quote:State lawmakers Wednesday held up voting on a resolution in recognition of a Muslim group's upcoming convention after a legislator protested that "the Muslims do not recognize Jesus Christ as God." Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican from Butler County, north of Pittsburgh, said he opposed the House's formal recognition of this weekend's 60th annual convention in Harrisburg of the U.S. chapter of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.
"The Muslims do not recognize Jesus Christ as God and I will be voting negative," he said on the House floor.
The two-page resolution, sponsored by Speaker Dennis O'Brien, a Republican from Philadelphia, noted that the convention's mission was to "increase faith and harmony and introduce various humanitarian, social and religious services."
quote:The resolution was passed over for consideration after Republican Gordon Denlinger of Lancaster suggested that it be sent back to committee. It could come up later, but the group's convention is this weekend and the House is not scheduled to reconvene until Monday.
Invoking the memory of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Denlinger said the resolution should not have been promoted as noncontroversial under House rules.
"Certainly this nation went through an attack some years ago that is well-burned into the subconscious of our society," he said. "What I sense on our floor today is that, for some people, this evokes very strong passion and emotion."
I don't know what else to add to this.
[ June 19, 2008, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Ew.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Why does the government have to recognize a convention?
Which is not to say I agree with the lawmakers...they sound, quite frankly, like idiots and bigots. But should the government be 'formally recognizing' any conventions at all? Be they religious or Star Trek in nature.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Javert, There's a lot of, to me, pointless bs involved in government, especially an enormous one like PA state government. I don't really think this should be the case, but other people would get upset if the government didn't recognize their central south east PA needle threading competition for 14 to 16 1/2 year olds.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
That is just awful narrow-minded bigotry, and if I were a constituent, I'd be letting them know what I think of that sort of nastiness.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tante, I'm not sure that many of their constituents don't share this narrow-minded bigotry.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What does it mean for the legislature to "recognize" a convention?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: What does it mean for the legislature to "recognize" a convention?
That they get over themselves and their narrow-minded bigotry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That they get over themselves and their narrow-minded bigotry.
You mean the legislators were at one time bigoted against the central south east PA needle threading competition for 14 to 16 1/2 year olds and that, in recognizing it, they have renounced that bigotry?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: What does it mean for the legislature to "recognize" a convention?
It means they've recognized quite a few Christian conventions, and completely forgot that it would require them to recognize other religious conventions as well.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Around here it means they send a nice letter welcoming the convention-goers to the state and expressing the hope that they will enjoy their stay. For the really big conventions or those with some tie-in to government stuff (like the Retired Federal Employees Assciation) the representatives from the district the convention is in will send personal letters or staff members with greetings.
There isn't really any tangible benefit to the convention, but having the resolution proposed and rejected is certainly a non-welcoming statement.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I am looking for a real answer to my question.
edit: Thanks, dkw.
[ June 19, 2008, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It means they've recognized quite a few Christian conventions, and completely forgot that it would require them to recognize other religious conventions as well.
Actually, it doesn't "require" them to recognize other religious conventions.
As despicable as I find the statements to be, the action of the house as a whole - refusing to invoke a rule meant for noncontroversial measures when there is, in fact some controversy - is not in violation of the first amendment. Nor is it a violation of the spirit of the first amendment. The alternative to the house action would be to ignore its pre-established rules regarding controversial measures.
Edit: A refusal to adopt the resolution after the normal rules for controversial acts are followed would be violative of the spirit of the first amendment, assuming Christian conventions have in fact been recognized in the recent past or future.
The reason for the controversy and the quoted comments themselves are certainly violative of the spirit of the first amendment, though.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I was looking over this again, and found a new thing to get upset about:
quote:Invoking the memory of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Denlinger said the resolution should not have been promoted as noncontroversial under House rules.
"Certainly this nation went through an attack some years ago that is well-burned into the subconscious of our society," he said. "What I sense on our floor today is that, for some people, this evokes very strong passion and emotion."
While this could have multiple interpretations, the use to which it was put appears to me to strongly suggest that he was trying to say "Those people who don't see this as controversial don't really have strong emotions about the attacks of September 11th."
[ June 19, 2008, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: As despicable as I find the statements to be, the action of the house as a whole - refusing to invoke a rule meant for noncontroversial measures when there is, in fact some controversy - is not in violation of the first amendment. Nor is it a violation of the spirit of the first amendment. The alternative to the house action would be to ignore its pre-established rules regarding controversial measures.
