|
Maybe this belongs on the rant thread, but I didn't feel it belonged there so thought I'd put it here instead.
As near as I can tell (from the news clips this morning), the Democrats were at it yesterday. Clinton was asked if she thought that Obama was Muslim and she basically said that she was willing to take him at his word. She then went on to say that it was "scurrilous" for anyone to suggest that he was.
This really bugged me. This country was founded on a number of "freedoms" -- freedom of speach, freedom of religion, etc. We have mosques all over the US. If it truly is so bad to practice that religion, maybe we should just lock them all up now. (I am not serious.) Apparently it is impossible to be a good person and be a Muslim at the same time.
The comment really got to me. I could go on, but I would eventually just be repeating myself.
I guess if he passed himself off as a Christian but he was really a Muslim that would bother me, but the idea is ridiculous.
I suppose the point of even bringing up the question is just to create doubt in enough people's minds. Don't say "he is a Muslim pretending to be a Christian" for the vote is grabs him, just say "wouldn't it be scurrilous if" and the job is half done.
Politics and religion... together. Ewwww!
I guess if he passed himself off as a Christian but he was really a Muslim that would bother me, but the idea is ridiculous.
I suppose the point of even bringing up the question is just to create doubt in enough people's minds. Don't say "he is a Muslim pretending to be a Christian" for the vote is grabs him, just say "wouldn't it be scurrilous if" and the job is half done.
Politics and religion... together. Ewwww!
Well I agree with Kruelaid, politics and religion bad things happen like genocide. Should it matter if Obama is a Muslim no will it matter yes. (Well after today it might not, we will finally find out C or O)
But on a side note we don't have freedom of religion. We have no national religion big difference, if congress wanted to outlaw X religion they could (they wouldn't). Then we could see the Supreme Court in action! That would be fun. Assuming what Pres. appointed them and what party was in Congress at the time. I'm all excited thinking about the gears of our country in actions!
Fizz
Doesn't matter one whit to me, and it shouldn't matter to anyone else - but it will. All I care about is if he's an honest, forthright guy that has some common sense and a good head on his shoulders. Don't care if he worships the flying spaghetti monster or a box of rocks, as long as he treats others with respect and dignity.
As near as I can tell (from the news clips this morning), the Democrats were at it yesterday. Clinton was asked if she thought that Obama was Muslim and she basically said that she was willing to take him at his word. She then went on to say that it was "scurrilous" for anyone to suggest that he was.
What the hell kind of a question is that? Does anyone have any reason to believe that he's a Muslim? Either way, the fact that presidential candidates are being asked such inane hypothetical questions about their opponents is a sad commentary on the whole process.
(No I wouldn't give a flying rat's ass if he was Muslim, unless of course if he was the Bin Laden type, but that goes for a politician of any faith.)
People like that are weeded out by the political process long before they reach national office.
A sad fact, alas...but I keep hoping.
|
I care what religion he is only in as far as if he was hiding it. If he claimed to be none or some other religion then I would feel like he was trying to scam us into voting for him, regardless of if his actual religion was Catholic, Buddist, Muslim or Boccobian(ite?).
If he lied then I wouldn't vote for him because he would be a person who couldn't be trusted.
I do feel that this is simply a political ploy to cast him in a darker light, though. Cast a little doubt, plant a small idea(oooo, muslim has a bad name in the US so we'll try to make him look like that), and watch the poll results plummet.
Just more dirty politics if you ask me.
The whole question really undermines the separation of Church and State, because if it was going to be an issue (which I think it probably is, especially in more "Christian" states), it means there is a de facto process whereby one's faith is a deciding factor if one can achieve an office. It makes the electorate themselves complicit in sidestepping the Constitution:
Article VI specifically states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
John Leland, a Baptist minister and friend of Jefferson’s, was even closer to the mark: “If a man merits the confidence of his neighbors in Virginia let him worship one God, twenty Gods or no God be he Jew, Turk, Pagan, or Infidel, he is eligible to any office in the state.”
It's intrusive, sectarian and more then a little racist.
What the hell kind of a question is that? Does anyone have any reason to believe that he's a Muslim?
His middle name is... HUSSEIN...that means he haaassss to be Muslim...
My middle name is Joseph that means I have to be Jewish.
Note: this is sarcasm.
