April 05, 2007
I Tolerate, but Don't Endorse LamenessNews
Yesterday, for the first time ever, a prayer was offered in the Texas Senate by a Muslim cleric.
Yesterday, a republican Senator named Dan Patrick was as much of a hypocritical jerk as he possibly could have been with regards to that historic occurrence.
He pointedly and publically boycotted the event, handed out a two-year old Dallas Morning News editorial which vaguely outlined something “troubling” about the cleric in question and THEN, in a stunning moment of massengillosity, he utilized personal privilege in order to end the Senate session by spouting bullshit about tolerance while smugly, condescendingly reminding us all that we are lucky to be here in Amreeka, where we’re free. Gosh, Massa we sho is lucky to be here wit you! (Thanks for the tip, Margin Fades)
Witness the awesome tolerance below (all quotes from the Houston Chronicle unless otherwise indicated):
“I think that it’s important that we are tolerant as a people of all faiths, but that doesn’t mean we have to endorse all faiths, and that was my decision,” (Patrick) said later.
Either you believe in it or you don’t, make up your damned mind. Wtf does this even mean?
“I surely believe that everyone should have the right to speak, but I didn’t want my attendance on the floor to appear that I was endorsing that.”
While it’s true that other Senators missed Imam Yusuf Kavakci’s invocation (which was in English, btw), Patrick was the only one who tried to educate his fellow legislators about the nefarious, dangerous nature of the Turkish cleric and his poopy views:
But he was the only senator known to have passed out to other senators copies of a two-year-old newspaper editorial criticizing Kavakci for publicly praising two radical Islamists.
I couldn’t find the editorial via the Dallas Morning News website, so I’m borrowing the following from LGF, since they had a post which featured the text:
The mosque’s imam, Dr. Yusuf Kavakci, has publicly praised two of the world’s foremost radical Islamists, Yusuf Qaradawi and Hasan al-Turabi, as exemplary leaders. Dr. Kavakci also sits on the board of the Saudi-backed Islamic Society of North America, described in congressional testimony as a major conduit of Wahhabist teaching. Yet Dr. Kavakci tells The Dallas Morning News he rejects Wahhabist teaching. Something doesn’t add up. [LGF]
When I googled the Islamic Society of North America, I found this:
The ISNA was one of a number of Muslim groups investigated by US law enforcement for possible terrorist connections. Its tax records were requested in December 2003 by the Senate Finance Committee. However, the committee’s investigation concluded in November 2005 with no action taken. Committee chairman Charles Grassley said, “We did not find anything alarming enough that required additional follow-up beyond what law enforcement is already doing.” [wiki]
Back to the Houston Chronicle’s coverage of the Senator who believes in concepts which he can’t, as a good Christian, endorse (p.s. I’ve never been more relieved to be a bad Christian):
Patrick’s political ally, Harris County Republican Chairman Jared Woodfill, had sharply criticized the fact that the Muslim prayer was scheduled during the week before Easter.
What if it were TWO weeks before Easter? This reminds me of the Sex and The City episode I saw last night, when the girls were at Vera Wang for final bridesmaids’ dress fittings and Charlotte advised a confused, conflicted Carrie, “Don’t tell Aidan you’re a cheating whore now, do it after my wedding, this is MY WEEK”, to which Miranda brilliantly replied, “you get a DAY. Not a week. A day.” Exactly.
The timing was coincidental, said Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, who sponsored the cleric’s appearance at the Capitol on the Texas Muslims Legislative Day.
Shapiro is Jewish, and this also is Passover, a major Jewish holiday.
Shapiro praised Kavakci’s “extensive interfaith experience” and said he represents a “substantial constituency of Texans who deserve to be represented.”
Right. So if the good Jewish Senator doesn’t have a problem with the Imam, why should Patrick? Especially when…
She said she checked out his reputation with the Anti-Defamation League and other groups to “make sure he was not somebody I would be embarrassed by.”
Shapiro said she never leaves the floor when Christian ministers deliver an invocation “in Jesus’ name” and doesn’t consider her presence an endorsement of Christianity.
“I have a great respect for Christianity. I have a great respect for anyone who comes and prays. That’s what this country was based on, its freedom of religion,” she said.
No, this country was based on whining:
In a personal privilege speech at the end of the Senate session, Patrick called the Muslim invocation an “extraordinary moment,” coming during Passover and before Easter.
“In many parts of the world, I know that Jews or Christians would not be given that same right, that same freedom,” he said.
“The imam that was here today, he was fortunate to be in this great country.”
Way to make Team Jesus look TERRIBLE, asshat. Tolerance, my rondure.
anna on April 5, 2007 08:34 AM in Issues, News, Religion · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
It really bugs me when American Christians act like this. Anna, you know this; we've had generations of Christians in Kerala and we have survived as friends with Hindus and Muslims. Is Jesus really that weak that a Muslim prayer is gonna hurt him?
Well-said, and of course not. This is the sort of tolerance I cannot bear, ESPECIALLY during the holiest week of the year. Remind me to channel my rage in to contemplative prayer for Patrick's enlightenment. Sigh.
In the contemporary battle of cultural superheroes, the Jesus of the Christian right is a snippy Republican Sunday School teacher grossed out by gay sex: clearly no match for the snarling, sword-wielding JihadMohammed. Jesus is in great need of a rebranding.
Douchebaggery at its best!
