and that the mere fact that there are so many damn denominations out there with their own take, that to say that since we are a largley Christian country, we should keep things Christian. What kind of Christian are we talking about, here? Every denomination has a different take. And hell, even at that, different denominations ten to have sub-denominations. For instance, there are several sects of Baptism which all are different. The same problems arise in other denominations, as well, further breaking them down into smaller and smaller sects, each with different views. How the hell can you group people into one group, and claim to represent them, if they don't even agree and many things when they are part of the same denomination?

I'm simply saying that by the logic that since Christians make up the largest group of people in the Country, we should thus let the largest group of Christians make the decisions. That is the Catholics. Same exact logic. Not saying I agree with it, at all, just pointing out the rather flawed logic in what some people say.

Everyday, I hate this country just a little bit more.

Everyday, I hate this country just a little bit more.

Why, because we let people come in off the street and watch Congress? Maybe they were foreigners, who knows? :p

The vast majority are, man.

For the Nth time, the US Constitution -- the law of the land -- and most especially the Bill of Rights were crafted for exactly the purpose of ensuring that the majority CANNOT rule by tyrrany over the minority.

Everything you've posted is completely anathema to the Constitution, besides being hideously arrogant and without merit. Rights guaranteed by the Constitution are granted to ALL citizens, even (and one could argue, especially) the Hindus. So you can take your smug generalization of my country and blow it out your gazoo.

Why, because we let people come in off the street and watch Congress? Maybe they were foreigners, who knows? :p

That and or the apparent rallying cry of "There right! what was a hindu doing there anyways! there are more Christians he did not belong there! I would have walked out!"

The original act was despicable but personally less detestable then the support they are getting

Unfortunate on so many levels that I doubt I even have the time to possibly cover them all. Unfortunate for one thing that someone actually was stupid enough to think this was a good idea. Exactly just how many Hindus do we have in this country, anyway? Might as well bring in the Buddhists next. That makes just as much sense. What was even more unfortunate that the so-called Christians felt the need to heckle the poor guy. All differences in religious beliefs aside, the prayer itself wasn't too bad at all, I thought. I don't think any sane and reasonable American could disagree with the sentiments expressed therein. It certainly didn't deserve ridicule. The sergeant of arms should have rounded all the shouters, and put them up before the assembly to deliver an improvisational 2 minute speech called "Why did I feel the need to release my inner *sshole in front of everyone.", then encouraged the gallery to shriek insults and hurl invective at them for 20 minutes before they were allowed to slink back to their seats.

Makes you proud to be a Christian, this does.

Swing and a miss. Having a Hindu priest perform the invocation ONCE A YEAR (let alone once in how many meetings over 230+ YEARS) would be underrepresenting US Hindus, and yet some believe that even one day is too many. It doesn't matter how many out of 300 million Americans is Hindu, if they're citizens, they have a Senator for whom they have cast a vote (for or against, for that matter), and who represents them. One Hindu prayer is surely not too much to ask to at least give the impression that Congress believes in the principles upon which the nation was founded.

Somehow I don't seem to believe that they will all rally together for a "common" cause.

For instance, Lutherans and Baptists... never gonna happen. Methodists and Baptists(Who are technically Calvanists, which is what Methodists are opposed to) are also two groups that would be unlikely to ally in such.

In reality, I'm just showing that the "Moral Majority" is anything but, and that the mere fact that there are so many damn denominations out there with their own take, that to say that since we are a largley Christian country, we should keep things Christian. What kind of Christian are we talking about, here? Every denomination has a different take. And hell, even at that, different denominations ten to have sub-denominations. For instance, there are several sects of Baptism which all are different. The same problems arise in other denominations, as well, further breaking them down into smaller and smaller sects, each with different views. How the hell can you group people into one group, and claim to represent them, if they don't even agree and many things when they are part of the same denomination?

I'm simply saying that by the logic that since Christians make up the largest group of people in the Country, we should thus let the largest group of Christians make the decisions. That is the Catholics. Same exact logic. Not saying I agree with it, at all, just pointing out the rather flawed logic in what some people say.

Agreed.

What would the gallery think of a Christian of the sect that features snake handling as its chief demonstration of faith? Surely a minority smaller even than Hindus or Buddhists. Jehovas Witnesses? Would they even consent to appearing before Congress? There's so many things of which they don't approve.... So where does the list of "minority" sects and religions stop? You have 'em all in, or you have no prayer. Them's the rules of the land.

What is the Italian way? o_O

Chucking out the horrible obergine and getting a gelati?

The heckling did sound very scripted.

Kekeke.

To quote Ghandi.

"I like your Christ, but hate your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"

I think every session should instead start with naked midgets defecating on a burning effigy of George Bush.

It would symbolize innocence, truth and regularity.

Bleh. They should start the congress sessions with LIMBO!

