Hatred on the House floor
Our state lawmakers regularly rubber-stamp resolutions honoring people or events in the commonwealth, but if you're planning to submit something for our legislators' blessing, I hope you're praying to Jesus, because that's a requirement, at least for one House member from Western Pennsylvania. Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, shown above, made a fool of himself - and his constituents, by extension - when he stood up in the House chambers to declare his opposition to a resolution recognizing the upcoming Harrisburg convention of a Muslim organization, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Said Metcalfe, a Butler County Republican, "The Muslims do not recognize Jesus Christ as God, and I will be voting negative." The proper thing for the rest of the House members to do would have been to say, "OK, clown, knock yourself out," and then approve the resolution. But after some condemnation of Metcalfe from other lawmakers, the resolution was tabled at the request of one of Metcalfe's Republican colleagues, Rep. Gordon Denlinger of Lancaster. These men have brought shame on Pennsylvania. Our country has a long history of supporting freedom of religion, to the point of recognizing freaky cults, like the Scientologists, and churches with screwball foundations, like the Mormons. To shun the Muslim group, which, according to the resolution, aimed to "increase faith and harmony and introduce various humanitarian, social and religious services," is idiotic. I would like to see the House pass a resolution in support of this statement: "Representative Metcalfe, you're an ass."
Labels: Politics
posted by Brant at
9:50 AM
25 Comments:
"The Muslims do not recognize Jesus Christ as God, and I will be voting negative."
So, there is a possibility that he was simply stating two facts and the correlation between the two is being assumed...
Fact 1) The Muslims do not recognize Jesus Christ as God.
... no argument there.
Fact 2) I will be voting negative.
... if he did, in fact, vote negative... then that, too, is a fact...
Since he did not link his thoughts with something like "therefore" which would suggest that BECAUSE Muslims don't recognize Jesus as God, he is voting negative, it is unfair to assume that his reason for voting negative is because Muslims do not recognize Jesus as God...
Today is Wednesday and I have two feet.
No one would assume that my being bipedal would would have anything to do with what day of the week it is.
Scratch all that... this guy is a tool-shed. I hope that when he dies, he goes to atheist hell... which is: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=nowhere&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl
-Ellipses
I have this idea:
Separate states for each religion. You're Muslim, you move to Ohio. Hindus in Maryland. Catholics, Montana. Mormons already have Utah. Buddhists get Alaska. Jews already have Florida. Seventh Day Adventists get Delaware. Unitarians get California. B'Hai, Louisiana. Satanists, Arizona (it's hot). Agnostics, ... hmm ... Maine. I'm sure I've forgotten many religions, and there are so many protestant sects that we'll need to subdivide a few states. (Methodists will be happy no matter where they are, as will Presbyterians as long as their churches are on a hill higher than the Methodists'.) Evangelicals should definitely get something on the right coast. Then everyone will be happy.
Except those damned atheists.
Could I claim the South Carolina Lowcountry for the atheists? It's really nice there. If not, I wouldn't mind bunking in with the Hindus or the B'Hai gang.
South Carolina is yours. Build hotels and cash in when someone lands on your property.
Might wanna pick another state for agnostics... one Maine winter and they will be convinced there is no God and head down to Hilton Head to kick it with the atheists...
-Ellipses
If it bothered this guy so much, why didn't he just vote negative and skip the hate speech? That way he could go with his conscience and not insult Muslims, his constituents, his colleagues and pretty much anyone else who's read his comments.
While we're assigning religions to states, where do lapsed Catholics go? Can I stake out Virginia for that?
By the way, I once asked Brant if he really and truly is an atheist. His reply: "I sure am. I swear to God!" Nah...just kidding!
Sorry ... Virginia is for lovers. Lapsed Catholics could probably get a spot near Las Vegas. Or maybe Missouri, because of the St. Louis Cardinals.
Priguy...
I, for one, am not insulted by his comments.
He said something that revealed himself to be a retard (and I mean nothing negative to our friends with a mental or physical handicap... but I am running out of words to use in a derogatory way towards people who deserve it).
I am thankful that he did that... Now we don't have to wonder why he voted this way on this issue or that way on that issue... we can look at his votes and say... that guy is a retard.
-Ellipses
I'm not actually insulted by his comments either. I just can't believe he was stupid enough to preface his vote with such an idiotic comment. Besides, everyone should know now that you can't say anything remotely negative about Muslims or the nuts come out of the woodwork.
St. Louse, eh? I see the logic, but I just can't embrace the sports teams. Any other suggestions? I'm not a "Vegas" guy either.
The pacific northwest makes some decent vino... assuming that, though you lost your taste for the dogma, you didn't lose your taste for the wine...
-Ellipses
So it is "hate speech" to oppose something because of his own religious beliefs. That is part of the problem in this country. He had a right to vote against it and he had the right to say why he did. It was not based on "hate" but a disagreement with a religion that has preached hatred of other world faiths. Metcalfe is a strong individual that chooses to not follow the politically correct banner. A variety amongst political figures in Western Pa. he is honest and not working for the sole betterment of himself. A trademark of Christianity. Of course, he committed the cardinal sin of actually admitting the reason for his stance.
That's part of the problem in this country, anything you say against a "minority," in this case Muslims – and he was just stating a fact – is suddenly hate speech. Have we become that ridiculous?
Yeah, I don't think it's "hate" speech... I think it is "retard" speech...