Edit: A refusal to adopt the resolution after the normal rules for controversial acts are followed would be violative of the spirit of the first amendment, assuming Christian conventions have in fact been recognized in the recent past or future.
The reason for the controversy and the quoted comments themselves are certainly violative of the spirit of the first amendment, though.
This is a nice argument, but the PA legislators ignore their own rules all the time.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That still doesn't make this rise to the level of a first amendment violation.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Describing the fundraising and construction of a public worship house in Philadelphia in 1739)
quote:And it being found inconvenient to assemble in the open air, subject to its inclemencies, the building of a house to meet in was no sooner propos'd, and persons appointed to receive contributions, but sufficient sums were soon receiv'd to procure the ground and erect the building, which was one hundred feet long and seventy broad, about the size of Westminster Hall; and the work was carried on with such spirit as to be finished in a much shorter time than could have been expected.
Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service. (emphasis added)
Might be a good time for one of the supporters to read this passage on the floor, with a brief overview of Franklin's views on religious tolerance.
PS - Squick, you mistyped "Muslims" in the thread title. You might want to fix it. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
That's a great excerpt.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dag,
I'm pretty sure the "requirement" Javert was talking about isn't a legal one, so much as a matter of propriety.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't know what else to add to this.
"TEAM AMERRRRRICAAAAA....."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Am I the only one who read the "PA" in the title as "Palestinian Authority" and got really confused?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: PS - Squick, you mistyped "Muslims" in the thread title. You might want to fix it.
Aren't Muslisms what Muslists believe in?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It used to be Mulisms. Could be a new term for acts of legislative stubbornness. And if the legislature won't recognize its own Mulisms, well, that's just bad.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Am I the only one who read the "PA" in the title as "Palestinian Authority" and got really confused?
Probably.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
PA might not recognize them, but the add at the bottom is offering them up for marriage. I find that funny for some reason.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think this thread title is misleading. The PA legislature as a whole does not seem to have a problem with recognizing Muslims. Rather, it seems that one particular lawmaker does, which has turned a noncontroversial topic into something controversial, and thus has delayed the recognition of the Muslim event. I would guess that, aside from that one lawmaker,most of the rest of the PA legislature would have no problem recognizing Muslims.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Dag,
I'm pretty sure the "requirement" Javert was talking about isn't a legal one, so much as a matter of propriety.
It's essentially the requirement that happens whenever the government messes with religion.
Unless I'm horribly mistaken, under the first amendment the government must treat all religions equally. This leaves two options. The far easier one is to ignore all religions equally. The more difficult is to give every religion the attention they give to one or two.
Our government seems determined to try and do things the hard way.
[ June 20, 2008, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Javert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Unless I'm horrible mistaken, under the first amendment the government must treat all religions equally.
It's incredibly doubtful that a successful first amendment case could be brought based on a systematic pattern of the legislature failing to recognize Muslim conventions while recognizing Christian conventions.
(Please note that I've already said this would be violative of the spirit of the First Amendment.)
quote:This leaves two options. The far easier one is to ignore all religions equally. The more difficult is to give every religion the attention they give to one or two.
The problem is more convoluted than that. Recognizing secular but purely private conventions while refusing to recognize religious conventions is also violative of the spirit of the free exercise clause - the denial of a government "benefit" based on the exercise of religion or the type of message expressed at the convention.
My preference is to ban these types of resolutions entirely. If the government is unwilling to go that far, purely objective standards unrelated to the content of the convention should be used: size, license obtained, etc. Yes, that means the government might recognize a Klan convention. This is why I don't want it to recognize any of them.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Dags, how do you manage to make so much sense so much of the time?
I really appreciate your voice and point of view here.
Thanks.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Every time I read this threas title I keep imagining a PA lawmaker saying, "I'm sorry. Do I know you? Which one are you again? I don't recognize you with the head scarf and all."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's exactly my reaction, Kate.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I've been resisting making a joke along those lines, kate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Apparently, you are both better people than I am.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I keep trying to come up with examples of "Muslisms".
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I wonder how that politician's Jewish constituents feel about this, since apparently he won't be recognizing any of them, either...
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Likely just a tad less irate than his Muslim constituents.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do Jewish people all look alike, too?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The "Religion Test" ad at the bottom of the page took me to a "Pirate or Ninja" test. That's hilarious.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Tante. I really appreciate that. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Gah. I just watched the episode of Family Guy last night where Lois wins the mayoral election by answering every question with "9/11."
"So what do you plan to do about our schools?" "Nine eleven."
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)