Each congressperson also has to take their own Miami retirement home music each week in turn.

The Sergeant-at-Arms should have shot the hecklers.

Change the world, make it a better place...
For you and for me and the entire human race...

Maybe those jerks missed the part about loving your neighbor.

I think having a chaplain praying before the start of the work day in Congress is a bad idea, personally, but that doesn't excuse this kind of behavior. (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTljYmY4NTIwMzBiODJmNGYwNWVhM2VjMGYyZjQ3MzY=)



There's video of the exchange at the link. Go watch it and be disgusted.
I can empathize with them. I'm revolted every time some priest or cleric mumbles his magic words in the very halls of my SECULAR government. I know how disgusting and offensive it is to have somebody's personal superstitions paraded around in a pathetic grab for attention, taking up valuable time with useless fairy-tale garbage while real issues and the real business of government go unattended.

Only difference is, I find such meaningless nonsense to be offensive no matter which invisible superman it is addressed to.

One Hindu prayer is surely not too much to ask to at least give the impression that Congress believes in the principles upon which the nation was founded.
On the contrary. I think having a single prayer of ANY kind is enough to give the impression that Congress openly spits on those principles.

That and or the apparent rallying cry of "There right! what was a hindu doing there anyways! there are more Christians he did not belong there! I would have walked out!"

The original act was despicable but personally less detestable then the support they are getting

Yeah, that's annoying. Though really, not less annoying than reading about someone hating their country on account of a few faceless people being rude on one occasion. ;)

Yeah, that's annoying. Though really, not less annoying than reading about someone hating their country on account of a few faceless people being rude on one occasion. ;)

On one MORE occasion ... it seems to be an increasing trend

I can empathize with them. I'm revolted every time some priest or cleric mumbles his magic words in the very halls of my SECULAR government. I know how disgusting and offensive it is to have somebody's personal superstitions paraded around in a pathetic grab for attention, taking up valuable time with useless fairy-tale garbage while real issues and the real business of government go unattended.

Only difference is, I find such meaningless nonsense to be offensive no matter which invisible superman it is addressed to.

You don't think religious expression benefits anyone? It's all just for attention? That's silly. ;)

On the one hand, I can see how a non-denominational Christian prayer might be desirable to the Congress, but on another I kinda like seeing some representation by other religious figures - Congress represents all of us, after all. :p

You don't think religious expression benefits anyone? It's all just for attention? That's silly. ;)

On the one hand, I can see how a non-denominational Christian prayer might be desirable to the Congress, but on another I kinda like seeing some representation by other religious figures - Congress represents all of us, after all. :p
I agree that I like seeing other religious figures ... if just to remind us and congress that there are other people and views out there and the more we can remember that the better decisions they are going to make

On one MORE occasion ... it seems to be an increasing trend

I don't see a lot of hostility among people I associate with, or even at public events. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but it seems to me that people are generally polite, or at the very least don't want to stir up too much trouble. :)

I still can't wrap my head around this.

What the hell was this supposed to be a statement of? Support for Hindus? Support for India? What's the motive?

Acceptance of all religions in practice.

I don't like it, but even the Christian chaplains that they do have are so watered down that it really doesn't make any difference.

I don't see a lot of hostility among people I associate with, or even at public events. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but it seems to me that people are generally polite, or at the very least don't want to stir up too much trouble. :)

Some ... maybe I am disillusioned by the "good ol country boys" in these parts

Heavy catholic old farmer country up here.

They dont even like other Christians

Either way it was not me hating the country but some days I wonder if it would not be easier

Some ... maybe I am disillusioned by the "good ol country boys" in these parts

Heavy catholic old farmer country up here.

They dont even like other Christians

Either way it was not me hating the country but some days I wonder if it would not be easier

I just try to remember that having a good attitude is its own reward, in many ways. I've never really wanted to be one of the bitter people, even if the evening news provides a little reason each time I see it. When I consider the numerous blessings I take for granted, it's easier to be content. :)

You don't think religious expression benefits anyone? It's all just for attention? That's silly. ;)

Dancing around to music has benefits, too, and it's certainly not always just for attention. Yet nobody is here advocating that Congress open with an interpretive dance.

Religious expression does not require public expression of religion during government business. If you think it does, then you are admitting that it IS all about attention.

On the one hand, I can see how a non-denominational Christian prayer might be desirable to the Congress, but on another I kinda like seeing some representation by other religious figures - Congress represents all of us, after all. :p
Any prayer at all in Congress is an affront to my beliefs, and those of my family. If Congress represents us all, then I assume you agree with me that no prayer should be had.

Fuckin' figures. They preach about god's love, acceptance, forgiveness, etc. then turn around and act like idiot savages when actually put to the test. Is anyone actually surprised anymore at the depths to which christian right fundie morons will sink to?


Just because they claim they are Christians doesn't mean they are.

