No no, I mean actual, in your words (which you again cut out to run away from), "uses Congress for religious purposes".
The same way in which Roy Moore used his monument for religious purpose. Does the concept throw you? That's a pity.
Oh really.
So you're saying Roy Moore
wore the Ten Commandments in his courtroom as an article of clothing?
That's what he would have to do by your own logic, since the act of wearing something immediately transmits its essence through the building like unto some kind of virus,
independent of what the wearer does or says.
That means something the subject ACTIVELY DOES, not something you choose to plug in and infer because you'd like it to be in play.
Integrating some religion-based apparel into one's wardrobe doesn't mean they're by virtue of that apparel "using" whatever facility they're in.
Wearing a hijab, or yarmulke or turban or Pope's mitre IS actively doing something!
Nope, it is not. The action was done when the article was donned. After that --- it's over.
You have no idea what I'm wearing right now, nor is it in any way influential upon the words in this post. I could be wearing a Star of David suspended on a hammer and sickle overlaid with an ankh embroidered on a freaking Cincinnati Reds baseball cap festooned with Allis Chalmers logos. Or I could be stark nekkid. Either way the words on this post are exactly the same and they carry exactly the same meaning.
I don't know what else you could call it, just the same as placing a Jesus in the manger display in the park is actively doing something. I get it that you want your agenda so badly it can fry your own brain trying to justify it, but in this case somebody doing something of a religious nature is someone doing something of a religious nature.
Try again.
Don't need to. My points already stand unopposed.
You can place Jesus in a manger anywhere you want. But the
government cannot. A red herring here since Rep. Omar is planning no such display in the Congress.
If a Congresswoman walks into Congress wearing a crucifix and proceeds to opine on commerce legislation, is she "using Congress for religious purposes"?
Yeah, in my opinion a crucifix on the forehead violates separation of church and state principles. If I'm a Jew or Muslim or Sikh looking at Pelosi I would have to wonder why she is bringing her religion onto the floor of Congress.
Oh I can tell you that. She isn't. She's bringing her
person in.
The ashes are a symbol that's worn on the forehead, of a
Catholic. Not the forehead of a Representative --- the forehead of the
person. Again, as in the Roy Moore parable, the
person, not the
office. The ashes (or the crucifix or the Star of David or the hijab or the turban) have a function only for the
person --- not for the
office. Ergo it's not the "government" or any part of it expressing anything religious --- it's the
person.
What you can't do is prove me wrong about that. Which is why this point stands unopposed.
The function of Congressional Reps --- and all other office holders --- are served by
persons. Those persons may have all kinds of unrelated
personal stuff going on that in no way relates to their job. Perhaps they need to pay the electric bill. Perhaps they need to arrange a flight soon. Maybe they're fighting off a cold. None of these are relevant to the Congress but they're still THERE.
If a nun walks into a Burger King is she "using" that Burger King for "religious purposes"? Or is she there to eat junk food?
Is this gal "using the game of baseball for religious purposes"? or did she just hit a short pop fly to second base?
Whatever a nun at Burger King does or an Amish girl playing softball, neither one represents any sort of religious endorsement on behalf of our government. I'm sure you thought you had a pertinent point here...but you don't.
Correct, nor does it have any religious endorsement of influence on Burger King or Baseball on behalf of Catholicism or Amishness. Because they're frickin' UNRELATED. A person (the nun) needs to eat; a religion does not -- ergo a personal act. A baseball batter needs to make contact with the ball; Amishness does not. Ergo a personal act. And in both cases unrelated to any "religion".
That girl needs to level her swing out too. Just sayin'. Although it would in no way be "unAmish" to fail to do so.
Sheeeeeeeesh
