Rep. Mary Miller's complaints about a Sikh guest chaplain reveal a startling ignorance
Republican Rep. Mary Miller of Illinois has an unfortunate track record when it comes to respect for minority communities. At a rally for Donald Trump in 2020, for example, the GOP congresswoman credited the president for the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, calling it a 'victory for white life.'
Her team insisted that she'd simply misread a prepared text — Miller apparently meant to say 'right to life' instead of 'white life' — though the same Illinois Republican, a year later, was forced to apologize for approvingly quoting Adolf Hitler.
Last week, the congresswoman added to her list of ugly and offensive comments. The Hill reported:
Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said it was 'deeply disturbing' that a Sikh delivered a prayer in the House chamber on Friday — after apparently mistaking him for a Muslim man. The since-deleted post Friday morning sparked immediate bipartisan criticism.
The trouble apparently began when Miller saw Giani Surinder Singh of the Gurdwara South Jersey Sikh Society serve as a guest chaplain on the U.S. House floor and deliver an invocation. For those unfamiliar with Capitol Hill, this is quite common: Faith leaders from different religious backgrounds and different parts of the country are routinely welcomed to serve as guest chaplains.
Miller, however, apparently wasn't pleased.
'It's deeply troubling that a Muslim was allowed to lead prayer in the House of Representatives this morning. This should never have been allowed to happen,' the three-term GOP lawmaker wrote online. 'America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth, not drift further from it. May God have mercy!'
It's not easy for a politician to squeeze so much ignorance into a single tweet, but Miller managed to pull it off.
She then proceeded to delete her missive, not because it was offensive, but because she got the chaplain's faith tradition wrong. Miller then republished the same tweet, repeating the same complaint, this time swapping out the word 'Muslim' for 'Sikh.'
When this generated bipartisan criticisms, she deleted the second tweet, too.
At this point, I could spend several paragraphs explaining the differences between Muslims and Sikhs, followed by a few more paragraphs about how absurd it is to think that the secular U.S. Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all, created 'a Christian nation.'
But as important as those details are, I was also struck by Miller's unexpected candor. Sometimes, conservatives suggest their religion should get preferential treatment over other faith traditions, First Amendment be damned. But Miller didn't bother with hints: She came right out and made this point explicitly.
If Miller wants to argue that Congress shouldn't bring any religious leaders in for these official ceremonies, there would at least be room for that conversation as it relates to the separation of church and state. But that's clearly not what she argued in her since-deleted items: The Illinois Republican is fine with congressional invocations, so long religions she likes are favored over religions she dislikes.
It is as antithetical to the principles of religious liberty in the United States as anything any member of Congress has said in quite a while.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom finally finds a cause: taking on Trump
The Democratic governor of liberal California has welcomed Donald Trump to his state, cosied up to Conservative podcasters, and slashed healthcare provisions for illegal immigrants this year. But the reinvention of Gavin Newsom as the sort of Democrat who might be able to win back Republican voters came to a shuddering halt during a weekend of riots. With Mr Trump ordering troops onto his streets, Mr Newsom hit back, accusing the president of intentionally inflaming a difficult situation. It leaves Mr Newsom with no choice but to halt his drift Right-ward, said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic strategist. 'If not, he loses his entire constituency,' he said. 'In other words, there's a toleration level for moving to the centre, but not when it comes to massive chaos in Los Angeles.' Mr Newsom has put himself at the front of Democrat efforts to examine how they lost the 2024 election so badly. He launched a podcast in March in which he picks the brains of leading figures in Trump world. And Mr Newsom angered liberals with the very first episode, in which he interviewed Charlie Kirk, the controversial Conservative, when he said it was unfair that transgender athletes could compete in women's sport. He also said Democrats simply could not compete with the likes of Mr Trump and Elon Musk when it came to online reach. 'We're toast,' he said. Last month, facing a budget crunch, the telegenic governor back-pedalled on a promise of healthcare for all. He announced a freeze in enrolment for undocumented adults in the state's public health insurance programme. He has also urged cities to ban encampments for homeless people, cracking down on the tent cities that have blighted so much of California. And in January, he thanked Mr Trump for federal help in rebuilding after devastating wildfires that swept through Los Angeles. 'I've been always a hard-headed pragmatist,' he told reporters recently when quizzed about his shifting positions. 