Dancing around to music has benefits, too, and it's certainly not always just for attention. Yet nobody is here advocating that Congress open with an interpretive dance.

Religious expression does not require public expression of religion during government business. If you think it does, then you are admitting that it IS all about attention.

Any prayer at all in Congress is an affront to my beliefs, and those of my family. If Congress represents us all, then I assume you agree with me that no prayer should be had.

Maybe they can have a day with no prayer, just for you. ;)

Really though, I try to be a bit less dogmatic in these kind of things. Secular government is good, and we've always tried for it, but there's a reason Congress has opened with a prayer since Day 1: we're a country of human beings, who have many things in common - it's best to nurture and support those, so long as the benefits of government are available to everyone. :)

No offense to the Hindus, but what you can you expect? Most people in Congress aren't Hindu, and so it's just stupid to have a Hindu chaplain pray on behalf of them. They should have gotten a Christian chaplain.

No, it's stupid to have any kind of official prayer in the senate of a secular government. If the senators feel they need to pray before a session they can get up early and do so before they come to work or in a convenient nearby place of worship.

The government is, essentially, working for the people, and if the people had any sense they'd tell the government get back to work and pray on their own time.

Just because they claim they are Christians doesn't mean they are.

Just because people who are embarrassed of them claim them as non-Christians does not mean they are either


People like to say "well their not real ____" when they dont agree with them

As long as they believe in Christ they are Christian

I still can't wrap my head around this.

What the hell was this supposed to be a statement of? Support for Hindus? Support for India? What's the motive?

To show that all faiths are welcome?

To show that all faiths are welcome?

Two religions down, many many more to go.

I think having a chaplain praying before the start of the work day in Congress is a bad idea, personally, but that doesn't excuse this kind of behavior. (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTljYmY4NTIwMzBiODJmNGYwNWVhM2VjMGYyZjQ3MzY=)



There's video of the exchange at the link. Go watch it and be disgusted.
Actually, I was kinda relieved that it wasn't worse than that. Really, what did you expect? I remember back when my parents made me go to church on sundays for "confirmation classes" the books given out by the churches would rebut doubts like "What about other religions, couldn't they be right as well?" with "These are only doubts that the DEVIL fills your mind with." Bad enough that it makes it seem like a paradox to associate religion with tolerance, but that's not the worst of it; using scare-tactics to try to stop people from questioning is much worse.

At least schools would teach about the validity of other religions. At least textbooks talk about both polytheism and monotheism as alternate cultural beliefs; the "ten commandments" juxtapose polytheism with murder.

With the way religious "reasoning" seems to depend on leaving out mention of other religions, is what we saw in the video really a surprise?

To show that all faiths are welcome?

Sounds more likely than a political show directed toward India - we usually have pretty solid relations with them anyway. :p

Any prayer at all in Congress is an affront to my beliefs, and those of my family. If Congress represents us all, then I assume you agree with me that no prayer should be had.

I'd find it funny if there was an anti-theist statement instead of a prayer/religious reading at the start of a congress session.

Just because people who are embarrassed of them claim them as non-Christians does not mean they are either


People like to say "well their not real ____" when they dont agree with them

As long as they believe in Christ they are Christian

True enough, but a lot of so-called christians don't worship Christ. They worship a church. *nod*

Maybe they can have a day with no prayer, just for you. ;)

A nice thought, but I'd prefer they have every day without prayer, because a secular government is infinitely better than a superstitious one. Secular government benefits all citizens equally; our current pious leaders provide special perks to special groups based on which superstition they bow to. I find that distasteful.


Really though, I try to be a bit less dogmatic in these kind of things.

Obviously I don't. I also don't try to be less dogmatic on topics like, say, human slavery. I think it's quite appropriate to be dogmatic on some subjects.


Secular government is good, and we've always tried for it, but there's a reason Congress has opened with a prayer since Day 1: we're a country of human beings, who have many things in common - it's best to nurture and support those, so long as the benefits of government are available to everyone. :)
That last bit of your sentence is the problem. The benefits of government are NOT available to everyone. Indeed, our current government gives enormous amounts of power and money to religious special interest groups, at the expense of everybody else. Taxpayer money is used to spread the Christian religion, which is certainly NOT in the best interests of anybody other than the already-wealthy fellows filling their pockets with our money.

The reason Congress has opened with prayer since Day 1 is because religion is useful for getting votes. Religion is useful for helping those in power remain in power, and those with money obtain more money. There are many pragmatic reasons why prayer continues to be a fixture in our culture. However, there is absolutely no reason why prayer is required (or even appropriate) when it comes to actually representing the stated values and principles of the United States.

I'd find it funny if there was an anti-theist statement instead of a prayer/religious reading at the start of a congress session.
I'd find it just as stupid as if there were an anti-Santa reading at the start of Congress.

