Moderator: Jon Estes
Haruo wrote:YouTube video of Rep. Stephanie Borowicz's opening prayer
Astoundingly overladen with Jesus' Name (with occasional little twists of grammar making it sound, out of context, like she is claiming to be Jesus. Not nearly as worrisome to me as the rule against non-Christian clergy attending their condemned fellow believers in Texas and Alabama, but still pretty worrisome. The session in question involved the swearing in of PA's first female Muslim House Member.
William Thornton wrote:I rather think gummit telling people how to pray, whether or not the prayer may include the name of Jesus, how many times, etc., is far worse than what some critics label an inappropriate prayer. These are all adults not crybaby children. Let the legislature either have a prayer and take what they get or not have a prayer.
William Thornton wrote:I rather think gummit telling people how to pray, whether or not the prayer may include the name of Jesus, how many times, etc., is far worse than what some critics label an inappropriate prayer. These are all adults not crybaby children. Let the legislature either have a prayer and take what they get or not have a prayer.
The two guys to her right are sort of funny. I may be misjudging them, but it looked it didn't take them long to have had enough of her prayer.
I saw a news item on this yesterday morning while eating breakfast at Mr. Taco before going to the Southwest Texas SH Convention. (Karen gave me a report on the singing of NEW BRIDGE.) The reporter on whatever channel was on in the restaurant suggested that Rep. Borowicz deliberately exaggerated the use of the name of Jesus because of the new Muslim house member. Maybe so; maybe not. A possible simple way to check that out would be to see whether she normally prays that way -- some people do -- or whether it was an anomaly. Perhaps too much trouble for reporters to want to bother with? I pray in Jesus' name -- always, even in whatever context outside the church that I might be asked (which is seldom) -- but in my case would normally only invoke his name once. (That's not to say what others should or should not do, must or must not do.)Haruo wrote:Astoundingly overladen with Jesus' Name (with occasional little twists of grammar making it sound, out of context, like she is claiming to be Jesus)...The session in question involved the swearing in of PA's first female Muslim House Member.
This isn't exactly correct, according to my understanding. For whatever reason (see reason the state gave, below) the privilege applies to Christians and Muslims, but not other religions (I'm speaking of Texas; don't know about Alabama). I think we will find that this will not stand. In a recent Texas case, Brett Kavanaugh wrote, "As this Court has repeatedly held, governmental discrimination against religion, in particular, discrimination against religious persons, religious organizations, and religious speech violates the Constitution. The government may not discriminate against religion generally or against particular religious denominations." Also, in my understanding of the Texas case (which understanding might be wrong), the Texas prison officials did not argue universally against other religious advisers, but in this particular case from security concerns because no spiritual adviser of the prisoner's persuasion had been vetted by the prison system. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did not accept their argument.Haruo wrote:Not nearly as worrisome to me as the rule against non-Christian clergy attending their condemned fellow believers in Texas and Alabama, but still pretty worrisome.
Rvaughn wrote:I saw a news item on this yesterday morning while eating breakfast at Mr. Taco before going to the Southwest Texas SH Convention. (Karen gave me a report on the singing of NEW BRIDGE.) The reporter on whatever channel was on in the restaurant suggested that Rep. Borowicz deliberately exaggerated the use of the name of Jesus because of the new Muslim house member. Maybe so; maybe not. A possible simple way to check that out would be to see whether she normally prays that way -- some people do -- or whether it was an anomaly. Perhaps too much trouble for reporters to want to bother with? I pray in Jesus' name -- always, even in whatever context outside the church that I might be asked (which is seldom) -- but in my case would normally only invoke his name once. (That's not to say what others should or should not do, must or must not do.)
Rvaughn wrote:
What is inappropriate to confiscate the paragon of prayer as a platform for political pablum in place of petition to God. With William, I'd agree public prayers for government events "are mostly throwaways."
Rvaughn wrote:I don't think it is inappropriate for people to pray according to their sincerely held religious beliefs just because someone is present who holds different beliefs. If so, then one would also have to conclude that it will be inappropriate for the new Muslim member of the legislature to volunteer and pray according to her sincerely held religious beliefs. As for Rep. Borowicz's prayer (regardless of what suspicions I might have), I cannot judge whether she prayed according to her sincerely held religious beliefs. I don't know her heart, her beliefs, or how she normally prays. That doesn't keep me from thinking her prayer was weird, according to my own standards.