Well, this nation has managed to carve out a workable form of civic toleration but religious toleration nevertheless remains a meaningless concept specially with reference to the JC traditions. These traditions make mutually exclusive truth claims that pretty much cancel each other out. I think I much prefer the attitude of this Texas senator who does not need to hide the fact that his heart is with Christianity rather than a pretence that it makes no difference if a Christian endorses Islam or vice versa. This has nothing to do with being a good Christian or a bad Christian but actually relates to what Christianity is and what Islam is. Individual attitudes of toleration cannot solve these type of institutionalized problems and in fact may even perpetuate them by giving a false impression that everything's okay.
i guess i'm going to reincarnate in my next life as a roach for going to sunday mass with a friend or even to a buddhist temple to pray... as a hindu.
that guy needs to open up his eyes to the world.
maybe this happens only in texas.
(i kid i kid).
patrick, being in attendance wasn't endorsing a faith...it is being tolerant... i think you need a vocabulary lesson.
now i'm wondering who the heck endorses you.
“In many parts of the world, I know that Jews or Christians would not be given that same right, that same freedom,” he said.
so why does he act like he wants the USofA to be like "many parts of the world"? i don't think he gets that irony.
his has nothing to do with being a good Christian or a bad Christian but actually relates to what Christianity is and what Islam is.
wow, did you go to a theological seminary and a madrassa to become such an expert on two religions of which if i recall correctly you are not a member!
and for the record, there are serious, serious problems with islam, even american islam. but, this NOT the way to fix the problem. engagement anyone? it isn't like we're going to go pogrom on the 1-3 million american muslims.
Don't need to. All you need to know is that Christians regard JC as the only savior. All other paths are false. Under the circs it is not *logically* possible for xtians to tolerate any other religion or gods.
That guy sounds like a grade A ass for just letting that crap spew out of his mouth.
Except that Christianity is not monolithic; the faith is diverse and has as its core that quaint little notion of love and tolerance above all things. Christ Honcho himself said so.
Under the circs it is not *logically* possible for xtians to tolerate any other religion or gods.
if you think religion is about logic you don't know about religion.
In this respect it is. So is Islam. I think such incidents provide good opportunities to examine these issues from all sides rather than to insist on feel-good responses - which do nothing to really engage with the problem but only sound holier-than-thou on one side and demonize the other. Precisely what you have against the texas senator, I take it.
Under the circs it is not *logically* possible for xtians to tolerate any other religion or gods.
also, not to be a pedant, but, but to be clear, as far back as the 5th century st. augustine made an argument for the toleration of the jews. but hey, what does st. augustine know about christianity next to your masterful command of 'logic' divya?
there are serious, serious problems with islam, even american islam
Care to elaborate on the part about american islam?
What a douche.
On a not quite related note. I watched Little Mosque on the Prarie last night on YouTube and it was hilarious. See it before the American version turns the Imam into a 5'5" troll.
if we're going to talk about xtianity (or islam) it might be better for us to ignore divya, the non-abrahamic non-expert on religions who nevertheless likes to do a vox dei.
All you need to know is that Christians regard JC as the only savior.
79% of American Christians believe salvation is available outside the Church.
Care to elaborate on the part about american islam?
the central tendency is too much like conservative christians rather then methodists. this means that the "tails" will exhibit a lot more salafists then you'd want. of course there is a cultural transition as the immigrants die and grow old...but that takes time.
In the UK it seems that the tails grew fatter with the new generation. It's not clear if that's a system wide phenomenon - Muslims these days are different - or if it's a generational one to do with the British experience.
Let's say that it is the case that Christians regard JC as the only savior- doesn't mean I'm opposed to Muslims praying. I really don't understand why I should be either.
Sorry we're not tolerant of his intolerance.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
I love it that Sen. Patrick can split apart the freedom of religion clause so easily - he seems to think he is upholding this right by appearing to support free exercise, while explicitly disregarding the former establishment clause. I guess the moral is : be happy you can practice [somewhat] freely, but don't expect us to back up Islam, Hinduism etc, esp. when we haven't even accepted Judaism. Also, be happy that the only price you had to pay for this was defamation of one of your leaders.
The establishment clause has long been a contentious issue among constitutional academics, but the one thing that has never changed, and probably will never change, is that we will always have establishment of the Christian faith. As a non-Christian, and a lawyer, I find that very vexing, but I accept it for what it is. That's why it is heartening to see non-Christians in such legislative situations - even if religion is not out of the government [violating yet another clause of the Bill of Rights], at least there is an attempt to level the playing field. But the senator's reaction was ridiculous, particularly given that he is in a rather powerful position. On the other hand, in the 'marketplace of ideas,' his will be disregarded if it really has no merit.
Good post, Anna!
Lets not circle back to Hindu tradition here. Religion posts of late tend to become Hindu-centric very quickly. This is about a Christian Senator refusing to attend an Islamic prayer.
Can we quote such arguments if it was not really followed in principle by the people who prosecuted jews all the way to the end of WW2?
In the UK it seems that the tails grew fatter with the new generation. It's not clear if that's a system wide phenomenon - Muslims these days are different - or if it's a generational one to do with the British experience.
well...i said the american exp. for a specific reason. i'm a nominalist re: religion. not only do i know believe in any, i doubt they really exhibit as much coherency as "idea distributions" (for lack of a better term) as believers (or divya) seem to think. 30% of french "muslim" females (or, more precisely north african origin french) have children out wedlock and religiosity rates seem to have converged upon the french "catholic" norm. the situation is different in britain. to be simplistic i think there are two broad parameters:
1) local context (e.g., inputs from surrounding society, the starting socioeconomic position of the community, the ethnic mix [i.e., in england islam is closely connected with an ethnic & socioeconomic identity (brown, working class, etc.). not so in the USA]).
2) the worldwide pull of the ummah as a metra-central tendency. information technology seems to have amplified the "but i went to mecca" effect. e.g., brown muslims in the UK picking up arabian motifs almost immediately.
Word. (I almost googled "massengillosity" before it hit me.)
Can we quote such arguments if it was not really followed in principle by the people who prosecuted jews all the way to the end of WW2?
these arguments were quote by those who argued against forced conversion during these centuries. see the dynamic during the conflict between the church & "the jew burners" in the rhineland during the high medieval period (cite: one true god, rodney stark). the point is not that one argument was normative, but that a range existed and a religion can't be reduced to one behavioral or belief expression. hindus seem to accept this for themselves, but don't see that though not as explicit or well developed the same is true of the abrahamic religions.
and probably will never change, is that we will always have establishment of the Christian faith
in localities where non-xtians dominate there will be tacit establishment of other faiths. e.g., remember kiryas joel?
Obviously this guy is a jerk,but why does anyone need to pray in the Texas Senate, regardless of their religion or lack therof?
Man that really pisses me off. But I'm not surprised because it is TEXAS, and texas sucks.
What is surprising is that there is a growing Muslim population in Texas, a growing voting population. To see politicians act with outright disrespect to their constituency is just kind of politically dumb.
Obviously this guy is a jerk,but why does anyone need to pray in the Texas Senate, regardless of their religion or lack therof?
don't they do it in the US senate. also, note two things about the religious affiliation of chaplains:
1) 2003 was the first time a non-mainline "christian" was chaplain aside from a few baptists
2) around 1900 there were several unitarian chaplains, who likely were christian unitarians in giving due respect to jesus, but rejecting his divinity and the trinity.
What is surprising is that there is a growing Muslim population in Texas, a growing voting population. To see politicians act with outright disrespect to their constituency is just kind of politically dumb.
if the population is growing, but still a small minority (as it is), then this is not surprising. this sort of political gesture shows the (overwhelming) majority where he stands, and it appeals to the minority of the majority who are motivated by anti-muslim bias.
Seperate, but equal. Sound's like a great idea!
Maybe he's on to something.
some background on patrick, he's a baptist. my own personal exp. with conservative/evangelical baptists is that they're usually too dumb re: religious to note any difference between hinduism and islam. so his attitude needs to be framed in the context of the fact that he likely sees islam as an idol-worshipping heathen religion, not another abrahamic faith (they generally only privilege judaism as a sister faith).
You're right that he probably can't differentiate between them, but I think you're giving him waaay too much credit. The pindick is obviously a racist for whom black and Jewish people are no longer a socially acceptible target so he just picks the next one down the line.
but I think you're giving him waaay too much credit.
explanation != excusing.
more precisely, i'm offering that his response is much more intelligible in his cultural frame. a significant minority of americans are religiously intolerant (e.g., see stark & bainbridge's 1984 work the future of religion where a minority of christians believe that missionaries should preach to the world, but non-christian missionaries should not be allowed in the united states). many SM readers might not be aware of their numerical heft in much of america, at least on a personal level.
I am waiting for the right wing bloggers (michelle malkin etc.) to start defending Dan Patrick for his stance against submitting to dhimmitude and Islamo-fascism.
i don't know. the name is problematic. i keep thinking sportscenter.
I didn't believe you were trying to make an excuse, but I still think he is either the troglodyte he appears to be, or at the very best, pandering to the idiots in his constituency, who as you allude to above, would be more susceptible to hysterics as the “foreign” population grows.
I been a big fan of Dan Patrick for years on Sportscenter and his radio show on Espn Radio which is on right now. I never know he was also a Texas state senator.
but I still think he is either the troglodyte he appears to be
sure, let's be cautious about essentializing. his religious subculture is primitive and troglodytic.
I been a big fan of Dan Patrick for years on Sportscenter and his radio show on Espn Radio which is on right now.
this is a different d00d ;-)
I been a big fan of Dan Patrick for years on Sportscenter and his radio show on Espn Radio which is on right now. I never know he was also a Texas state senator.
The ESPN gig is a day job. Texas like New Hampshire does not have full time senators.
Oh, good grief. What a clod this state senator is.
For the humor-challenged, # 45 was a joke.
Razib –
Since you brought up Augustine, you may as well dig a little deeper into his career and discover for yourself how tolerant he was towards erring variants of Christianity. Oh, you might also notice the emphasis on logic in xtianity before making any claims against it.
My point was that religion teaches you certain attitudes. There's no point finding fault with these attitudes without also examining where they come from. It's way too simple to just sit back and say such and such is a douchebag.
Bleh.
