Outrage Over Christian Prayer at PA State House During Muslim Rep Swear-In

[ATM]

What Borowicz said was a direct quote from scripture. I hope you are arguing against her choice of reading and not suggesting that she change the wording to be more inclusive

I don't think it gets much more inclusive than "every knee".

 

[BugI02]

Without a lot more detail, I'm willing to entertain the notion that Borowicz was deliberately needling her muslim counterpart. I do wonder if said counterpart said some 'Ilhanist' things during the run up to election and this was pushback

 

[Ziggidy]

SO what's more disturbing? Someone quoting from a book that the USA has read from since our beginning or the words, "...Some people did something..." in reference to the 9/11 attack on the USA; especially coming from an anti Israel, anti-American, pro-CAIR, lying Mulsim from Minnesota?

Never forget? We forgot.....and now we see many embracing the very ideologies we have fought against for decades. The enemy has infiltrated and we worry about the words "and every knee shall bow"!

Excuse me while I go puke....

 

[ATM]

Never forget?

I have some thoughts on this as well...

 

[GIJEW]

What Borowicz said was a direct quote from scripture. I hope you are arguing against her choice of reading and not suggesting that she change the wording to be more inclusive

I'm talking about her choice of reading. Like I said, her invocation was appropriate for church, not the legislature where it should have been non denominational

 

[GIJEW]

SO what's more disturbing? Someone quoting from a book that the USA has read from since our beginning or the words, "...Some people did something..." in reference to the 9/11 attack on the USA; especially coming from an anti Israel, anti-American, pro-CAIR, lying Mulsim from Minnesota?

Never forget? We forgot.....and now we see many embracing the very ideologies we have fought against for decades. The enemy has infiltrated and we worry about the words "and every knee shall bow"!

Excuse me while I go puke....

"So what's more disturbing?". It's not "this OR that", it's "this AND that".

We're incomplete agreement about the islamists and "democratic communists" that have infiltrated our government and public institutions, being a threat to our country. On the other hand, "separation of church and state" was one of the founding principles of the republic, whose purpose was to prevent having a state sponsored, official religion. An invocation in the legislature that proclaims the supremacy of a particular religion conflicts with that.

 

[chipbennett]

"So what's more disturbing?". It's not "this OR that", it's "this AND that".

We're incomplete agreement about the islamists and "democratic communists" that have infiltrated our government and public institutions, being a threat to our country. On the other hand, "separation of church and state" was one of the founding principles of the republic, whose purpose was to prevent having a state sponsored, official religion. An invocation in the legislature that proclaims the supremacy of a particular religion conflicts with that.

This statement is untrue on multiple points.

First, "separation of church and state" was not one of the founding principles of the republic, in that it does not appear in any founding document anywhere. It is a phrase in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church.

Second, the current usage of the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" takes the phrase out of the context it was used in that letter. Reading the phrase in context, the Danbury Baptist Church was concerned about the State exerting influence over the free exercise of religion. Jefferson's use of the phrase indicated a "wall of separation" preventing the State from influencing the church, not the other way around.

And I'll ask the same question of you: an invocation in the legislature, statements made as part of legislative debate, or any other legislator expressions short of actual legislation do not constitute Congress passing a law; so how do such things have any impact on you (or any individual) whatsoever, much less, impact your freedom of religion?

 

[GIJEW]

This statement is untrue on multiple points.

First, "separation of church and state" was not one of the founding principles of the republic, in that it does not appear in any founding document anywhere. It is a phrase in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church.

Second, the current usage of the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" takes the phrase out of the context it was used in that letter. Reading the phrase in context, the Danbury Baptist Church was concerned about the State exerting influence over the free exercise of religion. Jefferson's use of the phrase indicated a "wall of separation" preventing the State from influencing the church, not the other way around.

And I'll ask the same question of you: an invocation in the legislature, statements made as part of legislative debate, or any other legislator expressions short of actual legislation do not constitute Congress passing a law; so how do such things have any impact on you (or any individual) whatsoever, much less, impact your freedom of religion?

When you have government representatives promoting one--and only one--religion, how does that not lead to government influencing religion? State sponsored official religion has historically led to oppression of "non believers". What would you think if the likes of ilhan omar gave an invocation saying that muhammad is the last, and greatest prophet, and that anyone who doesn't believe his message is going to hell? Would you find that offensive? Is it too much to ask that government officials treat the legislature as a neutral public forum instead their particular house of worship?

BTW thanks for the info about Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Church

 

[chipbennett]

When you have government representatives promoting one--and only one--religion, how does that not lead to government influencing religion? State sponsored official religion has historically led to oppression of "non believers".

Legislative session invocation, legislative debate, etc. are not equivalent to government influencing religion, much less state sponsoring an official religion. This is where we are at an impasse.

What would you think if the likes of ilhan omar gave an invocation saying that muhammad is the last, and greatest prophet, and that anyone who doesn't believe his message is going to hell? Would you find that offensive?

I would view that as her exercising her freedoms of speech and religious expression. I would not be offended by such an invocation because it has no impact on my own beliefs or my own freedom of religious exercise. Even if I were offended, I am afforded no right, much less constitutional protection, against being offended.

Is it too much to ask that government officials treat the legislature as a neutral public forum instead their particular house of worship?

In a word? Yes.

BTW thanks for the info about Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Church

The letter is worth a read, if you look it up.