What is inappropriate to confiscate the paragon of prayer as a platform for political pablum in place of petition to God. With William, I'd agree public prayers for government events "are mostly throwaways."
She may think her "sincerely held religious beliefs" are "both/and" instead of "either/or." In a free society we get to determine whether we think someone's "sincerely held beliefs" are right or wrong, but we don't get to determine what someone's "sincerely held beliefs" are.Sandy wrote:Given some of the statements she made during her prayer, I can't determine if her "sincerely held religious beliefs" are Christian, or extremist right wing Republican.
I notice you often defend what the Democrats do or should do by what the Republicans did or would do (or vice-versa). That's a pretty low standard.Sandy wrote:Guaranteed if a Democrat had done the same, invoking the name of God over a list of left wing propaganda and distorted interpretations of history, the accusations of blasphemy and condemnations of heresy would be unending...
Rvaughn wrote: I notice you often defend what the Democrats do or should do by what the Republicans did or would do (or vice-versa). That's a pretty low standard.
My, I haven't noticed that I have exited the discussion, neither that your evidence is carrying the discussion. As I see it, your evidence is your opinion that you know what she intended. But do you? My point is that I know what she did/prayed, but I don't know what is in her heart or that she deliberately "over-invoked" Jesus's name and mentioned Israel in order to offend Muslims who were present (which is what I originally heard on the news, and which she did whether or not it was her intent). In this NBC news piece which gives some of her viewpoint and some views of others who disagree, she says, "I prayed as I always did." Do you have evidence that she is lying? If we could find other prayers that she prayed, then we would have evidence beyond our opinions.Sandy wrote:But no, that's not the case, that's really a cop-out and a means of exiting a discussion when your own perspective isn't really being carried by the evidence or the obvious.
Again, as far as her personal prayer is concerned, we can think of it what we will. I didn't notice, though, from your evidence, that you prove she doesn't sincerely hold both whatever are her views on Christianity and what are her views on "extremist right wing" politics. In fact, I'd guess than any number of evangelical Christians have gone into politics to push their "extremist right wing" views which they believe are consistent with their views of evangelical Christianity. I'd be floored, though, if you don't know (or know of) evangelical Christians whose views on foreign policy concerning Israel is based on the views of Israel and the Bible (or their views on praying in Jesus's name, for that matter).Sandy wrote:And in the case of the representative's prayer, her intentions were obvious. She made a mockery of the Christian faith, reducing it, in front of the Pennsylvania legislature, to a vehicle for pushing extremist right wing political views.
You're free to doubt, but in the absence of evidence, it is just an opinion, even if it seems obvious. In this piece at PennLive, a political observer thinks it mirrored the style of her campaign.Sandy wrote:"That's the way I always pray?" Maybe so, though I doubt it.
Chris Ellis, an associate political science professor at Bucknell University, said the approach in her campaign was similar to the approach people can see in the invocation video.
“I think what happened is not a surprise and I think it plays fairly well for her district,” Ellis said.
I have not read that she chose specifically to volunteer for this particular legislative session, though she may have. Yet, by the time it transpired she certainly would have known it included the swearing in of the first Muslim member. None of that answers whether or not she is praying the way she always prays.Sandy wrote:But here's what's obvious. She chose this particular legislative session to volunteer to open in prayer, where the swearing in of the first Muslim member was on the agenda. Her words and her body language are sending the message she wants to send. I think she very clearly stated and showed us what was in her heart and BTW, hasn't denied it.
I'm not swayed that a majority came to a different conclusion. As far as the link is concerned, it apparently is only for subscribers. (I can "keep reading" for $1.)Sandy wrote:Apparently most of the legislature, including members of her own party, came to the same conclusion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... d3c8ad728b
William Thornton wrote:Problem here is Sandy: "have no problem with the legislature setting parameters on what can be said by a legislator opening the session with a "prayer.","
Who else here believes gummit should set parameters on legislative prayers?
Sandy wrote:William Thornton wrote:Problem here is Sandy: "have no problem with the legislature setting parameters on what can be said by a legislator opening the session with a "prayer.","
Who else here believes gummit should set parameters on legislative prayers?
This legislature, along with several others under Republican control, already set parameters on what can be said by a legislator, and on who can actually pray, and you have no problem with those, because they are Republican.
Sandy wrote:This legislature, along with several others under Republican control, already set parameters on what can be said by a legislator,...
Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests