(Apr 13, 2009): "Obama’s 7th Circuit Nominee Thinks Praying In The Name Of Jesus Is Bad, But Praying To Allah Is Good" (Say Anything Blog)

[The_Basseteer]

Monday, April 13, 2009

Obama’s 7th Circuit Nominee Thinks Praying In The Name Of Jesus Is Bad, But Praying To Allah Is Good (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obamas_7th_circuit_nominee_thinks_praying_in_the_n ame_of_jesus_is_bad_but_p/)
By Rob on April 13, 2009 at 07:24 am

Recently Obama nominated David Hamilton to fill a vacancy on the federal bench in the 7th circuit. Democrats have moved quickly to ram-rod this appointment through the Senate with as little debate and scrutiny as possible. Republicans have responded by boycotting the nomination hearings. Which you heard about, right? I mean, surely the media wouldn’t let a pitched battle over one of Obama’s judicial appointments go unnoticed, would they?

Of course they would. But I digress. The reason why Republicans aren’t happy about the Democrats’ moves to appoint Hamilton just days after his nomination was announced (average lag between nomination and approval for Bush’s judicial appointees was 166 days, for Clinton it was 117 days) is because this guy’s rulings…well, I’ll let S.E. Cupp explain: (http://red-secupp.blogspot.com/)

For one, he sought to bar prayers that mention Jesus Christ at the opening of each daily session of the Indiana House of Representatives, claiming people do not have a First Amendment right to use an official platform to express their own religious faith. But – and here’s where it gets good – praying in the name of Allah was perfectly fine.

“If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic ‘Allah,’” or any other non-English word for God besides “Jesus Christ,” “the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others.”

Right. Because “Allah” isn’t associated with any particular religion, right? It gets worse:

...in 2001 he decided that requiring women to get information from their doctors about the medical risks of abortions at least 18 hours before the procedure placed an undue burden on women’s rights to get an abortion, and quickly. As we all know, information is the real culprit behind the rise in unwanted pregnancies, so we can all understand Judge Hamilton’s rationale behind trying to make it some kind of illegal contraband. This ruling, too, was reversed by the appeals court, which, in a bizarre twist, found that informing women before surgery was “reasonable, sensible and lawful.” Those kooky appeals judges…

And just last year, Hamilton struck down a provision that would have allowed law enforcement officials to search suspicious sex offenders’ computers if they’d already served time for, well, being sex offenders. As the former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU, I guess it’s no surprise that Judge Hamilton has a soft spot for violent criminals.

I actually opposed the legislation that would have required sex offenders to submit their online passwords to law enforcement so that their internet activities could be monitored and scrutinized, but I did so on the basis that such a law would a) suck up vast amounts of law enforcement resources that b) could be better spent keeping these idiots in jail. After all, if someone is so dangerous they can’t even be trusted with an unmonitored Facebook account what in the world are they doing out of jail?

But Hamilton’s decision based on the privacy of the sex offenders is just plain absurd.

Oh, and did I mention that this guy is an ACORN fund raiser?

When the Democrats and Obama were put into office in 2006 and 2008 respectively they promised open, honest and transparent government. Does attempting to fast-track through the Senate a far-left, uber-liberal federal judge with troubling ties to vote fraud groups like ACORN in order to avoid public/Republican scrutiny and criticism sound like open, honest and transparent leadership?

Of course not. But then again, those were just things Obama and his Democrats said to get elected. You didn’t expect them to live up to them, did you?

So let me see if I understand this about you on the Left.... it's O.K., in fact a DOGMA of the left to be anti-Christian..but in the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" view that most of you seem to possess, It's O.K. to be Pro Islam.
Have I got that right...Bubby?

[Hillforceone]

Monday, April 13, 2009

Obama’s 7th Circuit Nominee Thinks Praying In The Name Of Jesus Is Bad, But Praying To Allah Is Good (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obamas_7th_circuit_nominee_thinks_praying_in_the_n ame_of_jesus_is_bad_but_p/)
By Rob on April 13, 2009 at 07:24 am

So let me see if I understand this about you on the Left.... it's O.K., in fact a DOGMA of the left to be anti-Christian..but in the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" view that most of you seem to possess, It's O.K. to be Pro Islam.
Have I got that right...Bubby?


So, "the left" is a group of people who all share the same view on faith and they are anti-Christian and pro-Islam?



moni k.

[Horizon]

Fear tactics. Gotta Love 'em.

[mack20]

The Speaker has also asked whether, for example, a Muslim imam may offer a prayer addressed to "Allah." The Arabic word "Allah" is used for "God" in Arabic translations of Jewish and Christian scriptures. If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic Allah, the Spanish Dios, the German Gott, the French Dieu, the Swedish Gud, the Greek Theos, the Hebrew Elohim, the Italian Dio, or any other language's terms in addressing the God who is the focus of the non-sectarian prayers contemplated in Marsh v. Chambers, the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others. If and when the prayer practices in the Indiana House of Representatives ever seem to be advancing Islam, an appropriate party can bring the problem to the attention of this or another court.