I'd find it just as stupid as if there were an anti-Santa reading at the start of Congress.

Well he is behind on his income tax. Shows up for one day each year then legs it before the IRS can get hold of him. Slippery for such a fat man.

No, it's stupid to have any kind of official prayer in the senate of a secular government. If the senators feel they need to pray before a session they can get up early and do so before they come to work or in a convenient nearby place of worship.

The government is, essentially, working for the people, and if the people had any sense they'd tell the government get back to work and pray on their own time.
Precisely.

I don't pay my representatives to bark their personal prayers on government time. They are welcome to pray and to express their personal view on their time. When they are in Congress, functioning as my representatives in government, they need to do their damn jobs.

Once every child in the US has enough to eat, access to an education, and sufficient health care, then maybe Congress can start thinking about wasting time kissing god's ass.

Once crime has been wiped out, the budget is balanced, the energy crisis is solved, the troops are all home and safe, and there's not a single pothole left in the nation, maybe then Congress will actually be able to assert that they've got time to spare on things like public devotions.

But, frankly, there's a crapton of work that Congress isn't getting done. Until they are finished with ALL the work set before them, it's disgraceful for them to intentionally waste even ten seconds of our time.

I'd find it just as stupid as if there were an anti-Santa reading at the start of Congress.

Hehehe. Any speech including the phrase, 'Fuck that pederastic fatboy' is a speech I'd pay to hear. :)

A nice thought, but I'd prefer they have every day without prayer, because a secular government is infinitely better than a superstitious one. Secular government benefits all citizens equally; our current pious leaders provide special perks to special groups based on which superstition they bow to. I find that distasteful.
*cough*PeoplesRepublicofChina*cough*

Secular doesn't always equal equality, or providing perks based upon logic and rationality.

*cough*PeoplesRepublicofChina*cough*

Secular doesn't always equal equality, or providing perks based upon logic and rationality.

True, I should have spoken more precisely. Secular government does not offer perks or punishments based on religious affiliation. This makes it a step above religious government.

However, I'm not so idealistic as to think that our government truly offers equality to all citizens. So I shouldn't have worded it that way. Failing to discriminate based on religious affiliation does not mean that our government will fail to discriminated based on, say, economic class.

To me, religious government is to secular government as openly-racist government is to non-racist government. A non-racist government can have plenty of problems of its own, but at least it has one fewer vice than the openly-racist government.

A nice thought, but I'd prefer they have every day without prayer, because a secular government is infinitely better than a superstitious one. Secular government benefits all citizens equally; our current pious leaders provide special perks to special groups based on which superstition they bow to. I find that distasteful.

Obviously I don't. I also don't try to be less dogmatic on topics like, say, human slavery. I think it's quite appropriate to be dogmatic on some subjects.

That last bit of your sentence is the problem. The benefits of government are NOT available to everyone. Indeed, our current government gives enormous amounts of power and money to religious special interest groups, at the expense of everybody else. Taxpayer money is used to spread the Christian religion, which is certainly NOT in the best interests of anybody other than the already-wealthy fellows filling their pockets with our money.

The reason Congress has opened with prayer since Day 1 is because religion is useful for getting votes. Religion is useful for helping those in power remain in power, and those with money obtain more money. There are many pragmatic reasons why prayer continues to be a fixture in our culture. However, there is absolutely no reason why prayer is required (or even appropriate) when it comes to actually representing the stated values and principles of the United States.

I didn't mean 'pragmatic' in the sense of using prayer as a tool of social control - I meant it in the sense of 'live and let live,' or allowing the maximum possible amount of freedom unless and until there's a good reason to regulate or ban an activity. I don't think we should close our eyes and enforce what (some people think is) likely to be smiled on by the Supreme Court, but rather recognize the character of the population and allow as much religious expression as they would have. Given that the Congress was more remote from us, more inaccessible and more comprised of the elite in the beginning than it is today, I don't think their initial purpose for allowing prayer was a PR stunt. :p But that's history.

I might be more dogmatic on prayer if I saw it as a destructive force (some people do, and I guess that's an entirely different argument) but to me it's something that unites people of different faiths - something the government should give as wide a berth as is practical. I don't mind churches having tax exemption because they're institutions that form part of the basis of individual citizens' identity and culture. Having them operate as businesses under the law isn't quite appropriate to their purposes, in most cases.

If it makes any difference, I don't pray - never really did. But part of being a good citizen, I think, is having respect for others' beliefs, so long as they don't violate the general good.

True, I should have spoken more precisely. Secular government does not offer perks or punishments based on religious affiliation. This makes it a step above religious government.
Er... Bottle, the PRC goes after anyone not on its approved religion list.

However, I'm not so idealistic as to think that our government truly offers equality to all citizens. So I shouldn't have worded it that way. Failing to discriminate based on religious affiliation does not mean that our government will fail to discriminated based on, say, economic class.
True dat.