Fizz
|
What the hell kind of a question is that? Does anyone have any reason to believe that he's a Muslim?
His middle name is... HUSSEIN...that means he haaassss to be Muslim...
My middle name is Joseph that means I have to be Jewish.
Note: this is sarcasm.
Fizz
Yeah. That's like saying I'm of Semitic (yeah, I know, Semitic and Jewish are different things, but I don't feel like doing research right now) descent because my first name is David.
Names have nothing to do with it.
Names have nothing to do with it.
Agree, hence my lame attempt at sarcasm. I'm Welsh, Scottish, and Cherrokee. My first two names are hebrew. I was rasied Southern Baptist and now Agnostic...But yeah everyone knows it does matter because your name over rides all the other stuff.
Fizz
|
|
If he lied then I wouldn't vote for him because he would be a person who couldn't be trusted.So... You don't vote, ever?
Has there *been* a politician who hasn't lied, cheated, and/or stolen in the last handful of decades?
Ha-Ha. I should have added an "over such an important factor in one's life". Of course all politicians are pretty sleazy and I find that most votes in the US are simply picking the lesser of 2 evils. Barely.
Interestingly, in a U.S. poll of "which of the following would you be LEAST likely to vote for for president," atheist came out #1, ahead of Muslim, even. Same for the poll about who you'd least want marrying your daughter. Although the Constitution forbids a religious test for office, there is one all the same: the voting public.
This suggests to me that competence and issues don't count any more: 60% or so of America has gone "faith-based." If you needed any more evidence, ask a random person -- one with NO knowledge of climate science whatsoever -- what they think about global warming. The answer may not be based on any evidence, but it's bound to be a VERY decisive one, one way or the other. I'm consistently astonished at roomfuls of people who will happily argue themselves blue in the face, pro and con, without knowing anything at all about whay they're talking about.
None of them will ever admit "I don't know," because that implies a lack of faith -- and hence a lack of "values" -- in the popular view. And nobody likes someone with no values!
|
Although the Constitution forbids a religious test for office, there is one all the same: the voting public.
Agreed. To my knowledge, JFK is the only President who wasn't publicly Protestant (though I think we've had a few private atheists over the years).
Would Obama's religion affect my personal decision on whether or not to vote for him? No. But would the fact that he's secretly Muslim, if true, make him unelectable in this country? I think so. He would certainly have trouble winning the states that have come out solidly Republican in the last few election cycles.
|
|
If he lied then I wouldn't vote for him because he would be a person who couldn't be trusted.So... You don't vote, ever?
Has there *been* a politician who hasn't lied, cheated, and/or stolen in the last handful of decades?
Ha-Ha. I should have added an "over such an important factor in one's life". Of course all politicians are pretty sleazy and I find that most votes in the US are simply picking the lesser of 2 evils. Barely.
Fair enough, I suppose. I've never understood why religion is so important to people, but I seem to be lacking the neural circuitry needed for things like Faith.
To each thine own.
To my knowledge, JFK is the only President who wasn't publicly Protestant (though I think we've had a few private atheists over the years).
Well, I suppose we had Thomas Jefferson, whose "Jeffersonian Bible" is a model Deist tract. And Martha Washington has been quoted, albeit possibly incorrectly, as having said of her late husband, "Mr. Washington was no Christian."
The only self-admitted non-Christian in more recent times I can think of is Abraham Lincoln, and his presidency was followed by the vast surge of Christian fundamentalism (the "Great Uprising") that put "In God We Trust" on the currency for the first time. Since then, we've had nothing but a slew of public Protestants and one Catholic, as you've pointed out.
|
|
To my knowledge, JFK is the only President who wasn't publicly Protestant (though I think we've had a few private atheists over the years).Well, I suppose we had Thomas Jefferson, whose "Jeffersonian Bible" is a model Deist tract. And Martha Washington has been quoted, albeit possibly incorrectly, as having said of her late husband, "Mr. Washington was no Christian."
The only self-admitted non-Christian in more recent times I can think of is Abraham Lincoln, and his presidency was followed by the vast surge of Christian fundamentalism (the "Great Uprising") that put "In God We Trust" on the currency for the first time. Since then, we've had nothing but a slew of public Protestants and one Catholic, as you've pointed out.