The injunction is not limited to sectarian Christian prayers, either by its terms or by its reasoning. The court focused its findings and conclusions on Christian prayers, of course, because the evidence here shows a pattern of Christian prayer. For the same reason, the court provided more specific guidance in the injunction as to when a prayer is a sectarian Christian prayer. There was no evidence of any prayers that were identifiable as Jewish or Muslim or specific to any other particular religion. The constitutional principles, however, apply to a government endorsement or promotion of any religion.

And what is most needed here is a pragmatic definition that addresses when prayers are sectarian in a Christian manner, since there is no evidence here of exclusive or sectarian prayers being offered in any other religious tradition.

http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/opinions/AO8130O1.pdf

Having read the injunction, it clearly specifies the desire of the judge that non sectarian prayers be used as a general rule in accordance with the Establishment Clause. He focuses on the use of Christian prayers because the majority of prayers offered in the Indiana House have a Christian leaning, which again, would cause the Indiana House to be in violation of the Establishment Clause.

[OzDemocrat]

Judge Hamilton was nominated to the southern district of Indiana by President Clinton. His nomination to the seventh circuit appeals by President Obama had the support of both of Indiana's senators including republican R.Lugar

Just using the average lag in nomination and appointment is a poor representation of the large variability in time it can take to have a judicial appointee confirmed by the senate. Delays when the senate is not sitting over holidays, interrupting events like planes flying into buildings and wars, and the fact often several nominations are being submitted at the same time can all result in the procedure taking several months which skews the mean out from what individual nominees would expect.

Confirmation of Clinton's first appointees came 55 days after nomination, Bush's 65 days. Both had multiple nominees approved in under a two months. Bush had several who were nominated early september 2001 take over 9 months. Clinton had a nominee wait over 1500 days. Theres nothing in the pace of the process for Hamilton to imply his nomination is being "ram-rodded" through.

The 2005 decision on prayer in the Indiana house of reps was consistent with earlier challenges in other districts around the country, Hammilton showed little originality in reaching his conclusion. It was overturned on appeal not from any constitutional challenge, but claims the original plaintiffs had not been slighted. There is no implication that can be reasonably supported that Hamilton's decision was intended to promote the Islamic faith over Christianity.

etc, etc, standard stuff.

[foxyladi]

X_Xbet he gets the nom..X_X

[rickya]

I get what this judge means. He just wants prayer not to be ascribed to a specific religion. His mistake is to assume that Allah is the arabic for God. Allah is a specific name for a specific God - the God of Islam. In fact, the name Allah was taken by Mohammad from a pre-Islamic pagan moon god worshipped at Kabah.

[lanney]

US is going through Dhimmi phase. I am not surprised even in this forum we see all signs.

[matiah]

US is going through Dhimmi phase. I am not surprised even in this forum we see all signs.

And it is a dangerous phase. Attacking your own religion while appeasing others :mad:

[TheTaoOfBill]

I get what this judge means. He just wants prayer not to be ascribed to a specific religion. His mistake is to assume that Allah is the arabic for God. Allah is a specific name for a specific God - the God of Islam. In fact, the name Allah was taken by Mohammad from a pre-Islamic pagan moon god worshipped at Kabah.

Allah is the name for God in Arabic. It's not a different God at all. Allah is the same God of Abraham that the Christians and the Jews worship. If you pray to Allah you are praying to God.

[lanney]

And it is a dangerous phase. Attacking your own religion while appeasing others :mad:
Not only dangerous but self-destructive action.

[Jobu86]

Allah is the name for God in Arabic. It's not a different God at all. Allah is the same God of Abraham that the Christians and the Jews worship. If you pray to Allah you are praying to God.

Indeed

While the term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God, it is used by Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, in reference to "God"

[TheTaoOfBill]

Indeed

So in other words there is absolutely no issue here. All this guy wants is secular prayer. Allah is a secular word for God in the top 3 American religions.

[matiah]

So in other words there is absolutely no issue here. All this guy wants is secular prayer. Allah is a secular word for God in the top 3 American religions.

Would you care to explain how "Allah" is a secular word? You just said it is the Arabic equivalent to God.

[Jobu86]

Would you care to explain how "Allah" is a secular word? You just said it is the Arabic equivalent to God.

And the English word is "God", but he only sought to stop the use of "Jesus Christ". "God" does not denote a specific religion, whereas "Jesus Christ" does. Not all who speak Arabic are Muslim. Now if he did try to stop the use of the English "God" and I couldn't find it in the article, then I agree that's stupid.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Would you care to explain how "Allah" is a secular word? You just said it is the Arabic equivalent to God.

Secular means no specific religion. It doesn't necessarily mean non religious. God is a secular word because just about every major religion has a God. And since Allah is just the Arabic word for God it is also a secular word.

[matiah]

And the English word is "God", but he only sought to stop the use of "Jesus Christ". "God" does not denote a specific religion, whereas "Jesus Christ" does. Not all who speak Arabic are Muslim. Now if he did try to stop the use of the English "God" and I couldn't find it in the article, then I agree that's stupid.

