Arizona House Democrats Claim Prayer Is "Disrespectful":
"Rep. Doug Quelland, R-Phoenix, caused a stir on Tuesday when he delivered a prayer on the House floor that took aim at multiculturalism, welfare, abortion and 'alternative lifestyles.'"
So offensive was this prayer to Democrats that an impudent little wet smack named Wally Straughn (D-Phoenix) filed an official protest with the state House. Arguing from multi-faceted levels of relativism he stated "the opening prayer should unite us, not divide us" and that Quelland's prayer "was divisive...pandering, mudslinging" and a "name-calling political statement. It was hateful and mean-spirited." He went on to say that "our unique voices should be respected. Especially during the opening prayer, as members of this body we must set aside our differences and show respect for Arizona in all of its diversity."
Let me see if I understand this. The House, and the constituents the members represent, are a diverse body with many unique voices that should be respected. But not if we disagree with them? Or if it makes appeal to an authority higher than themselves? How positively intolerant! I thought that all speech should be free and unfettered and valued in our diverse age. Even hate-speech, as is charged here. Not to worry though. I'm sure this legislative branch will quickly veer back to opening prayers that are neither offensive or edifying.
What if you won a war and nobody showed up to report on it? - We won! Or did we? You couldn't tell from reading the New York Times The post What if you won a war and nobody showed up to report on it? appeared first ...
24 minutes ago