Captain's Quarters -

Mouthbreathers?

I suspect that Christ would condemn a Hindu as strongly as he would any other pagan of his time preaching in temple. However, since this is the American Senate, we're talking about, the protesters could have shown more decorum. After all, it's hardly God's house. Why, were you to ask any Democrat, I'm certain that he would happily point out the horns on the Senate President's head.

Sounds like they are taking a page from the Westboro play book.

I agree with the protestor's statements but not with the way the protest was carried out. This is not a church organization and I'm sure that there could be another way to witness to the truth that Christ is the only way of salvation, and that His Father is the only God...all that is true but again could there be a better way to say it? The opportunity could have been used to quietly speak to each member separately in a quiet setting and witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ - that would have been a good opportunity taken advantage of. i of course would like to see comments. I think the protestors were thinking of situations in the Book of Acts as their model, so I'm not going to critcize too strongly here. What say you?
Charlie Wilson

Charlie -
I say, this is the United States Senate. This isn't church and shouldn't be. There is no official religion of the United States and it should stay that way. Protesting a guest because of his religion is about the most un-american thing that can be done.

There are quite a few far right Christian fanatics not far removed from their IslamoNazi brethren.

The only thing that prevents them from slaughtering the unbelievers is secular law.

You are free to disagree with the protestors (as I do) but calling people names does not advance your argument. If freedom of speech does not apply to all it applies to no one.

Re: Hugh Beaumont at July 13, 2007 12:25 AM

On the contrary, fanatical Christians are more likely to want the "suffering" for themselves. They don't want to physically assault unbelievers. They think they're just "witnessing" when they pull this stuff. They think THEY have to suffer for their faith, and about the best they can accomplish in that regard (in America) is getting arrested and manhandled for disorderly conduct. They're off the deep end, but what evidence do you have that they want to physically harm anyone? Screaming insults at Hindus is not the same thing as setting off bombs in mosques. What Christian fanatics usually want is attention, and showing that they're willing to pay a personal price for their overwrought concept of faith. The most they ever damage are eardrums, with their screaming. Just throw 'em in a dark cold jail cell where they can "suffer" all night, and they'll be happy as clams. "Praise Jesus."

Friends,

If you are going to use the word "Christ", at least use it correctly. It's not Jesus' last name. It's a title, derived from the greek christos for messiah.

Thus, it should be '"the Christ", not "Christ".

Actually, Jesus' name is also an anglicanizing of the latin Iesus, which is a translation of Yeshua.

There's an awful lot of this sort of mistranslation in the Christian testament. jesus spoke Aramaic, and likely Greek as well. Paul spoke Greek as well. All of those Gospels went through many variations and translations from aramaic to greek to latin before a single one ever made it to english.

For what its worth.

Respects,

"There are quite a few far right Christian fanatics not far removed from their IslamoNazi brethren.

The only thing that prevents them from slaughtering the unbelievers is secular law."

Speaking as an agnostic? This may be among the most mouth droppingly stupid, asinine, moronic statements I have ever read on the internet, and I've been around a while.

Qwinn

As a Christian who believes it is ridiculous the United States Congress is so hopelessly politically correct they need to "diversify" a tradition of long standing to appease their "multicultural" constituency - how long before we have Wiccan "prayers" in the House? - this form of protest is embarrassing to me.

The offense to reason and tradition was not the fault of the Hindu priest, and subjecting him to this disruption is inexcusable and decidedly un-Christian.

These people have disgraced all Christians, and should apologize as soon as they make bail.

While I do not think that shouting in the Senate gallery during a prayer is at all appropriate, neither is pandering to politically correct multiculturalism, particularly when our elected officials are at the same time unwilling to address how Christians and Christian missionaries are treated in Muslim and Hindu countries,which is not very well.

I cannot fathom that Jesus would have approved of that behavior. I'm sure he would have enjoyed hearing what the Hindu priest had to say then have a pleasant conversation with him over dinner.

Problem it, Rosie O'donnell will be shouting "I told you so!"

I am having a hard time getting worked up over the actions of these protestors.

Remember, Captain, this is the same gathering of politicians that is contemplating a major crackdown on civil liberties under the guise of the "Fairness Doctrine". I am far less worried about the intolerance of a few protestors in the visitors' areas than I am about the threat posed by the cespool of thugs, thieves and tyrants called the US Congress. What the protestors did - shouting down those they disagreed with - is no different than what many of our beloved Representatives and Senators want to make into law. The difference is that the ones who got carted off by the marshalls are weak and powerless. The ones who called for the carting off are strong and have deadly power.