For those of us watching the performance from atheist seats, this is like an argument between the guy who wants to punch us in the nose and the one who wants to kick us in the nuts.
you may as well dig a little deeper into his career and discover for yourself how tolerant he was towards erring variants of Christianity.
yes, like his opposition to donatism because of its excessive intolerance of apostates who were weak under persecution? the point is not that augustine was tolerant, he was not. but, there is a reason that paganism disappeared in christendom and judaism did not. the attitude of christians toward topic x, especially when there are 2 billion of them, is complex, because humans are complex and they have variant viewpoints. "logic" is not as simple as 1 + 1 = 2 in religion because i frankly think a lot of the verbal arguments are jesuitical post facto rationalisms. christianity has been a very intolerant religion. and indians ("hindus" as the persians and greeks would have called them) once ate beef. life is more complex than your reductive formulae.
now, i'm one for making a simple assertion to get some laughs. i don't like islam, and i find religion generally childish, and i express those views in a blatant and offensive manner on occasion. but at the end of the day i understand that reality dictates that religion is going to be around, and it is a complex phenomenon which is shaped by many variants, including the varied opinions of actual believers. you on the other hand seem to think that you can define other religions based on your own perception of "logic," and do it with a straight face. you don't even know enough about christianity to "fake it."
I am waiting for the right wing bloggers (michelle malkin etc.) to start defending Dan Patrick for his stance against submitting to dhimmitude and Islamo-fascism.
They'd be better off portraying him as the tarred and feathered victim of normative left-liberal "tolerance."
Razib:
more precisely, i'm offering that his response is much more intelligible in his cultural frame. a significant minority of americans are religiously intolerant (e.g., see stark & bainbridge's 1984 work the future of religion where a minority of christians believe that missionaries should preach to the world,
So what do you think of that Newsweek poll which shows American beliefs trending in a Unitarian direction; the results almost seem Hindu. Are American Christians really that open to salvation outside the church, or is the poll an anomaly? Here in the NYC metro, excepting certain communities (African-American Jehova's Witnesses, Hispanic-American Pentacostals) very few wear Christianity on their sleeves - its really very secular, and quite comfortable, I dare say, for non-Christians.
For those of us watching the performance from atheist seats, this is like an argument between the guy who wants to punch us in the nose and the one who wants to kick us in the nuts.
the analogy is weak because different religions have different attitudes toward atheists, and different religions have different powers to implement those attitudes. wicca might be as childish as fundamentalist christianity, but it is an irritant rather than a public hazard for unbelievers.
Divya I think you have a valid point there. Apparently only Razib can be a non practitioner of Christianity/Judaism/Islam- and yet qualified to speak about them. Guess you're not special enough. I'm an American living in the UK- and frankly I don't get the impression that multi faith/multiculturalism is working so well here. In all things rather its racism or religious intolerance etc-- I appreciate someone being forthright with their
hatred,dislikeummm unease? with my race/religion, what have you than 'pretending' everything is ok,- only to put a sheet on, and burn a cross in my yard in the cover of night. [ GNXP- been there, done that]Again I agree. I've had a [Pakistani and Sudanese ] Muslims explain to me that Islam is a social structure on top of a religious belief. Not sure if mastermind would approve of their credentials - but who cares? From a Christian perspective we would call that legalism and put it on par with Judaism-- because of the strictures that dictate what foods can be eaten, clothes to be worn, etc. Post 9/11 many Churches- even Baptist ones, offered education on the tenets of Islam; where we agree and where we differ. I think the senator was wrong in the way he handled this- but not everyone is happy to see a monolithic culture dissipate to other languages,religions , cultures, this aside from America's ongoing hangups about race. If we are going to have separation of Church and State at all levels- you can't just 'remember' that founding principle when its the local imam getting involved, but forget it when its the Rev. from down the road.
#30 - were you asking : 1. why there is prayer in the state senate, or 2. are you referring to the notion that he could have been present, but not actually prayed along i.e. silent protest? if it is the former, it has been practice in the US Congress to begin each session with a prayer by the congressional chaplain. so, i assume, state legislatures just follow that. even though there should be separation of church and state, this practice has pretty much stuck. i think the chaplain has varied in denominations, but has always been Christian. if it's the other question, well, that's a different matter....
So what do you think of that Newsweek poll which shows American beliefs trending in a Unitarian direction; the results almost seem Hindu. Are American Christians really that open to salvation outside the church, or is the poll an anomaly?
1) i think attitudes have changed some since 1984
2) what people are supposed to believe, and what they really believe, are often quite different. humans aren't computers, they hold contradictory thoughts in their head.
3) should because a christian believes that salvation is possible outside of the religion does not mean that they believe this is the optimal route. one of the issues that some christians offer is that only god can say who is saved, so of course they can't simply say that no one can be saved outside of x, y and z (some dissent obviously). additionally, there is the issue of verbal/outward profession of faith, and the inner compass which one can not comprehend. billy graham once explained that he'd met a chinese man who had never heard the gospel who started to cry when he heard graham's message, the man said, "i'd always believed something like that, just not in those words." graham's point was that just because one does not espouse a belief in jesus...does not mean that one does not believe in jesus, because words can capture only so much. many christians take this attitude insofar as they assert that good people are fundamentally believers, even if they would use a different word (e.g., ram). so yes, it converges with hinduism i would think. but i don't know, i'm not a believer and think it is all post facto rationalization. but i'm not going to deny that people believe what they believe, and that what they believe is as fundamental as the beliefs of fundamentalists.
Unitarian direction;
also, you mean universalist. speaking of augustine, pelagius won in the end....
The analogy is strong because if either the imam or the senator became king, we'd all be lined up and shot. And no I don't mean that literally, before you run off and dig up a regression analysis of monarchies and firing squads.
Why do you talk like a very clever computer Razib? Are you a very clever computer?