To me, religious government is to secular government as openly-racist government is to non-racist government. A non-racist government can have plenty of problems of its own, but at least it has one fewer vice than the openly-racist government.
Actually I'd say both have their good points and their bad points. At their best, they function well and serve the people, at their worst... But neither one is inherently better than the other.

I'd find it just as stupid as if there were an anti-Santa reading at the start of Congress.

I'd find an anti-santa reading funny at congress as well. It would be about as much point as an anti-theist or pro-theist reading.

Well he is behind on his income tax. Shows up for one day each year then legs it before the IRS can get hold of him. Slippery for such a fat man.

Hard to audit a guy who lives in the arctic circle, I guess. :p

Actually I'd say both have their good points and their bad points. At their best, they function well and serve the people, at their worst... But neither one is inherently better than the other.

So you honestly would say that a theocracy would be better than, say, a secular democracy?

Right...

I didn't mean 'pragmatic' in the sense of using prayer as a tool of social control - I meant it in the sense of 'live and let live,' or allowing the maximum possible amount of freedom unless and until there's a good reason to regulate or ban an activity.

I'm not advocating that we ban any activity. If members of Congress wish to pray, or sing show tunes, or perform interpretive dance, they are welcome to do so. They simply should do so on their own time.


I don't think we should close our eyes and enforce what (some people think is) likely to be smiled on by the Supreme Court, but rather recognize the character of the population and allow as much religious expression as they would have.

The majority of American citizens don't start their work day with an organized prayer at their place of business. So it sounds like you agree with me.


Given that the Congress was more remote from us, more inaccessible and more comprised of the elite in the beginning than it is today, I don't think their initial purpose for allowing prayer was a PR stunt. :p But that's history.

Yes, it is history. Read up on it. The public piety of American government figures is as legendary as their typical lack thereof in private life.


I might be more dogmatic on prayer if I saw it as a destructive force (some people do, and I guess that's an entirely different argument) but to me it's something that unites people of different faiths - something the government should give as wide a berth as is practical.

The mind boggles.

How, exactly, does a Judeo-Christian prayer unite people of DIFFERENT faiths? It unites those people who share the faith being espoused in the prayer, while intentionally and deliberately excluding those who don't.

Religious prayers are inherently divisive and exclusionary. Kindly do not forget the 17% of the country who are agnostic, atheist, or otherwise non-religious. Nobody seems particularly interested in "bringing us together" as they engage in superstitious rituals that deliberately shut us out.


I don't mind churches having tax exemption because they're institutions that form part of the basis of individual citizens' identity and culture.

Pinball forms part of the basis of my identity and culture, so I assume you also believe all arcades should be tax-exempt, right?

Oh, but I forget. People of faith require special perks for their personal cultures and identities. Only through enforced inequality can they feel sufficiently warm and fuzzy.


Having them operate as businesses under the law isn't quite appropriate to their purposes, in most cases.

Obviously I disagree. Religious organizations should be expected to follow the same rules as all other organizations. A religion that can only survive if given handouts by the government is a religion that deserves to die out. Perhaps they should pray to God for financial assistance, instead of stamping their foot and demanding free stuff from the taxpayers.


If it makes any difference, I don't pray - never really did. But part of being a good citizen, I think, is having respect for others' beliefs, so long as they don't violate the general good.
And once again I absolutely disagree.

A good citizen most certainly doesn't have to respect anybody else's beliefs. I respect my fellow citizens' rights, including their right to have beliefs I don't respect.

I have zero respect for racism, but I respect another person's right to hold racist beliefs.

I'm not remotely suggesting that anybody be banned from being religious, from praying, or anything else. I'm simply saying that they can express themselves on their own time. That's not any more disrespectful than it is to ask Congresspersons to dress appropriately in chambers. If they want to wear Bermuda shorts and play badminton on their own time then they are welcome to do so, but when they are at work they are required to behave appropriately and do their damn job.

Hard to audit a guy who lives in the arctic circle, I guess. :p

Certainly is. In infrastructure up there is terrible.

Er... Bottle, the PRC goes after anyone not on its approved religion list.

That's not what my Chinese coworkers tell me, but whatev...I'd prefer not to hijack the thread onto that subject.


Actually I'd say both have their good points and their bad points. At their best, they function well and serve the people, at their worst... But neither one is inherently better than the other.
At its best, a religious government will best serve the interests of those who belong to the state religion. There has never, in the history of the modern world, been a nation in which all persons believed in precisely the same religion.

So you honestly would say that a theocracy would be better than, say, a secular democracy?

Right...
Depends. I could see it, all things considered, and that is could be, not would be.

Note the "At their best" part though.

Certainly is. In infrastructure up there is terrible.

Why do you think the Russians are trying to claim a chunk of the Arctic? He has been not paying his income tax + bribes.