"Earlier today, a Hindu minister started to give the benediction on the Senate floor. This honor traditionally is offered to a diverse range of representatives of the many faiths that live together in peace and freedom in the United States, a testament to our belief in religious liberty. "

But there are no Hindus serving in the Senate. This was not tolerance for other members of government fulfilling their own lives in faith. This was street theater, on the specious grounds that somebody somewhere in America would pray along--which as Adjoran notes, means Wiccan prayers must be brought forward--and even Church of Satan has some American citizens in the congregation; dare we exclude it?

WHEW!

When I heard this clip this morning, I assumed the lunatic spouting the "christian message" was actually a senator. Who else would be there? Then, a woman's voice popped out, shouting her "ditto" praise. And, again, I thought it was another senator.

So at least that's cleared up.

Free country. But why weren't the Sergeants at Arms faster? They had to be gaveled awake? Is the senate considered a geriatric service, where members fall out of their chairs, before the attendants come by to "halp?" In our current world, where terror looms, a swifter response to the boorishness would have been appreciated. How did these freaks get in, in the first place? Don't tell me. We don't do "profiling."

Carol ~ I expect security was caught unawares, as gallery protests during the invocation are unprecedented.

Still, they ought to have been prepared for anything in a post-9/11 world, and were not.

"How did these freaks get in, in the first place? Don't tell me. We don't do "profiling."

May I ask, what exact characteristics of these protestors are you suggesting should have been profiled?

Qwinn

I'm a little conflicted on this.

1. I am a Christian. I believe that there is only one God and Jesus Christ is His only Son. Offering prayers to any other god is pagan. Our country and each of us individually needs God's help and protection. Not only is praying to a false god a waste of time, it angers God (see Exodus 20:1 - 6).

2. As others have pointed out, asking a Hindu minister to deliver the benediction is a bit of street theatre on the part of some foolish Senators. In order to be fair, they will have to have representatives of ALL the other faiths practiced in the United States... including satan worshippers. Maybe the senators can have a goat sacrificed on the floor of the Senate to prove how devoted they are to "multiculturalism".

3. There are a significant number of atheists and agnostics in the United States. Shall the Senate periodically dispense with ANY form of benediction to show how it honors their beliefs?

HOWEVER...

It seems to me that making an ass of yourself to prove that you love Jesus is a terrible way to bear witness to His divinity and the salvation that God has offered to us through the sacrifice of His only Son. We have some idea how Jesus would have done it:

As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples.

When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 9:9 - 13 (NIV)

The protestors (God bless 'em for their devotion even though I think they were wrong in their actions) might also borrow from a great American:

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

President George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport, RI, 1790

I agree the rudeness to the Hindu priest is what's wrong with this scenario.

Lemme further point out that the sort of symbolic multiculturalism the Senate practiced is not unknown to government--by monarchy, where human beings embody all sorts of religious, cultural, social, and legal hooey. In this Republic there's 100 guys who merely have a job of representing a whole state. Let's not blur the difference.

I'm sorry - disagree with the message. Protesting in the Senate has come in many forms. Whether is is abortion, war, or religion - we've seen it all. In fact, I'm not sure that this is not something that goes on daily (ups - I'm mean when the Senate is in session).

I don't agree with how these protesters acted, but our Government is a free government by the People and for the People, and our representatives are in a vacuum about most issues.

Our children are kept from from saying prayers in schools (except when it is a Muslim prayer for diversity training), they are kept from saying the Pledge of Allegiance (because of the word God), in fact our children are being "conditioned" to not respect religion.

Again, I do not agree with how these protesters acted, but I do say that it was their right under the First Amendment.

Someone do research, I don't think this was the first time that a Hindu Benediction was delivered in the Senate (something comes to mind when Gandhi may have visited the US). This is nothing more than the MSM making news that well in fact is no news worth printing.

MSM is working on their agenda to make the US look like a bunch of religious zealots, intolerant against anything about the Middle East. Think about it - is this any worse than Cindy Sheehan ranting in the Senate, or during State of the Union address?

This was no news item. This was MSM making a mountain out of a mole hill, and it is not worth the debate. We will see other protests, against liberal ideals, that will go un-reported.