'I'm not an ideologue.' That all seems a long time ago after immigration raids around Los Angeles on Friday sparked three days of riots, and an order by Mr Trump to send in 2,000 National Guard troops. Tom Homan, the president's border tsar, threatened to arrest the California governor if he got in the way. 'Come and get me, tough guy,' was Mr Newsom's pithy response on X. After Mr Trump agreed the governor should be arrested, the governor shot back saying it was 'a line we cannot cross as a nation'. Credit: MSNBC He threatened to sue the federal government for its illegal act and called the president a 'stone cold liar' for failing to bring up his plan to send the National Guard when they spoke by telephone. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation while simultaneously depriving the state from deploying these personnel and resources where they are truly required,' he wrote in a letter. That puts him at the centre of the news headlines, said James Carville, the veteran Democratic strategist and former adviser to Bill Clinton, even if it was too early to say that the party had finally found a national figurehead to oppose Mr Trump. But he said Mr Newsom's full-blooded reaction to Mr Trump and his tsar did not mark a reversal of his shift to the Right, but were compatible with his rejection of progressive totems such as identity politics. 'I don't think we should say we can render a verdict after 48 hours, but his actions have been totally what he would expect,' he said after Mr Trump had 'invaded' his state with troops. At the same time, he added, the crackdown on illegal immigrants remained a popular part of the platform that helped Republicans reclaim the White House last year. That leaves the governor and Democrats with a fine line to straddle: taking on Mr Trump over his decision to send in troops but without being painted as soft on illegal immigration or unrest in the streets. 'I think Trump sees all kinds of trouble on the horizon,' Mr Carville said. 'What he's very good at is just doing something to dominate the news.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
America Has Theories on Whether Trump-Elon Musk Feud Is All Fake
After President Donald Trump's beef with Tesla CEO Elon Musk practically broke the internet, Americans are wondering if all the drama was meant to deflect from one crucial piece of legislation: Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Act. Others, however, don't think the president is smart enough to pull it off. Let's get into it. After passing in the House by the skin of it's teeth, the GOP spending bill is headed to the Senate, drawing mixed reviews from Democrats and Republicans alike. With major cuts to Medicaid– which Trump promised he wouldn't do– questionable AI regulations, permanent taxes cut to the wealthy, adding trillions to the national debt and much more, Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Act is anything but beautiful, and more folks should be paying attention. But alas, they're not… And after last week's blow up between him and Musk, many online have theories that the Trump and Musk battle got people watching the wrong fight. 'This Trump-Musk fight seems like a distraction,' @d_originalone noted on June 5. Another user pointed out the suspicious timing of the feud coinciding with the bill. 'Elon Musk sitting on Epstein information and only releasing it because him and trump aren't friends makes him just as disgusting as Trump,' @namenonew started. 'It's all a distraction & greed tactic folks.' Even CNN host Audie Cornish noted 'there's a billion-dollar bill at stake—but all eyes are on the fight between two billionaires.' She continued, 'Medicaid, SNAP, and foreign policy are all in the balance, yet headlines focus on Musk and Trump.' 'Who gives a rat's ass bout a fake feud between 2 Nazis,' @kenyadad12 boldly tweeted before adding the real concern should be 'this bill GOP pushing through that will allow trump to ignore contempt orders from the courts.' Although many are convinced Trump's alleged scheme is to divert Americans from the dangers of the tax bill with the drama of the century, there's no way to exactly know if that's the president's real plan. But, you can't put anything past the man, who is known for his antics and divisive nature. On TikTok, @omekongo listed Trump's travel ban to 12 different countries, a recent abortion directive endangering pregnant people nation-wide and most importantly, that 'big, ugly tax bill' as reasons for Trump's alleged smoke and mirrors trick on America. Other folks online don't want to give Trump and Musk any credit for allegedly scheming to deter from the real issues plaguing the country. 'There's no master plan, no distraction; they're just impulsive fascist idiots,' @LivForJReeves10 said on X. @trustno1evah on TikTok said no matter how hard Trump might try to pull the wool over Americans' eyes, they're not doing a good job at it. 'This Trump and Musk fallout is all a staged LIE,' she said. The bill itself is over 1,000 pages long, tackling any and everything under the sun while still checking off key points in the MAGA rulebook, 'Project 2025.' With legislation this long and tedious, it's not shocking Americans won't be able to digest the full impact the bill will have on their lives. In fact, even House Republicans like Ga. Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene and Neb. Rep. Mike Flood admitted to skimming over key points in the vital tax legislation. If the very people elected to read and review proposed legislation have confessed to being unaware of the very small, fine print, then Americans should probably be paying even closer attention to what's at stake.