Religious prayers are inherently divisive and exclusionary. Kindly do not forget the 17% of the country who are agnostic, atheist, or otherwise non-religious.

Don't forget the Jedi ;) .

Don't forget the Jedi ;) .
Adventure? Heh. Excitement? Heh. Congressional prayer sessions? Heh. A Jedi craves not these things.

That's not what my Chinese coworkers tell me, but whatev...I'd prefer not to hijack the thread onto that subject.
The Falun Gong and underground Catholic churches spring to mind. But that could be because I live closer to the area and get more news about it.

At its best, a religious government will best serve the interests of those who belong to the state religion. There has never, in the history of the modern world, been a nation in which all persons believed in precisely the same religion.
And this is different from secular governments who best serve those who follow their parties how?

Even in very secular Europe, the party in charge makes sure to reward those folks ideologically allied with it, not opposed to it. In the more extreme forms, well, Maoist communism and Stalinist communism was very unhappy with anyone not toeing the party line.

I'd say both are pretty much the same. I prefer a secular government because arguments over which religion to represent is time consuming, but I can't say it doesn't have the same failings as more religious forms.

Even in very secular Europe, the party in charge makes sure to reward those folks ideologically allied with it, not opposed to it. In the more extreme forms, well, Maoist communism and Stalinist communism was very unhappy with anyone not toeing the party line.

I'd say both are pretty much the same. I prefer a secular government because arguments over which religion to represent is time consuming, but I can't say it doesn't have the same failings as more religious forms.
I'm not saying secular governments don't have those failings. I'm saying religious governments have all the failings of the secular governments in addition to the failing of state religion.

Like I said before: one less vice. Doesn't mean free of vice, just one less thing to have to put up with.

Adventure? Heh. Excitement? Heh. Congressional prayer sessions? Heh. A Jedi craves not these things.
There we go! THAT'S what we need! A fight between Yoda and Pope Palpatine, er, I mean Benedict XVI in the US Senate! That'd be the best opener.

Hmm... now all we need is to install those floating thingies. ;)

Adventure? Heh. Excitement? Heh. Congressional prayer sessions? Heh. A Jedi craves not these things.

They can improvise. Have a battle to death with a Sith, mumble along mystical tenets, have an emo monologue/duologue whilst falling to the darkside all fit well when in Congress.

Sorry if I don't go paragraph-by-paragraph, but I'll try not to misrepresent anything you were saying. ;)

I'm not advocating that we ban any activity. If members of Congress wish to pray, or sing show tunes, or perform interpretive dance, they are welcome to do so. They simply should do so on their own time.

The majority of American citizens don't start their work day with an organized prayer at their place of business. So it sounds like you agree with me.

Yes, it is history. Read up on it. The public piety of American government figures is as legendary as their typical lack thereof in private life.

I'm glad we're on the same page to some degree regarding religious expression, but I think it's the content of the ritual that should change along with the Congress's beliefs, whatever they may be in the future, rather than the existence of it, unless they as a body decide to discard it on their own accord. Obviously it doesn't affect me personally, since I don't have to hear it, but if it serves the purpose of unifying the group on the basis of common identity, then it should be permitted, I think. Again, the nature of such a ritual should speak to character of the future Congress, rather than serving as some standard to conform to. The fact that it's a ritual of course means that it's not absolutely necessary, but I don't see any basis for outlawing it.

As to our historic politicians, I'm sure they did express (or feign) piety in public - I only meant that in the past, the Congress was far from a public place, and officials were more likely to inherit than earn their seats - no C-SPAN, no nothing. :p So the morning prayer's origins probably weren't PR-based, that's all.



The mind boggles.

How, exactly, does a Judeo-Christian prayer unite people of DIFFERENT faiths? It unites those people who share the faith being espoused in the prayer, while intentionally and deliberately excluding those who don't.

Religious prayers are inherently divisive and exclusionary. Kindly do not forget the 17% of the country who are agnostic, atheist, or otherwise non-religious. Nobody seems particularly interested in "bringing us together" as they engage in superstitious rituals that deliberately shut us out.

Pinball forms part of the basis of my identity and culture, so I assume you also believe all arcades should be tax-exempt, right?

Oh, but I forget. People of faith require special perks for their personal cultures and identities. Only through enforced inequality can they feel sufficiently warm and fuzzy.

Obviously I disagree. Religious organizations should be expected to follow the same rules as all other organizations. A religion that can only survive if given handouts by the government is a religion that deserves to die out. Perhaps they should pray to God for financial assistance, instead of stamping their foot and demanding free stuff from the taxpayers.