I don't know what your history with Razib is, but apparently it isn't pleasant. I don't share your sense of him at all and a lot of our commenters would agree with me. I respect him because he knows more about my faith than any Christian I've ever met, that is why he is qualified to speak, IMO.
I'm all for being straightforward vs. sugary (it's why I much prefer the gritty NorthEast to the sweet South). I am well-aware that things are NOT okay, but that's not license for me (or anyone else) to be an asshole. Yes, I'd rather know who a racist is vs. have them pretend they like me to my face, but Patrick is an elected official, one who professes to be hugely Christian and so beyond everything which has been stated-- whatever happened to the Golden Rule? Or did the good Senator miss that class at VBS, the one when they reminded us that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us?
also, you mean universalist
Yes. And why 1984?
take my comments at face value:
#7Razib:
Has Razib attend seminary or madrassa/ Hebrew school? is that the standard we all must be judged by to comment? I'm confident that you are correct- when you say that you and most commenter's here would not share my sense of him- that's cool.Obviously you can disagree with me ,the senator, and Divya-- -in this case we are all 3 just aliases on a screen.However the Senator is not the Sunday school teacher. I feel the term political correctness has been badly maligned- it's never a reason, in my view adults can't have civil discourse. However there has to be a starting point- and if the Senator had problems with an Iman giving a invocation etc in the place of government he has a right to say so. The Senator's tone in starting the conversation left much to be desired, but everyone is not as urbane as the readership of this blog.
if either the imam or the senator became king
the probability of the senator becoming king is orders of magnitude higher than the imam. in part because around 1/3 of americans share the senator's religious atittudes but less than 1% of americans share the imam's attitude.
Has Razib attend seminary or madrassa/ Hebrew school?
i did attend a madrassa FYI.
However there has to be a starting point- and if the Senator had problems with an Iman giving a invocation etc in the place of government he has a right to say so
this is like saying that SM practices censorship when it bans commentors. wtf?!?! NO ONE would say that the senator doesn't have a right to say something. conversely, we have a right to object that this is not proper within the context of a mul-ireligious republic, and, some christians who identify as such probably would want to assert that this is not the only face of their faith.
Tolerance and assholery shouldn't be the only two options. But that's what it pretty much comes down to which is a pity.
Razib - it is irrelevant what I don't know, so there's no need to keep repeating yourself. None of what I have said requires deep knowledge. As for what you just said above, you seem rather proud of the fact that you understand the dictates of reality. You are probably very much with the majority here, but not all of us are willing to go along with the way things are in deference to this reality of yours. We can always strive for better understanding.
None of what I have said requires deep knowledge.
a generalization about 2 billion people and the nature of their beliefs does require deep knowledge.
(Actually, Razib has attended a madrassa -- though that is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.)
Dan Patrick is an ass. He is also giving voice to a view widespread among Christian-Americans. Virgil Goode is a loser. He also represents (on Muslim issues) the views of many Virginians. These points are not in contradiction.
From an anti-bigotry perspective, having a loser like Patrick demonstrate his prejudice (and stupidity) by behaving in a clumsy, jerky way is a great way of discrediting bigots.
also, let me add that i do think public officials should speak more frankly about islam (at least some of them). i have no problem with religious bigotry as such, i will admit that i am an islamophobe (for example). but grandstanding does nothing but inflame passions without addressing the issues at hand.
p.s., re: 1984, the original survey i cited was from the early 80s.
it almost frightens me to say that I agree with most of what you have written on THIS topic. My points were against the guys hypocrisy-- eg we have no religious leaders giving prayers or we allow all. As for the other commenter's its too easy to say- this person is an idiot because he offended people. Yes he did,but sometimes even when people don't play nice, we have to listen to what they are saying and gauge the larger context.
Can we all say 'mountain out of a molehill' or 'storm in a teacup'? The senator is known for his Christian views and all he did was walk out during the prayer, which is not offensive. He represents a certain large segment of the American population and this attitude will be very familiar and understandable to most Muslims in the world. In India if prayers by people from different religions are said in any place (including RSS or BJP headquarters), it will not be news. He bats for Christianity openly and still gets elected from his constituency as the following articles show.
Imam's prayer in Senate makes one senator a no-show
Dan Patrick wants your babies
Another Insult to Women Seeking Abortions
^^^
basically, the guy is just playing to his constituency...
Well, you know, if he were more clever he would have clouded the issue with only the second part of the post and not the first: I mean, instead of walking out of the prayer and talking about tolerance to Islam, etc, he could have slyly inserted the whole 'prior association with groups that may fund terror' angle. I know ANNA showed that an enquiry didn't substantiate the claim from two years ago, but if you are going to try and demogogue, you should do it more subtly. Anyway, if that is really his concern, there are better ways to pursue it then this ham-handed bit of political theater.
Good grief: And you all wonder why I find smaller government generally more attractive? This is often the caliber of person we get, and it's partly our fault for being more into the celebrity nature of politics than the actual substance.
Ikram: what point of view is widespread among Christian-Americans? Sorry, I didn't get the point?
The former. I know it's the case in the US Congress as well, but I don't see why it should be. Why does anyone need to pray as part of the proceedings of the US or any state government? If they think it makes them better politicians they are welcome to do it on their own time.
I actually don't mind the prayer (razib would probably disagree). I just think if one person gets to, they all should. How long has this tradition been going on, of praying in the Senate? Is it really old or relatively new?
Perhaps he just has access to a very clever computer.