Never mind - I was going to rant about Kennedy, and the rest of the murderers, liars, cheats, swindlers, racketeers, adulterers that grace those chambers.

"Thank the Lord this trio does not represent real Christians..."

Oh, please. What IS a "real" Christian? Which of the over 600 denominations (or it is up higher than that now?) IS the "real" Christianity? Which of them is the "Christian" nation I hear so much about?

I am the first to say that not ALL Christians (real or otherwise) are like the shouters. Many are loving, accepting*, kind, decent human beings.

But I also learnt some time back that unless my boss has a last name like Mermelstein or Feinberg or Zwicker, that I don't DARE put in for time off on the holidays, and that I must monitor my speech for any hint of the occasional Yiddish word or phrase. Either can be, and has been, a swift path to the door. I am fortunate that with my looks and neutral name, I can "pass".

For all of you who are wringing your hands about Hindus and Wiccans and other such folks, let me say this: NONE of the ones I have ever known have used words like kike, sheeny, Jew-bastard, mocky, or - in the words of two well-known ministers - hymie or diamond merchant. At least not to me. Maybe they do in private, but just have enough class not to say it to my face.

I also came to the realization long ago that I am viewed as an outsider in my own country. Not a "real" (that is, Christian) American. That's fine: at least I know where I stand.

*accepting, not "tolerant". Accepting says one is welcome. One tolerates herpes. One tolerates other religions (as long as they don't move next door).

This kind of behavior is unfortunate, but expected. In light of the fact that we are seeing a progressive removal of all that is Christian/Judaic in our society in favor of anything else in the name of multiculturalism, some are angry.

True, this is not who true Christians are, or should be. But when some see that the only religions given sway by Liberals are mainly those that they fear, it is understandable.

I believe the Capt has written before about the "Southpark" episode where the very image of Muhammed is censored, but the image of Jesus being sprayed with feces isn't, you get my drift.

The ACLU, Liberal Media, and much of the Govt seem set against Christianity, while favoring Islam, Hinduism, ect. And that is a very sad thing in the land of the Free.

I totally disagree with what they did. If they had grown up like I did and their parents had to hide their religion to find work they'd understand. If one religion can be shouted down then they all can. If one type of prayer can be banned then they all can. I listened to Christian prayers read over the public address system nearly every day of school and never once was bothered by it. The only time I objected was when they picked me to do it and when I told them I was Jewish and refused they suggested I convert or face eternity in Hell. I learned at an early age that I can pray without an audience and am perfectly capable of silent prayer while someone else is saying theirs out loud.

The quickest way to cause your religion to lose respect is for the people who practice it not show respect for other religions and that's exactly what they've done. They turned a religous act into a shouting match and lost because the man whose religion they have so little respect for refused to shout back. The Hindu priest showed far more class than they did.

Harleycon, while I agree in general with what you say, it doesn't apply in this instance. The Senate begins each day with a benediction, almost all of which get delivered by Christian ministers. On occasion, the Senate invites representatives from other faiths to offer the benediction -- which is appropriate, because the Senate represents all Americans, including Hindus, Jews, Budhhists, etc.

The only way to satisfy those who see a Hindu benediction as some threat to their faith is to ban benedictions altogether -- which is the same thing about which you object in your comment.

Seems to me the Senate was playing the multi-cultural hand, and what doesn't make sense, is that none of the senators is Hindu-the opening invocation is for the senators-just how many senators were offering up Hindu prayers that day? Definitely political theater.

That said the behavior of the protestors was appalling. This wasn't a church, and even if it was, it isn't like it was their church. I don't generally worry about what other churches choose to do, I am more along the lines of "keep your own house."

I am sure these people believe they were representing God-but they weren't doing a good job of it. Christianity is a relational religion-screaming and hollering in the senate or on a street corner is unlikely to build too many relationships, and is far more likely to do more damage than good.

Hugh Beaumont,

I resent your comments that right wing Christians are not far removed from their Nazi bretheren. The two have NOTHING in common. No Christians I know would slaughter non believers. That sort of behavior is left for the Islamofacist terrorists that we are fighting in Iraq.

Jim C

Ah, the lack of historical knowledge in this country is amazing.

"No Christians I know would slaughter non believers."

I wish we had to go far back in history to prove you wrong but unfortunately it's only in the last decade that Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in Northern Ireland and Orthodox Christians were commiting what amounted to genocide in Serbia.