The "people of different faiths" thing differs in meaning based on how you look at it - that's my fault. :p No, a Christian prayer doesn't bring non-Christians closer together, etc. I just meant that prayer, generally speaking, unites participants. ;)

As to pinball, it might be hard to find a purpose for its existence beyond entertainment, in exchange for a nickel or a quarter. Churches shouldn't be treated like businesses, I don't think, because they don't serve a for-profit purpose. Changing a church from an exempt institution to a business might change its character, while exempting pinball probably wouldn't have any effect. :p I don't really understand the feeling behind the sink-or-swim attitude toward churches, but that's not important right now, really.

And once again I absolutely disagree.

A good citizen most certainly doesn't have to respect anybody else's beliefs. I respect my fellow citizens' rights, including their right to have beliefs I don't respect.

I have zero respect for racism, but I respect another person's right to hold racist beliefs.

I'm not remotely suggesting that anybody be banned from being religious, from praying, or anything else. I'm simply saying that they can express themselves on their own time. That's not any more disrespectful than it is to ask Congresspersons to dress appropriately in chambers. If they want to wear Bermuda shorts and play badminton on their own time then they are welcome to do so, but when they are at work they are required to behave appropriately and do their damn job.

I don't think you need to respect anyone's beliefs, beyond their right to hold them, either. It's nice when you can, but there's no need to go to extremes to do so. :)

Agreed. I'm convinced that, should there really be a Christian God, the Devil Himself personally invented Okra, and taught people how to make it.

Vile, vile vegetable. Eggplant at least tastes good when it's prepared the Italian way.

haha...lot of Indian families have this idea that lady's fingers (that's what okra is called in some parts of India) are good for brains, especially math. There are a lot of this type of "theories" in my family and I had to eat raw okra, carrots etc everyday morning.

Brinjal (eggplant) is another story. That is one vegetable that I absolutely avoid eating. It is just....tasteless and has no beneficial property. The hindi word for it is bengan - from be-gun - without guna - without (beneficial) characteristic.

haha...lot of Indian families have this idea that lady's fingers (that's what okra is called in some parts of India) are good for brains, especially math. There are a lot of this type of "theories" in my family and I had to eat raw okra, carrots etc everyday morning.

Brinjal (eggplant) is another story. That is one vegetable that I absolutely avoid eating. It is just....tasteless and has no beneficial property. The hindi word for it is bengan - from be-gun - without guna - without (beneficial) characteristic.

My mom is convinced it has a lot of iron, which is good.

I want to burn all okra farms everywhere.

EVERYWHERE!

Edit: Oh, and Bengan Burtha tastes like crap...

They shouted "No Lord but Jesus Christ" and "There's only one true God," and used the term

Aren't those phrases contradictory?

Aren't those phrases contradictory?

I suppose if you're a Trinitarian, a more appropriate phrase would be "There's only 3 true God." but that'd confuse the hell out of most people.

For those interested, this is what all the fuss about.

One of the prayer is Om bhur bhavah svah is the Gayatri Mantra from the Vedas. The irony is that the most popular rendition of it is sung by the singer K.J.Yesudas - a Christian (Yesu-das , Servant of Jesus).

Take that silly Christian fundies of the US.:p

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jul/13prayer.htm

The following is the opening Hindu prayer read in the United States Senate on July 12, 2007.

Prayer for the Senate
July 12, 2007
Guest Chaplain
Chaplain Rajan Zed
Reno, Nevada

Let us pray.

We meditate on the transcendental Glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the Heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.

Lead us from the unreal to the Real, from darkness to Light, and from death to Immortality. May we be protected together. May we be nourished together. May we work together with great vigor. May our study be enlightening. May no obstacles rise between us.

May the Senators strive constantly to serve the welfare of the world, performing their duties with the welfare of others always in mind, because by devotion to selfless work one attains the supreme goal of life. May they work carefully and wisely, guided by compassion, and without thought for themselves.

United your resolve, united your hearts, may your spirits be at one, that you may long dwell in unity and concord.

Peace, Peace, Peace be unto all.

And Lord, we ask you to comfort the family of former First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson.

Explanation of the opening Hindu prayer read in the United States Senate on July 12, 2007.

Paragraph one (We meditate...) is the Gayatri Mantra from the Rig-Veda, dated from around 1,500 BC, considered the oldest holy book still in common use in the world. In Sanskrit, it goes...