I agree. But since it is tradition and unlikely to be abolished, then they should let all faiths pray within the same walls. I just wonder how they would react to a Hindu performing a puja before opening session. I wonder if there would be the same intolerate Dan Patricks running out the door--is it just an Islam thing? Though he is revelling in his summers-eveishness, I do understand people here saying we need to understand the environment he comes from, but that is not an excuse. Wouldn't he find it rude if I walked out of a prayer recited by a reverend or pastor? Do you think he wouldnt issue a statement with something along the lines of how I should conform to the majority culture as a member, albeit an 'immigrant,' of American society? Religious tolerance/Bill of Rights would come up then as well, correct? This is a two way street with multiple lanes...if non-Christian members can sit through Christian opening prayers, then why can't Christian members sit through non-Christian opening prayers?
He doesn't have to accept, but as a public official he should respect. Even accepting another's faith/culture/mores/etc is not 'endorsement' per se. As a Hindu I have attended Easter mass and gone to Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Christian, and Jewish services. Not saying it makes me an expert, not saying everyone should do that, but at least have the respect for your own culture to at least try to understand others'---that's how adults who are not asshats function, at least my opinion.
ANNA, as usual awesome post.
Just curious: who is "you"? Me? Razib? A collective sort of "you"?
I wonder if there would be the same intolerate Dan Patricks running out the door--is it just an Islam thing?
for the record:
Imam Siraj Wahhaj offers an invocation (opening prayer) to the United States House of Representatives. He was the first Muslim to do so. (1991)
Razib, thanks for the info. But my point was: if it were a Hindu service, do you think there would be someone running out DP-style? Or is he just doing this because it is a Muslim prayer? Would he do the same if a Rabbi bagan the session? Just curious.
But my point was: if it were a Hindu service, do you think there would be someone running out DP-style? Or is he just doing this because it is a Muslim prayer? Would he do the same if a Rabbi bagan the session?
american evangelicals are putatively philo-semitic. additionally, though they tend to believe that though their testament supersedes the hebrew bible, they do agree that the jewish god is also their god (they simply believe jews are in error about the nature of their god). so i am skeptical that he would walk away. in contrast, unlike many other christians many fundamentalist protestants do not believe that the muslim god is their god, rather, they (the smarter of them) might contend that allah is simply a monotheisized form of the primary pagan deity of mecca. in other words, islam is a heathen religion. some christians, going as far back as the church father john of damascus, would disagree and simply contend that muslims are heretics in error.
and i assume he would object to a hindu as much.
A Hindu opened the Utah assembly a couple of weeks ago.
Sorry. That's Nevad.
Charlotte’s asking Carrie to accommodate her values just as Carrie’s asking Charlotte not to judge hers. In their quest for tolerance, the underlying issue of whose morality is best goes unresolved, indeed undebated, lest they destroy their friendship.
Quest for Truth is the first casualty of tolerance.
DP-style
hehe. dee-pee.
Haha. I thought that, too. We're dirty. ;)
will i get jumped if i start commenting on this post?
the sheep always appreciates advance notice from the wolf
"additionally, though they tend to believe that though their testament supersedes the hebrew bible, they do agree that the jewish god is also their god (they simply believe jews are in error about the nature of their god). so i am skeptical that he would walk away. in contrast, unlike many other christians many fundamentalist protestants do not believe that the muslim god is their god, rather, they (the smarter of them) might contend that allah is simply a monotheisized form of the primary pagan deity of mecca."
Among the rank and file Christians, which will be 99.99% of the population, the reasons for accepting Judaism are probably a lot less cerebral. Culturally and racially, the American Jews are closer to American Christians than Hindus and Muslims are to American Christians. So there is that comfort factor, and let's not forget that wee bit of Christian guilt rooted in Auschwitz and perpetuated in at least one Hollywood movie every year. (Nothing against the Jewish influence on the media. We desis are doing the same thing here, aren't we?)
I am also a firm believer in the economic power of religion, which is to say that religions associated with the less developed parts of the world are perceived to have a lower brand value. The Middle Eastern oil is not sufficient to change that brand perception because to the western world, the oil is Islam's dumb luck, not a true economic achievement. It is possible that in another 50 years, India's fast rising economic status may make Hinduism a world class religion, with the Pope inviting our big pundits to the Vatican and Texan senators doing a puja before important senate proceedings. I wouldn't be around to witness it, and nor would I consider it a triumph of sorts.)
But it's ultimately about money, boys and girls.
Razib, keep up the good work. I knew you would get pretty active in this thread.
Let's see if I can tap into some of the wisdom here. I always thought Al-lah was just the Arabic word for God, which Arab Christians also use for 'their' 'Christian' God - do you agree? Would fundamentalist Protestants allow the Christian God to be referred to in Arabic, and would they agree that the 'God' of the Arab Christians is the same as their own 'God'?
At a slightly more general level, how do people really distinguish between these Abrahamic monotheisms? From an outsider's pov, I always thought that to a first approximation, both theologically and culturally the three Abrahamic faiths differ not very much at all - they all believe in 'God', all have some 'pagan' traditions underlying them, based on the original tribal customs among the earliest believers - e.g., all have a Lent, and an Easter (generically speaking), a Messianic and revelatory character, a clergy separate from the laity, etc. All distinguish between 'us' and 'them', believers and pagans. etc etc. In fact, naively speaking, the difference between the orthodox-catholic-protestant denominations within Christianity sometimes seems about as large as any naively perceived difference between JCM.