Religious Fundamentalists of all stripes have shown a unrelenting propensity to slaughter non-believers. So whenever you hear, "The One True God!" being shouted in people's faces, religious war is only a couple of steps farther out on the fanaticism scale.

"On occasion, the Senate invites representatives from other faiths to offer the benediction -- which is appropriate, because the Senate represents all Americans, including Hindus, Jews, Budhhists, etc."

That's exactly what I object to. Collectively, the Senate remains an assembly of representatives--and nothing more.

Chip,

You have a poor understanding of Christ if you believe he would have condemned this Hindu priest.

Barleycorn said:

But when some see that the only religions given sway by Liberals are mainly those that they fear, it is understandable.

Yeah, everyone is cowering in the corner of fear of Vishnu!

This comment thread is very illuminating w.r.t. the attitudes of the CQ community.

As were the immigration debate threads.

Yeesh.

Jim,

I don't know how far removed some christian-extremists are from Nazis, but you could make a case that those who bomb abortion clinics aren't that far removed as both they and Hitler kill or at least attempt to kill, in the name of God.

Hitler: Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Obviously, there are very few of these types, though they tend to make a bang when they act. Myself a Christian, I recognize people do use my religion to justify evil acts. I don't take people pointing this out as an attack on Christianity though. I do see those people who bomb abortion clinics in the name of Christianity as an attack on my religion, though.

RBMN asked Hugh Beaumont

They're off the deep end, but what evidence do you have that they want to physically harm anyone?

If the fundamentalist Christians had their way, any doctor that performed an abortion would be put to death, any teacher that taught evolution would be jailed, any pharmacist that sold contraceptives would be shut down, any scientist that did genetics research would be put in prison, any books that even mention something like witchcraft or sorcery would be burned, any movie that features nudity or depicts a sexual act would be banned, alcohol consumption would be a criminal offence, no business would be allowed to operate on a Sunday, all children would be forced to pray in school, all children would be taught that the earth is only six thousand years old and that all geological and scientific evidence to the contrary is the work of the devil.

That's just for starters.

The revered Christian educational theorist Douglas Wilson, author of The Case for Christian Classical Education, has created one of the most popular curriculums currently in use by home schoolers to educate their children. Wilson has this to say about what it means to be a Christian:

To be a Christian is to be in constant, total war. We have no say in the matter, and no one is exempt from serving. This war is not just some sideline feature of the Christian life. It is the Christian life. Every step toward seeing “every knee bow” before the Lord of glory is an act of war, whether in faithfulness or hatred. Until that point, the war is ruthless and relentless. The horrific enemy onslaught never ceases.

That is what many fundamentalist Christians are teaching their children.

The Academy of Classical Christian Schools says its curriculum is specifically designed to train the next generation of Christians for a war against “the soul-destroying Enlightenment”. In other words, a war against reason itself.

Children’s Pastor Becky Fisher runs a summer camp called “Kids on Fire”. She speaks with approval of Islam’s accomplishments:

It’s no wonder with that kind of intense discipling and training, that those kids are willing to kill themselves for the cause of Islam. I want to see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam. I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel as they are over in Pakistan and in Israel and in Palestine, because we have, excuse me, because we have the truth!

So, no, you won‘t necessarily be "physically harmed", provided you get on your knees, worship as they demand and strictly follow their superstitions faithfully. Otherwise, one of Douglas Wilson and Becky Fisher’s next generation of Christian suicide bombers might just ruin your day.

And next you will tell me these people are a tiny minority who have hijacked a great religion and are misrepresenting the true meaning of Christianity.

I'm a little conflicted on this.

1. I am a Christian. I believe that there is only one God and Jesus Christ is His only Son. Offering prayers to any other god is pagan. Our country and each of us individually needs God's help and protection. Not only is praying to a false god a waste of time, it angers God (see Exodus 20:1 - 6).

I'm happy for you, and your religious bias.

However, your religious beliefs, my religious beliefs, or anyone else's for that matter, should not be the law of the land. Keep them in your place of worship and out of my face, and we'll get along just fine. Abuse them to unlawfully create a disturbance in Congress, and you get arrested for disturbing the peace same as everyone else.