Om
bhur bhavah svah
tat Savitur varenyam
bhargo devasya dhimahi
dhiyo you nah prachodayat

In paragraph two (Lead us...) the first line is from Brahadaranyakopanisad (1.3.28), which in Sanskrit is:

Asato ma sad gamaya
Tamaso ma jyotir gamaya
Mrtyor mamrtam gamaya

The rest of this paragraph two is from Taittriya Upanisad, which in Sansrkit is:

Om saha naavavatu
Saha nau bhunaktu
Saha viiryan karavaavahai
Tejasvi naavadhiitamastu
Maa vidvishhaavahai

Paragraph three (May the...) is taken from (and not the exact translation of) the Bhagavad-Gita (Song of the Lord), the famous philosophical and spiritual poem often considered the epitome of Hinduism. The original in Sanskrit reads as:

tasmadasaktah satatam karyam karma samacara
asakto hyacarankarma paramapnoti purusah (3:19)
karmanaiva hi samsiddhimasthita janakadayah
lokasangrahamevapi sampasyankartumarhasi (3:20)
saktah karmanyavidvamso yatha kurvanti bharata
kuryadvidvamstathasasaktascikirsurlokasangraham (3:25)
na buddhibhedam janayedajnanam karmasanginam
josayetsarvakarmani vidvanyuktah samacaran (3:26)

Paragraph four (United your...) is the last mantra of the Rig-Veda:

samani va akutih
samana hrdayani vah
samanam astu vo mano
yatha vah susahasti (10.191.4)

Last line of the prayer (Peace, Peace) is:

Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti.

I fail to see what is that offensive in the above.

For those interested, this is what all the fuss about.

One of the prayer is Om bhur bhavah svah is the Gayatri Mantra from the Vedas. The irony is that the most popular rendition of it is sung by the singer K.J.Yesudas - a Christian (Yesu-das , Servant of Jesus).

Take that silly Christian fundies of the US.:p

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jul/13prayer.htm



I fail to see what is that offensive in the above.

It's just dick insecurity. That's what all this ruckus is about. Don't look any further into it than that. *nod*

My mom is convinced it has a lot of iron, which is good.

I want to burn all okra farms everywhere.

EVERYWHERE!
You obviously need more fried okra there.

There is only two ways people around here eat okra: fried or in some sort of "fiesta" vegetable mix that comes in a bag.

You obviously need more fried okra there.

There is only two ways people around here eat okra: fried or in some sort of "fiesta" vegetable mix that comes in a bag.

People who hate fried okra are not human.

Aren't those phrases contradictory?
Not if you realize the Christians have their own one-man-band of a Pantheon.

For those interested, this is what all the fuss about.

One of the prayer is Om bhur bhavah svah is the Gayatri Mantra from the Vedas. The irony is that the most popular rendition of it is sung by the singer K.J.Yesudas - a Christian (Yesu-das , Servant of Jesus).

Take that silly Christian fundies of the US.:p

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jul/13prayer.htm



I fail to see what is that offensive in the above.

Was that prayer written by the chaplain or is it a standard non-denominational prayer for US functions?

I really really like it. It fits well into the hands-off deism of the Founding Fathers.

I think having a chaplain praying before the start of the work day in Congress is a bad idea, personally, but that doesn't excuse

There's video of the exchange at the link. Go watch it and be disgusted.


If it was aethiests protesting Christians, they would be lifted up as heroes by the majority here.

If it was aethiests protesting Christians, they would be lifted up as heroes by the majority here.

Unfounded speculation, strike 1.

His statement was only partially correct.

If it was atheists doing this to Christians, there would be SOME here who would both celebrate, and bash Christians on the forum.

Not everyone here though, would do that.

And many of us, including some other atheists would probably pounce on them for their intolerance. *nod*

Unfounded speculation, strike 1.

His statement was only partially correct.

If it was atheists doing this to Christians, there would be SOME here who would both celebrate, and bash Christians on the forum.

Not everyone here though, would do that.

Unfounded speculation, strike 1.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r32/glamberson/fascism_not_us_1.jpg

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r32/glamberson/fascism_not_us_1.jpg

UDEEBES!

Was that prayer written by the chaplain or is it a standard non-denominational prayer for US functions?

I really really like it. It fits well into the hands-off deism of the Founding Fathers.

You know, having heard Hindu prayers before, I wouldn't be surprised if he was making it up as he went along. However, it does jibe with Hindu beliefs, not saying it doesn't.

As to the deism of the Founding Fathers...well, that's what Brahma basically is, in Hinduism. He made the universe, set up the other gods to look over it, and then sat back with a box of popcorn.

I can empathize with them. I'm revolted every time some priest or cleric mumbles his magic words in the very halls of my SECULAR government. I know how disgusting and offensive it is to have somebody's personal superstitions paraded around in a pathetic grab for attention, taking up valuable time with useless fairy-tale garbage while real issues and the real business of government go unattended.

Only difference is, I find such meaningless nonsense to be offensive no matter which invisible superman it is addressed to.

Swung on and BELTED, deep to center field...and it is OUTTA HERE! Get out the rye bread and mustard, 'cause it's GRAND SALAMI TIME!

Sorry. Using Seattle Mariners broadcasting legend Dave Niehous's voice.

Well said.

On the contrary. I think having a single prayer of ANY kind is enough to give the impression that Congress openly spits on those principles.

Agreed, but even in a fake democracy, everyone should at least have the patina of representation. If it's already a dog and pony show, why not go whole hog and include the kangaroo?