True. God does not denote a specific religion. But it is not a secular word. The intention then is not to enforce the use of secular words but to ban the use of Christian words.

[TheTaoOfBill]

True. God does not denote a specific religion. But it is not a secular word. The intention then is not to enforce the use of secular words but to ban the use of Christian words.

He was trying to ban words that prayed to ANY specific religion's God. He would have been equally against praying to mohammed. Also look up the definition of secular. It simply means no specific religion. Secular does not only mean non religious it means no specific religion. God is a secular word.

[Jobu86]

True. God does not denote a specific religion. But it is not a secular word. The intention then is not to enforce the use of secular words but to ban the use of Christian words.

No

Bill beat me to it, read his post.

[matiah]

He was trying to ban words that prayed to ANY specific religion's God. He would have been equally against praying to mohammed. Also look up the definition of secular. It simply means no specific religion. Secular does not only mean non religious it means no specific religion. God is a secular word.

So, by your definition any laws that do not relate to a specific religion, or are shared by all religions, are secular. If this was the case, we would say that abortion and gay-marriage legistlations have nothing to do with religion as all three major Abrahamaic religions are gainst abortion and gay marriage--they share the beliefs.

A true secular state has no place for religion in it. In reality, there is no secular state. Prayer is a personal and intimate experience. Being too sensitive to the feelings of religious minorities at the expense of one's faith is a dangerous practice and it will backfire. It is clear what the judge was trying to do. I bet he cannot explain why someone praying in English would want to use non-English words to refer to God.

[Suzan]

For one, he sought to bar prayers that mention Jesus Christ at the opening of each daily session of the Indiana House of Representatives, claiming people do not have a First Amendment right to use an official platform to express their own religious faith. But – and here’s where it gets good – praying in the name of Allah was perfectly fine.

“If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic ‘Allah,’” or any other non-English word for God besides “Jesus Christ,” “the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others.”

If he wanted to keep it secular, which I agree with, then he should have kept it secular. Suggesting that Allah would cause no problem is ridiculous. I don't care how you parse the various meanings of the names for God, we all know the associations with the word, Allah.

Who here doesn't have sense enough to know that this would cause a problem? It's almost as if he went out of his way to sabotage his own efforts. The question is why.

I'd love to hear his side of it. And I repeat, I'd be in favor of a secular opening that actually was secular.

[rickya]

Tao,

Allah is the name of a specific God. It is the name of a pagan moon God.

[Jobu86]

So, by your definition any laws that do not relate to a specific religion, or are shared by all religions, are secular. If this was the case, we would say that abortion and gay-marriage legistlations have nothing to do with religion as all three major Abrahamaic religions are gainst abortion and gay marriage--they share the beliefs.

A true secular state has no place for religion in it. In reality, there is no secular state. Prayer is a personal and intimate experience. Being too sensitive to the feelings of religious minorities at the expense of one's faith is a dangerous practice and it will backfire. It is clear what the judge was trying to do. I bet he cannot explain why someone praying in English would want to use non-English words to refer to God.

Why would they? He's not trying to ban the English word "God". He was against the use of "Jesus Christ" just as he'd be against the use of "Mohammed". I'll actually agree with you that "god" is not a secular word, as it definitely denotes religion, but I completely disagree with the rest. He was attempting to treat all religions the same and the only reason he came under fire was because people automatically think Allah = Islam when that has been shown not to be the case.

[Jobu86]

Tao,

Allah is the name of a specific God. It is the name of a pagan moon God.

We heard you the first time. Yes the name of a pagan moon god was Allah. That does not mean that the current definition of Allah being "God" in arabic for any religion is wrong. And besides, a quick google search shows that the whole Allah-pagan god-Islam issue is not at all conclusive and I instantly found several papers "disproving" it, though I don't care enough to read through them.

[OzDemocrat]

People are more than welcome to debate the dictionary definition of a word, but id like to make sure its being done in perspective to the case in question:

The decision that secular prayer was not appropriate in the IN house of reps was consistent with other rulings on the same subject around the country.

The name Allah was raised first by the states speaker (the defendant). He did so (to put it bluntly) as a trap - the answer was known, and again, Judge Hamilton did not rely on his own intuition or conclusion when responding, but instead referenced a precedent binding supreme court case in making his answer.

This whole accusation is FUD, pure and simple.
Edit: just to be clear - the blatantly false accusations that Judge Hamilton would support islam but not christianity in government buildings is not a case of a simple misunderstanding. That some people swallow this sort of tripe without asking questions is (if not excusable) at least predictable. But at its originating point, the person who made these accusations, and many who allow it to be made, did so in full knowledge that it is a distortion.

Ps. Allah was also used to refer to an earlier moon god worshiped by tribes who would later adopt the islamic faith because it means god. Roman citizins use of "deus" for zeus and jesus doesnt imply any correlation between the two either.