And if the secular humanists had their way, any doctor that performed involuntary euthanasia would be executed, any teacher that taught racial eugenics would be fired, any pharmacist that sold drugs without prescription would be shut down, any scientist that did human research without consent would be put in prison, any books that even mention something like how to make explosives would be burned, any movie that features prepubescent nudity or depicts a sexual act with minors would be banned, serving unsafe food would be a criminal offence, no business would be allowed to sell dangerously malfunctioning equipment, all children would be forced to go to school, all children would be taught that all men are created equal and that all historical and scientific evidence to the contrary is the work of the devil.

Human beings have a moral sense that has to be served with communal mores and in a democracy the most popular mores get enacted into law. But don’t kid yourself that they are less arbitrary just because they’re more popular.

Tom,

What I object to is the painting with such a broad brush. I resent it when people use the acts of a minority of people who claim to be christians to tar our entire faith. For what it's worth, I agree. I see those that bomb abortion clinics in the name of God as attacking our religion as well.

That being said, I don't agree with abortion. I think it's clearly an act of murder, and I think it should be protested PEACEFULLY, as we have that right under the Constitution.

not the senator,

The fighting in Northern Ireland was a political battle, not a religious one. Don't confuse the two.

Carol Herman,

You never dissapoint in your disjointed crazy comments. Profile? Exactly what traits would you profile in order to catch a couple of people protesting in the Senate gallary?

Jim C

Michael Smith at July 13, 2007 7:11 AM

I think you've pretty well destroyed your credibility with "next generation of Christian suicide bombers."

I must have missed the first one.

What I object to is the painting with such a broad brush.

Yeah, attacking Christianity as a whole because of those actions is stupid.

"National Socialism and religon cannot exist together...the heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. THe deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity" Hitler July 1941

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure." Hitler Oct 1941

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death...When understanding of the universe has become widespred...Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity...Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity...and that's why someday its structure will collaspe" Hitler Oct 1941

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery...when all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Chritsianity. Let's be the only people who are immunized against the disease" Hitler Dec 1941

"Kerrl, with the noblest intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself" Hitler Dec 1941

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." Hitler April 1942

"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainity see the end of disease of Christianity...my regret will have been that I couldn't...behold . Hitler Feb 1942

(Hilter's words seems eerily familiar to the words we hear today comeing out of the mouths of certain proggressive polticial class)

Of course by 1938 the Nazis had removed all Christian display and Christmas caroling from public schools and change the word Christmas to Yuletide.

Hilter basically used Christian rhetoric to rise to power in Germany's dominant Christian nation but his plan was to create a National Socialist empire. Hilter rejected Christians since how could Germans believe in a God when they should believe in the State of Hilter.

The Yell said:

But don’t kid yourself that they are less arbitrary just because they’re more popular.

The notion that all moral claims are arbitray is nonsense. If life on earth is one's goal, it is easy to logically establish that certain behaviors support that goal and are thus good, while others harm that goal and are thus bad

For instance, the use of reason to acquire knowledge needed to learn how to sustain one's life is obviously good. Such action enhances one's chances of survival. By contrast, the refusal to think, the choice to sit by idly and hope that God will send you food, will generally prove fatal.

Now, if you take the position that the choice to live versus the choice to die is totally arbitrary, then I have nothing further to say to you.

Well, a very interesting thread. Whether you believe in a god or not, that is not the question. The question is: should you believe in a moral system (albeit imperfect) that has taken a portion of humankind and moved them a little bit higher on the evolution chain? Can anyone point to a freer political system in the world in this month of this year than the American system? You cannot because it does not exist. The real question is, however: do you want this American system to continue to exist or not. Because, what has been happening for the past 70 years, give or take a few, has been the intent of the "travellers" (for wont of a better word) to return to the only system humankind has had: dictatorship or totalitarianism. I for one pray to any and all deities the the light that has been America continues and grows to become a sane, tolerant nation of a people equally tolerant, sane and, loving!

As an atheist, belief in dieties is immaterial to me but apparently still necessary. But, as a human being, the loss of what American was and is fast losing, breaks my heart. A goodly portion of our own people don't seem to see, hear or understand what is going on, and that is the shame.

Mrk D. said:

I think you've pretty well destroyed your credibility with "next generation of Christian suicide bombers." I must have missed the first one.

Ah, a true believer. He can take one word -- "next" -- and use it to evade everything the fundamentalist Christians are saying.

By the way, Mark, in case you are not aware, Christians have a long history of willingness to die in battle against non-Christians (or against Christians of another sect or denomination).