Newsweek
34 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Warns Supreme Court 'Fans the Flames'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a warning about the nation's highest court in her latest dissent over the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)'s access to Social Security systems. Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court's public information office email for comment. Why It Matters Jackson, the newest justice on the bench, warned that conservative justices are rushing to assist President Donald Trump's administration in the ruling handed down last week. Her warning comes as public trust in the Supreme Court remains low—the Pew Research Center found in August 2024 that a majority of American—51 percent—view the court unfavorably, while only 47 percent view the court favorably. Until 2022, Americans viewed the court favorably for decades. What to Know The court allowed DOGE, the task force aimed at cutting federal spending, to gain access to Social Security Administration (SSA) records last Friday. The relief came after U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander blocked the task force from gaining access to the systems over concerns about privacy implications. The court's three liberal justices dissented, with Jackson raising concerns about the court's ruling. When deciding questions like whether to grant or block an order issued by a lower court, the court assesses several factors including whether the applicant would face irreparable harm by allowing the stay to continue. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during a confirmation hearing on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during a confirmation hearing on March 22, 2022. MANDEL NGAN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote that the government did not substantiate its stay request "by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm" if the court allowed the block to stay in place awaiting a final verdict. Jackson said the only "urgency" underlying the application is the "mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." "That sentiment has traditionally been insufficient to justify the kind of extraordinary intervention the Government seeks," Jackson wrote. "But, once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." Jackson is "clearly expressing her frustration with the use of the shadow docket to make public policy, something the Court's conservatives have been increasingly willing to do," Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek. "Public trust in the Court has fallen significantly in recent years, and Justice Jackson is likely linking the decline in public support for the Court to the growth in the use of the shadow docket," Collins said. Jackson issued a similar warning in the case Noem v. Doe in May. The case dealt with whether the administration could end a program giving residency to several countries facing domestic turmoil. She wrote the court "botched" its assessment and required "next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm." What People Are Saying Collins told Newsweek: "I think Justice Jackson's interpretation that the Court is rushing to side with the Trump Administration is a reasonable read of things. However, this probably has more to do with ideological alignment with the goals of the Trump Administration than with a particular affinity for President Trump. For instance, the Court's conservatives also sided with the Trump Administration in a case that would have required DOGE to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests." SSA Commissioner Bisignano to Newsweek via X last Friday: "The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts wrote on X on Friday: "MAJOR UPDATE: The Supreme Court just handed DOGE the keys to all the sensitive personal information Social Security has on file — your income, benefits, health records, and more. Why do Donald Trump and his cronies need access to millions of Americans' private data? It's absurd." What Happens Next Several pieces of Trump's agenda are facing legal battles, and the Supreme Court will continue playing a major role in determining whether his policies are constitutional or not moving forward. This has major implications for economic, immigration and social policy moving forward.