-Ellipses
Rep. Metcalfe's statement is certainly not hate speech, but there sure is a whole lot of hate behind it. And, yes, he was just stating a fact, but the subtext of what he said couldn't be clearer - these people are not worthy of our consideration. And, guess what? That's hate. What if people said Christianity was a vulgur religion because its "good book" supported slavery and the subjugation of women? Would they have a legitimate point? Oh, you say, modern Christians have gotten past some of the more distasteful teachings of the Bible. So what you're saying is, you pick and choose what to believe. Well, I'm sure Muslims do the same. I am not a student of the Qur'an, but I'm sure the vast majority of Muslims do not see their "good book" arguing for the slaughter of others. Just because a bunch of lunatic fringe Muslims attacked us is no reason to treat all Muslims with hatred. If you do that, you should also shun Midwestern white guys, based on Timothy McVeigh. All religions see themselves as the true way, yet not a single one of us knows if any religion, or none of them, is a path to some sort of eternal salvation. I went to the Web site for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and, lo and behold, right at the very top of its site, it says, "LOVE FOR ALL, HATRED FOR NONE." Is that clear enough for you, Rep. Metcalfe and your supporters. Also on their site, I found this passage from "Murder in the Name of Allah," by Hazrat Mirza Tahir Amhad, identified there as the Fourth Successor to the Promised Messiah: "As far as Islam is concerned, it categorically rejects and condemns every form of terrorism. It does not provide any cover or justification for any act of violence, be it committed by an individual, a group or a government. ... I most strongly condemn all acts and forms of terrorism because it is my deeply rooted belief that not only Islam but also no true religion, in whatever its name, can sanction violence and bloodshed of innocent men, women and children in the name of God." Hmmmmm. Sounds like something all of us could get behind. Maybe this Muslim group could teach Rep. Dipstick Metcalfe a thing or two about loving his fellow man. But, of course, Rep. Metcalfe would never dream of trying to find out more about people different from him. He just condemns them ... a trademark of militant Christianity.
My god's better'n your god = I'm right and you're wrong. You are a sinner and damned to hell. It's certainly not love speech.
Mr. Douche-nozzle is kinda sorta off the hook as far as the essence of representative government is concerned... Elected officials are (or should be) bound to push the will of their constituency ahead of their personal beliefs. If his constituency articulates to him their desire for him to not recognize or otherwise vote in the negative against organizations that do not recognize Jesus Christ as the one true God, he is the conduit through which the "will of the people" flows. He could be all peace and love with the Muslims, but be bound to vote contrary to his warm and fuzzies. If that is the case (I know, it's not... I am just BS-ing here), then the lens of criticism should be turned on the people of Butler county... for they would bear the responsibility of their chosen one's actions.
I don't actually know that the aforementioned interpretation of representation is accurate... so feel free to correct me :-)
-Ellipses
We do, indeed, have a representative government, and one won't last long in said government unless he or she does the will of the majority of the constituents. That said, it's always been my belief that elected officials, no matter the makeup or beliefs of their particular electorate, have an obligation to do what is right and just, no matter how that will sit with the home folks. Unfortunately, we are now led by "representatives" who cast their votes based on polling and who has the money.
Islam from its inception has expanded by the sword. Its very tenets preach not peaceful conversion, but violent conversion. In addition, their laws preach the debasement of women in a way that even Western culture has never proposed. There is such a thing as evil religions and thoughts, some people have forgotten that in the time of political correctness.
I hate all the politically correct nonsense, and I'm ashamed of myself for using that idiotic politically correct term "hate speech." An inadvertent slip of the fingers, and it brings out the zealots. I hate PC and frankly, I hate stupid terms like hate speech. I was in a hurry and didn't take the time to use a better term, like "inflammatory."
And thank you Brant for breaking it down so all the anonymous folks can understand what "context" is and how to use it in situations like this.
Hey Mr. Or Ms. last "anonymous": Islam spread by the sword? Yah. But have you forgotten a little thing called The Crusades? Didn't our Spanish Christian brethren spread the gospel throughout the Americas by using the cross as a machete? How about all that Old Testament slaughter by which Yahweh had the Jews clear people out of their way? Do Catholics allow women to be priests? Isn't this a form of "debasement of women?" How many Christian churches have female "women's ministry" leaders who have their roles limited to bakes sales, sewing circles and weekly announcements? How many Native Americans did Christians "convert" by torture? Why did it take almost 150 years for women to get the vote in the US? Why did it take WWII to clear the way for women to take "men only" jobs in factories? I may be anonymous, too, but I don't have tunnel vision.
The difference has been obvious between Christianity as it was written and Islam as it was written and practiced. Denying a woman the right to be a priest is no where near as bad as denying them basic rights including sexual intercourse with the partner of their choosing. It is just plain silly to compare them. Consider the efforts of William Wilburforce to end slavery and the Salvation Army, mostly in Islamic areas. No comparable situation exists in Islam. Saints, men of God. Other religions have similar historic figures of reverence. Islam has men of the sword period.
Also most churches condemn the slaughters, a fact forgotten by those that wish to make everything equal in equation. Islam again has little to nothing of this type of behavior.
A native American writer by the way.
BTW thanks Priguy for actually saying no to the use of buzz words. It truly grows tiresome for those that care to think and discuss the issues.
By native American, do you mean American Indian?
Absolutely. Personally I prefer to just be an American. But only bring it up when the world of group speak happens.
I look to John Locke more than Dragging Canoe Cherokee War Chief
I'd be interested to know if you're a Western Pa. resident and, if so, whether you feel you're the victim of racism in this area. We Western Pa. WASPs tend, in general, not to be very accepting of people who might look different from us or have a different background.
Why does it matter what religion someone is? It certainly doesn't to me. We as a human people are mostly intolerant of other peoples' beliefs. That's a real shame. Life is short. I'm not going to waste mine worrying or judging others. Leave that up to your god. Whichever one that may be. I read in a book by the Dalai Lama that all religions' main goals are peace, love and happiness. We should never forget that.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home