Tom Shipley said:

Yeah, attacking Christianity as a whole because of those actions is stupid.

I don't know whether or not your comment is directed at me, but I, for one, am not attacking Christianity as a whole. I am attacking the notion that faith or any other non-rational, non-reason based claims are a valid basis for a belief system.

The fact is that faith is utterly arbitrary. Anyone may claim to believe anything based on faith -- and if one faith-based claim is valid, how on earth do you dispute other faith-based claims? You can't dispute them on the basis of reason because you've already stipulated that some claims are outside the bounds of reason.

Thus, the faith of the 19 hijackers that murdered nearly 3,000 people on 9/11 is every bit as valid as any other faith-based claim. 9/11 was an Islamic faith-based initiative, just as valid as any of Bush's faith-based initiatives.

You know, I remember all those Iroquois shaman Washington, Jefferson and Adans invited to give an invocation at the opening of Congress... oh, wait...

Up front, I haven't read most of the above comments. This just my two cents:

I have been a Christian for over 22 years. There are ways to spread Christ's message. Public (or for that matter, private) rudeness is not one of them. Zeal without wisdom can be dangerous thing.

Would any of you devote Christians object to a secular spiritualist giving a peaceful evocation before the start of the Senate's business day?

As an atheist, I would prefer no prayer at all in the Senate or House. However, I do understand that it is a longstanding tradition so I make no real fuss about it.

That being said, why not a Hindu prayer? People talk about this leading to satan worship in the Congress, but that's silliness. Hinduism is not some wacko cult. It's the religion of nearly a billion people on the subcontinent, and like Christianity its basic moral teachings are fairly aligned with that of modern, western society.

No one is saying that allowing Christian prayers will lead to giving the floor to Fred Phelps any time soon, so why this banal slippery slope argument?

Couple of points. First, defending the protesters on freedom of speech grounds is just blather. Freedom os speech protects content, not illegal conduct. Dirupting the Senate is illegal conduct irrespective of conduct. Next, If the Senate is to opened by prayer (which I think is a good idea), the establishment clause would seem to require spreading the wealth, and not just to christian denominations. Third, while I always appreciate being linked together in the whole "judeo/christian" thing (after thousands of years of being slaughtered, it is nice to have some friends), I don't see why a prayer by a rabbi would be any more acceptable to many who complained above than would a prayer by a hindu or anyone else. Next, this brings us to back to whether or not an opening prayer is a good idea, and I am in the midst of changing my mind. I don't ewant the Senate chosing what beleif system is acceptable and what isn't. I certainly wouldn't want a devil worshiper to open a Senate session, but where and how is the line to be drawn? Finally, Cap'n had a good point which many fail to address: on top of everything else, the protesters' behavior was just downright rude and likely self-defeating.

the Senate represents all Americans, including Hindus, Jews, Budhhists, etc.

Cap pegs it right there. Whatever religion(s) the Senators might belong to is irrelevant. They're there representing their constituents, not themselves (not that they don't seem to to completely forget that fact when money is waved in their direction).

Tom,

What I object to is the painting with such a broad brush.

Jim C

Posted by: Jim C at July 13, 2007 8:04 AM

You mean the way many christians (particularly those who claim to speak on behalf of the rest of their faith) portray all Islams as terrorists?

Or do you mean the way that many christians refer to those who believe everyone should make their own decisions about abortions as baby killers? The way they portray all homosexuals as slutty pedophiles who engage in immoral (to the christians) sexual activity all day every day?

Or the way that somebody upthread commented that Maybe the senators can have a goat sacrificed on the floor of the Senate to prove how devoted they are to "multiculturalism", painting all non-christian religions with the same brush?

Or do you mean the way that anyone who expressed any doubts at all about the wisdom of the illegal invasion of Iraq were portayed as cut-and-run wimps who hated america?

Express your beliefs privately in any manner you choose. Bring them out into the public, and they should be treated in the same manner as any other type of public expression.

"If life on earth is one's goal, it is easy to logically establish that certain behaviors support that goal and are thus good, while others harm that goal and are thus bad."

But who is to say that is the goal? Rather than, eternal life at the right hand of the Christian God? Utilitarianism diverges from Christianity over that point. There may be a logical procession having postulated your Optimum Bene, but that choice of postulate is not dictated by logic.

"Whatever religion(s) the Senators might belong to is irrelevant. They're there representing their constituents, not themselves (not that they don't seem to to completely forget that fact when money is waved in their direction)."