I would imagine anyone born into any one of these faiths would have a harder time seeing the similarities between them. The only real differences for someone naively looking in from the outside is the racial identity of the majority of the practitioners of each faith, - but then again, there are lots of dark-skinned Christians and there are significant numbers of light-skinned Muslims too!
So one comes back again and asks - what is the difference, unless it is a completely artificially constructed difference used to mask a political conflict, today just as much as during the Crusades? From this naive perspective then, the political tension creates the religious intolerance, the theological angles are created to 'pull the wool over your eyes', and are not truly central. Getting wrapped up in the details of the theology might be missing the point.
Watching the equine faced Sarah Jessica Parker play a "sexy sophisticate" in NYC having men fall for her on SATC is something like believing Austin Powers is a studly dashing secret agent. Always found it required far too much suspension of disbelief to accept SJP in such roles.
Am waiting for when a Wiccan or a Raelian priest/priestess is invited to offer prayer at a senate house. That would be interesting.
Am waiting for when a Wiccan or a Raelian priest/priestess is invited to offer prayer at a senate house. That would be interesting.
There was no invitation at the Chesterfield county, VA, board of supervisors meeting. A local witch wanted to say a prayer at some meeting. The outcome was nearly the same though.
Too predictable to be interesting. Unless you count the witch part, which is only vaguely interesting.
Another reason why religion is useless. How about no prayers? It amazes me that people cleave to these faiths which are unscientific simply because of tradition and ancestral pride. Individuals who are highly educated -even within the sphere of science- who claim to be christian, muslim, etc; how can you veil your reasoning and believe in a doctrine that is diametrically opposed to the principles of science? The virtues espoused by religion are not exclusive to faith, so why not drop the fairy bs about arks, flying gods, virgin births and embrace logic and simple axioms?
"Getting wrapped up in the details of the theology might be missing the point."
The details of theology do not characterize a living, breathing religion. Culture, economics, politics, geography, and a host of other factors shape a religion as practiced. I am reminded of the Arya Samaaj movement, which was a highly enlightened reformist attempt in the mid-2oth century to take Hinduism back to its vedic theological roots. It was a marginal success even in its prime. Its believers keep shrinking in numbers. Hinduism's sanatan tradition, the one richly rooted in mythology instead of theology, is growing by leaps and bounds.
Oh enlightened one, pray tell what science tells you about the moment of the big bang or a black hole singularity. And why is thine wisdom unable to comprehend the fact that religion fulfills a psychological need of a majority of humanity to fear less what they cannot explain?
And why is thine wisdom unable to comprehend the fact that religion fulfills a psychological need of a majority of humanity to fear less what they cannot explain?
So, rather than accept that we are currently unable explain a certain natural phenomenon or definitively track the course of time, we should embrace ridiculous and antiquated texts that would have you believe that the universe itself is only a few thousand years old? lol
"so why not drop the fairy bs about arks, flying gods, virgin births and embrace logic and simple axioms?"
Naah, Realist. How can man bond with his fellow man, a very natural human urge, without a deeply shared mythology of arks, flying gods and virgin births? The Mooose and the Elks have special handshakes and signals. The Japanese car makers have their mottos and company songs. Every NFL team has its storied past.
Religion is ultimately a social activity, and like any social institution, must develop a set of conventions to survive and thrive. The problem is that most people will not accept such a "downgraded" role for religion, but in my humble opinion, the social value is the ultimate value of any religion.
It is Easter weekend. We used to have egg hunts when our daughter was little, and we are practicing Hindus. Why did we do that? There was something social going on.
I think there are two aspects to religion - one is the social aspect you speak of and that is very true and existent. The other is the 'spiritual' aspect or the aspect that relates to the belief in a higher power. The need for the social aspect comes from the reasons you mentioned. However, how often we have heard of people going through really rough patches in their life and extreme tragedies turn towards religion and say god/religion saved them. This is a manifestation of the second aspect where a lot of people when faced with a bad situation derive comfort from the thought that there is a supreme power out there and if they behave a certain way, that supreme power/entity will make things ok. Similarly, religion and the belief in a 'God' helps a lot of people think they find a purpose in life. This aspect of spirituality/religion cannot be neglected either.
I'm getting flashbacks from my Houston days...
Patrick is one of the most obnoxious public figures I've ever encountered. He's a hateful, joyless prick, the kind of person who is only happy when he's angry... who can't walk past a grenade without falling on it. I'm guessing this is more about love of conflict than hate of Muslims. He reminds me of my dad, actually...
The guy actually got his start as a sports talk/shock jock/Limbaugh-wannabe radio personality. My most vivid memory of him is during an ice storm... not exactly a common event in Houston... when he was on the air yelling at his listeners, telling them how pathetic they were and that they all needed to man up, get in their cars and get their lazy asses to work...
Showing up is a big deal to him... most of the time. Danny Boy shilled for the Astros' owner when he threatened to move the team, calling out Houston sports fans as frontrunning pussies for not going to enough games. He even held a "Last Chance" telethon to solicit/beg/extort season ticket sales. Then the Astros decide not to renew their broadcast deal with his station and sign up with a rival instead. Within weeks Patrick is leading the campaign to defeat a new stadium referendum and run the team out of town.
Versatile guy, that Danny. Not just a pompous ass and all-around classless fuck but a hypocrite too. In baseball they'd call him a "five tool talent"...
