I think he said "not just a bigot" it's just sloppy answering on the congressthing's part. I would guess a klanaryanbrotherhoodish type like this one couldn't see the distinction. so it's not technically guilty of anything. it's just a cretin.

...or to put it another way, Sali still doesn't get it that his days of peddling bigotry to the base without getting caught are over. His handler is pretty good, but there's not the slightest ambiguity about what Sali really meant or what his audience wanted to hear.

What a load of bullshit!

What's really scary is that the spokesman and the neanderthal congressmen think people are so stupid they will believe their lies. It's as obvious as can be what he was saying was that the only true Americans are Christians and that is the reason God has protected the nation. What a dumbshit! That these people actually believe this stuff is just beyond comprehension.

As Sali's web e-mail won't accept comments for outside Idaho zipcodes, I decided to use this issue to press my own koolaid-drinking Wyoming congresscritter. This will put her between a rock and a hard place.

Dear Ms. Cubin,

As Wyoming has a wonderful Native American population, many of whom practice their own spirit-based form of religion, I hope you will publicly disavow the bigoted statements of your colleague, Mr. Sali of Idaho, regarding those with a "different God” creating "problems for the longevity of this country.”

Perhaps you could remind him that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution notes that there is no religious test for public office. Here is that text:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and Judicial Officers, both of the Untied States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmations to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States.”

Please stand up for freedom of religion.

Sincerely,
etc.

"You know, the Lord can cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike," says the Idaho Republican.

Not being a Christian I had to look this up. It's part of what I believe is called the Sermon on the Mount.

I read the whole chapter, and most of it makes sense, but I could not figure out what Jesus meant by the above.

Anyone care to, er, enlighten me?

I think it's basically indicating that all persons, good or bad, will have good and bad things happen to them. Just because someone treats you poorly (which apparently includes practicing a religion different than yours and society's acceptance thereof) doesn't mean you should attempt to retaliate in order to bring justice to the wicked. God will take care of it. This is Jesus denouncing the prior law of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

Basically, Christ says we must forgive others, enduring the bad that happens to us and the good that happens to the wicked (even when they go apparently unpunished.) We must believe that a just God will ultimately make things right.

So Christ counsels us to "do good to them that hate you and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matthew 5:44). I don't suppose Jesus intended them in that scripture to be his "followers" and you to be Hindus and Muslims, but if the shoe fits...

If one goes to thomas.loc.gov and searches the Congressional Record for "Rajan Zed", one will find the prayer offered in the Senate:

The guest Chaplain offered the following prayer:

Let us pray.

We meditate on the transcendental Glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky, and inside the soul of the Heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.

Lead us from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality.

May we be protected together. May we be nourished together. May we work together with great vigor. May our study be enlightening. May no obstacle arise between us.

May the Senators strive constantly to serve the welfare of the world, performing their duties with the welfare of others always in mind, because by devotion to selfless work one attains the supreme goal of life. May they work carefully and wisely, guided by compassion and without thought for themselves.

United your resolve, united your hearts, may your spirits be as one, that you may long dwell in unity and concord.

Peace, peace, peace be unto all.

Lord, we ask You to comfort the family of former First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson.

Amen.

Some comments on the above:

This is a very non-sectarian prayer.

Paragraph 1: The invocation of the Deity is to one that would fit virtually anyone's conception (among those who believe in a Deity). It is not attempting to affirm any particular revelation. (Sorry, I don't recognize the source).

Paragraphs 2 & 3: These are again very non-sectarian invocations, addressed to no one in particular. They are about as ancient as anything in India.

Both, in Sanskrit form, are recited in school assembly in government schools in India.

It would be interesting to ask Sali if he finds anything objectionable in what was said.

If it were up to me, all religions would be completely and utterly banned from public office. They are really beginning to scare me more and more everyday. In my opinion, things like religion and sex belong in a persons home and should be kept there. I'm not terribly interested in how other people like to have sex and I'm equally uninterested in how they practice their particular religion. If it comforts you and helps better you, fine that's a wonderful thing. If I find myself curious then I'll ask you, otherwise keep it to yourselves please. And if you dare drag it out into the public you'd better damn well make sure you're personally abiding by the darned thing otherwise you cross the line from annoying to infuriating.

Of all of man's experiments in societal organization and rule I'd have to vote that religion has probably proven itself to be one of the most destructive, corrupt and intolerant of them all. I don't know if I think that they were intended to be poisonous but mankind has certainly found a way to make them so. In fact I think that nearly all religions started out as humanity's valiant attempt at bettering ourselves but that goal seems to have been forgotten. People now seem to be consumed with thinking they are right, everyone else is wrong and simply trying to convert everyone to their particular brand. And in that shallow violent process they end up ignoring what it is their brand even says. But Hinduism and Buddhism sure seem to have proven themselves far less aggressively hostile than Christianity, Islam and Judaism. In fact while there are nuanced differences within the various teachings of those 3 Abrahamic religions, I find their followers and actions to be disturbingly similar. So if there is going to be a prayer done in public office then I'd much rather it be some non sectarian call to collectively rise up and strive for the good of all then some screed to a particular god with all the accompanying hubris and malice towards all others.

Wisdom (which I think was initially at the core of most religions) should not be used as a weapon but as a beacon. I know that if I were lost in the (proverbial) darkness I'd be much more inclined to move towards the light then the sword. In fact if you started to poke me with that little sword I'd find myself much more inclined to take it from you and do a little impromptu surgery on your backside! But that's just me. ;)

No, you are correct, there certainly are wonderful things religion is capable of and I think I made an attempt to acknowledge it's intended altruistic purpose. But as you say, it far too often is used in a contrarian manner with far reaching and eminently harmful implications.

I still remember fondly my neighbor the minister when I was growing up. He was a wonderful man, father and a pillar in the community. For me, he is the face of religion & society integrating successfully. Blow hard politicians and nihilistic crusaders bent on world conversion or destruction do not. For me religion is more of a philosophical journey than a supernatural one. And it's just those supernatural detatchments from civility & reality that frustrate and scare me so much.

In any case, Sali's comments epitomize the last throes of American conservatism.
I very strongly doubt that conservatism, including the current brand of radical fundamentalist conservatism, is any more in its death throes than is the Iraqi insurgency.

Talk to your illiberal acquaintences. Observe that several of the Republican presidential candidates were willing to stand in front of television cameras and reject evolution science. Worse, note the political orientation of so many of the freshman congressional Democrats. Worse still, mind the Democratic leaders who drafted and supported those freshmen. Further note the results of the legislation that has emerged from that election.

Reports of the death of neoconservativism and American neocolonialism are greatly exaggerated. What may have died in last November's election is not the Extreme Right, it is the Republican Center-Right. But there is no need to mourn the passing of moderate Republicanism. It has been replaced by the DLCs, the Clintons, and the Caseys and Webbs. Rove and Delay have accomplished their mission.

I note that you did not raise the name of Eisenhower, over whom you and I sparred in our initial encounter.

I find a one of your arguments to be more semantic than substantial. The words "moderate" and "fiery" are not in conflict when one of them describes a position in the political spectrum and the other describes the intensity of communicating that position.

However, you promted me to research Webb a bit, and you are correct. He and Casey (who would outrank Azazel if there were a Satan and if he kept a list of demons) have far less in common than I thought. This time, you are correct. I am wrong. But THIS TIME ONLY, you hear? Don't let it happen again!