I disagree, this is prayer and the Senate is not required to pray at all to fulfill its legislative function. I object to the principle that a collective entity can "pray"--it is the individuals gathered who pray, and while they may do so as an organization to interwine their social life with faith, without their individual devotions the gesture is worthless and a sinful, Pharasiacal affront to God. God is not your Auntie Margie who nobody really likes but still gets cards on her birthday. God demands sincerity.

And if you don't like treading such waters then leave Him out altogether.

"I certainly wouldn't want a devil worshiper to open a Senate session, but where and how is the line to be drawn?"

By saying, "This is a prayer by members of the Senate, who collectively affirm the role their faith plays in political life, by respectfully and officially observing a prayer by one or more Senators present." None of the Senators is a Hindu, so having a Hindu invocation is not promoting the life in faith of a Senator or respectfully observing such. Speaking as a Catholic, if none of the Senators were Catholic, it would be appropriate to exclude Catholic priests as well.

Or the way that somebody upthread commented that Maybe the senators can have a goat sacrificed on the floor of the Senate to prove how devoted they are to "multiculturalism", painting all non-christian religions with the same brush?

But they are all equated by the 14th Amendment. So it is pure secularism to say so, not excessive zeal.

Well said, Captain. Beware the American Taliban.

fly-man asked (July 13, 2007 11:02 AM):

Would any of you devote Christians object to a secular spiritualist giving a peaceful evocation before the start of the Senate's business day?

I don't know how "devout" I am, but my answer is, "No, it wouldn't bother me."

Yell: it seems you want to limit prayer to denominations represented by sitting senators. That can't be done through legislation as the Bill of Rights -- First Amendment provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That is why I asked where and how is the line to be drawn.

These protestors were not only rude, they were also embarrassingly cheesy.

"A prayer of the wicked," "an abomination in your sight."

Who talks like that? It sounds like a cheap Hollywood version of a smarmy, sanctimonious televangelist.

How can I take someone seriously when they come across as brainwashed automatons, spewing canned slogans like tape recorders?

People should just get real and stop taking all their cues from TV.

"That is why I asked where and how is the line to be drawn."

It's not a matter of legislation, it's Senate housekeeping. So it's totally up to the Senators present.

Disclaimer: I am a naturalized U.S. citizen who immigrated to the U.S. from India at the age of 6. I am also Hindu although not a very devout Hindu.

This website has become one of my favorites sites along with Powerline and TigerHawk.

Growing up in the U.S., I absolutely realize the Christian roots of this country. I do not and did not take offense whatsoever in listening to any Christian prayer whether in school or other pubic forums.

As far as the behavior of the Christian protesters in Congress, I, as a Hindu, am not in a position to state whether they are "real" Christians. I believe Capt Ed when he states that they do not represent what the Christian faith advocates. Indeed, my experience growing up in America has been such! :-)

It is my responsibility to assimilate into the American culture and undertake the efforts to understand what it means to be "American". There are so many things I love about the American character. I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water just because America has not had a "sparkling record" in its history. I say we fix whatever that ails us the best we can and move forward. I believe that America has the best system in the world (I did not claim *perfect*).

If I decide that it is important to me and my family that we continue with our religion or believe in our ancient heritage, I must find the resources myself to affect this decision. The government has no obligation to, indeed must not, allocate public funds in order to carry out my decision. I have the obligation to do so lawfully according to the laws of the U.S. and my own ethical and moral standards. If I am to enjoy the benefits and privileges of American citizenship, I have a moral obligation to fulfill oath of the citizenship pledge I willingly took.

In reading speeches and writings of some of our founding fathers and presidents such as Lincoln, it is clear how much their faith played a part in forming their character and value system and how it guided them through some very difficult times.

I would not be offended if there were never a benediction given by a Hindu priest in Congress. But, let me say, there are millions of citizens and legal residents of Indian origin, the majority of whom are Hindu, in the U.S. There are several who have contributed highly to the American economy and society. Hindus have settled on all major continents (except maybe Antarctica - it's too cold there! :-). All have done so peacefully and respectfully. If as a majority, Americans decide that no priests except Christian priests can say benediction in Congress, it's fine by me. But I expect to be treated fairly under the law.

