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.
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.”