Fuck Danny Boy.
And fuck the Kingwood Cong.
Yeah, Team Jesus gets hurt everytime another fundamentalist asswipe like that makes intolerant remarks.
Contrary to what people like Patrick believe, Islam is not the only religion in danger of being dominated by fundamentalists.
He should take a look in the bloody mirror.
***
VIKRAM:
On your comments about the 'equine faced SJP', I think her unconventional looks are what attracted women to watch the show. We love her because she's NOT Catherine Zeta Jones or some other woman who tries to make herself look beautiful in the eyes on men. Carrie on SATC prettied herself up just for her, and it was so refreshing to see that.
She's not a supermodel - and she's the first person to admit that - but she's attracive and bubbly and has impeccable style. Your comment just proved by girls get that show and why most guys never will.
Hinduism has no theology, so to talk of
vedic theology, is adding to absurdity. The sanatan tradition you are talking simply means eternal tradition, again psychobabble.Yes, VERY enlightened...NOT. It was a completely artificial movement which simply reinterpreted Vedic material to fit its agenda of making Hinduism seem more like a rational, monotheistic, western religion. It tried to reinvent Hinduism to appear more like an Abrahamic faith. It had no tolerance for most of what we would consider important aspects of Indian culture (for example the Mahabharat, Ramayan, etc.) There is also no evidence that it was an accurate reflection of the original vedic era (or beliefs, rituals, philosophy) in any way. It attacked Islam, Christianity, and Sikhism (particulary Sikhism in the vilest of terms), and encouraged Punjabi Hindus to disown their mothertongue (Punjabi) and opt for Hindi (which was seen as a successor to Sanskrit) instead. The movement has faded but the highly negative effect it had on the cultural and linguistic orientation of Punjabi Hindus in particular is an unfortunate and long-lasting one. Most Arya Samajis are very narrow-minded, smug people.
Fellow Texan here, yes, Dan Patrick is indeed a douchebag. He's just playing to the cheap seats as usual. His sort of Christian only believes in tolerance when it suits them. Personally I am against prayer in schools, at sporting events, and certainly in political assemblies but who cares what the atheists think? So I am with Mr Kobayashi on this one, at some point it really is about watching the guys who want to kick you in the head argue with the guys who want to kick you in the nuts. I don't care.
SHIMI- I care. I really do. And as one of the people who (I guess?) would kick you in the nuts, I assure you that I would never. Unless you reeeeeeally wanted me to. Growing up in California, I've heard of far freakier. ;)
AMITABH, I had no idea about Arya Samaj. I'm so glad you're here to shed light on such things.
BRANCH DRAVIDIAN, yowza. I disliked Senator Patrick, now I fairly loathe him. Ugh, ugh, ugh.
And VIKRAM, while I agree that SJP isn't conventionally pretty (I felt bad during the final season, when she seemed to have aged uber-rapidly relative to her girls) I do grok TASH'S point too...my issue is with her character's behavior...the more I watch the show (twice a night, in syndication, here in DC) the more Carrie annoys me. But we could have a whole other thread about that. Or three of them. ;)
No, that's not it...it's "encouraged Punjabi Hindus to disown their mothertongue (Punjabi) and opt for Hindi".
Razib wrote:
Actually, he appears to know more about christianity than you.
See? This is pure ignorance on your part. Christians believe that God has already said who is going to be saved: "
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me." (John 14:6). This is the basis of christian exclusivism.
"Outside the Church, there is no Salvation" is Catholic Dogma. Mainstream Protestants are also exclusivists: faith in the blood sacrifice of Jesus, the only son of God, is the only salvation possible. You keep spouting inclusive Unitarian Universalist sentiments as if this tiny minority is represntative of christianity. It is not. Both catholics and protestants burned unitarians at the stake as heretics.
Christianity before it was defanged by the Enlightenment was far more intolerant than Islam. Only jews were tolerated, since they are the progeny of Abraham, God's chosen, and since the mother of God's only son was a jewess. Islam on the other hand tolerated jews, christians and hindus as dhimmis. And deviant "muslim" sufis as well, while the catholic church completely wiped out the christian equivalent, the Cathars, in a genocidal "crusade".
Dont confuse the current western tolerance as christian tolerance. It is not. It is Enlightenment tolerance. As Neitschze noted, christians would still be burning us alive if they had the power to do so.
Apparently you have never heard of the Nicene creed. Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox sects all subscribe to this "belief expression".
As long as the Muslim clerics and other Muslims recognize that this isn't a "triumph" of Islam in that they are now able to have their religion in American government but rather that America accepts all faiths as EQUAL. And that is why it is being preached in the Senate then I have no problem.
But the problem is that many Muslims see this has a "we are winning" and they see it as a weakness of Christianity. They think the only reason that "Christian" America allows it is because Christianity is realizing how flawed their own religion is and is embracing the truth (Islam).
If the Muslims, especially aboard can understand that this is not a refute of Christianity. But actually only tolerance of ALL religions then I have no problem.
Uh, you too. And please try to format your comments better, they are difficult to read and thus difficult to understand, this far in to a conversation. Thanks.
Amitabh,
The Arya Samaj also promoted caste reform and gender equality. Yes it was agressively proselytizing, (performing shudhi [conversions] on Muslims and Sikhs) but it was also a response to agressive proselytization from British missionaries. It is also most emphatically not dead - many districts in Harayana are dominated by Arya