A previous commenter mentioned the treatment of Christians in India implying that Christians are treated (i.e. persecuted) in the same manner that Christians are treated some Muslim countries. Nothing can be further from the truth. India has always historically welcomed those who wished to immigrate to India and sometimes sheltered those who may have fled discrimination in their own countries. As you may know, India consists of people who practice almost every major religion on Earth. Christianity is one of those. There are official Christian holidays (such as Christmas of course).

To claim that all Hindus behave in the same manner or have common beliefs as those who commit atrocities against Christians in India is to claim that all white people in America are bigots and racists because a few carry out lynchings or drag bodies of black people. Whoever commits such crimes should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Hindus, especially in India, are looked upon as a contingent of people who need to be "saved" by converting to Christianity (or Islam for that matter). Keep in mind that India has the 2nd largest population of Muslims in the world (in a country that is 80% Hindu). It is safe to say that not all converted to Islam (or Christianity) willingly hundreds of years ago. Much of this conversion (both Muslim and Christian) has happened at the point of the sword and end of a barrel of a gun in the past and at the point of a pen and open wallet in current times.

I am sorry but I also believe in one God (contrary to common (mis)understanding of Hinduism). I don't know why this is not obvious to anyone who claims to follow a religion. By definition, there is only one God. Can anyone "prove" that the Bible is *the* word of God? Can anyone "prove" that the Vedas are *the* word of God? Of course not. But I have faith in God and the Vedas (and related texts) as divine as Christians have faith in the Bible. Many times, I resent looking down upon as not worthy of being "saved" if I am not Christian or Muslim or of any other non-Hindu religion. So, and I don't mean to offend anyone, I do not need to be saved by converting to Christianity, Islam or any other religion. However, I am free to study, understand, and, yes, even convert to any religion of my choosing on my own accord and free will.

Thanks! Keep up the excellent blog, Capt Ed!

Tom W.,
The protesters used Biblical language. I should point out that no true Christians will put on a belt of explosives and blow themselves up, or take part in constructing roadside bombs. True Christianity is a religion of love, redemption, and forgiveness for sin that we cannot earn ourselves, but by receiving as Savior the Lord Jesus Christ in true and living faith and resting in His works, and then living in obedience to God's Word. the Bible teaches that God Himself will do battle for us as He has always done. We are called to witness to His grace, and to present the gospel by bringing the truth that all men are sinners, have fallen short of the glory of God, and are helpless to save themselves. Those who hate God and God's people will hate this message and those who bring it.
Charlie Wilson

The Bible offers no support for this kind of protest. The first century Christians were never instructed to protest the religious symbols and invocations that the Romans used in their government (which were far more "unchristian" than a Hindu prayer).

These idiots claim to be followers of the Bible but they are really modern Pharasees.

md,

I think that was the most perfect follow up anyone could have hoped for to the good captain's post.

I am a Christian from India. I have many Hindu friends and respect their belief system which is far more complex than most people here realize. Hindus also believe in one God Brahma who has many manifestations.
We are a tiny minority in India and are treated well.
I think we as Christians should respect the religions of others, as i expect to be respected by other faiths.

Ed,
I've never posted before this post finally compelled me to congratulate you. While I disagree with many of your stances, I always find that you, more than any other blogger, are able to step outside of the partisan bubble and call people on the mat for their hypocrisy and general idiocy. You certainly won't find this sort of honesty or candor with the Kos, LGF, Malkin, or HuffPo or any of the other blogo-tribes who stick their heads in the sand and don't cover things that make their "side" look bad.

As a conservative evangelical Christian who probably ascribes to many of the Pavkovic family's notions of correct orthodoxy, I passionately reject their orthopraxy here.

What did this really accomplish other than to get them publicity?

I note from reading the comments that those who scream the loudest about trigger words like 'hate' seem to save their most hateful words for Christians.

Where are the champions of tolerance here?

Otoh, Mr. Pavkovic - as I've noted on other blogs - acts this same way towards Christians such as myself (a simple check of my blog will show he's not much in the social graces department).

I am a Christian who opposes organized school prayer because they haven't thought it through. How can one argue for public prayer when what one is actually advocating is 'public Christian prayer?'

I've got lots more to say but I think it best if I shut up for now.

I am For Ante and his family 100% I work with OSA and I stand with him 100% you all need to study your word more and obey what you Read, If you think God approves of having other Gods and these other religions like Islam, you are Blind. Way to Go Ante and Family Keep Lifting up the name of Jesus!