You're right, I had forgotten about Jefferson. I had always understood Lincoln as a non-denominational Christian, although I suppose that would not make him a mainstream Protestant, and I'm by no means a Lincoln scholar.
I really don't care what religion the president practices. As long as the President makes wise decisions, I don't care if he is a Muslim. Freedom of Religion should go for everybody in America, president included.
What amazes me is the persistency of the “Obama is a Muslim” rumor. He is a self-professing Christian who attends a Christian church. The evidence of these two facts is indisputable as far as I’m concerned. It’s like someone started circulating an e-mail that says, “Hey, did you here that the sun rises in the west?” Observable evidence doesn’t support the hypothetical. Therefore, why would anyone believe the hypothetical? And yet every day this week I have talked with someone who believed that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.
I won’t be supporting Mr. Obama. It’s got nothing to do with his religious beliefs; he and I just happen to be on different sides when it comes to politics. Whatever differences we may have now will one day be erased, as we stand shoulder-to-shoulder singing praises to Christ in Heaven.
|
|
I don't give a f%~~ what Obama's religion is. All I care about is if he'll be a good president.
From what I have seen, a number of Women have expressed concern over the election of Obama as a muslim President because they feel that Islam is a Threat to Womens Rights...not that they had any under Christian Fundamentalist Government to begin with.
People who don’t get to grow up and become president:
Atheists.
Homosexuals.
Native Americans.
Muslims.
Working-class Americans.
Ageism is another big one lately, can’t let our president be too young or too old! This may change, after all, we have a woman and a black man now running, and fifty years ago, people would have thought that impossible as well.
As a side note, has anyone noticed how hard political cartoonists are working to avoid appearing sexist or racist? What a brave new world.
Time to face facts, the real minority in America are the enlightened and impartial.
It’s difficult to tell as written, but the statement is designed as if they were a set. There are a great many impartial ignorant people, and equally as many enlightened zealots. ;)
I don't care. I'm not at all comfortable with faith being a big part of running for public office. Faith should be personal, not used to try and gather support politically one way or another. It should be a simple biographical question and we should take anyone at their word.
The interesting thing is that all these news magazines put the question on the cover: "Is America ready for a Black/Mormon/Woman President?" And I really don't think we are, because of things like this. If you have a funny name, like Barack Hussein Obama, your background and ethnic characteristics will be used against you. When Mitt Romney was still in the race, I recall Mike Huckabee, when asked about the Mormon religion, asked,"Don't they believe that Christ and the Devil are brothers?" Maybe not a blatantly biased statement, but that's an assumption often used against people of the Mormon faith.
On the other side, I see a lot of people patting ourselves on the back for having a black man and a woman running for President in this country. Aren't we proud of ourselves: the minorities are joining the race! It's patronizing and I wish it could be just the issues all the time. Your ideas versus mine.
James, you think like the Framers, and not like a proper 21st century voter! Everything is clannism and doublespeak now. The following example might offend some folks, so those of you who don't want to hear it, don't click:
As you point out, while everyone is patting each other on the back for being so "gracious" as to "allow" women and minorities in the race, most people still fail to see that those distinctions are slowly being loosened only in exchange for a tightening of the religious ones. It seems to just be basic human nature that whenever a number of people interact, they automatically form one "in-group," and then disenfranchise anyone who isn't a member. So, the long and short of it is that 50 years ago, Obama couldn't be elected because of his race. We pretend to be over that, but now Obama needs to go out of his way to appear like he's more Christian than everyone else.
The other sad thing is that the founders noted that when faith ceases to be between a person and his or her God -- and becomes a mandatory club instead -- then that faith is ultimately cheapened and degraded by this sort of treatment.
|
|
James, you think like the Framers, and not like a proper 21st century voter! Everything is clannism and doublespeak now. The following example might offend some folks, so those of you who don't want to hear it, don't click: ** spoiler omitted **
So, the long and short of it is that Obama needs to go out of his way to appear like he's more Christian than everyone else, or else he can't get elected here. As you point out, while everyone is patting each other on the back for being so "gracious" as to "allow" women and minorities in the race, most people still fail to see that those distinctions are being traded for religious ones. It seems to just be basic human nature that whenever a number of people interact, they automatically form one "in-group," and then disenfranchise anyone who isn't a member.
The other sad thing is that the founders noted that when faith ceases to be between a person and his or her God -- and becomes a club instead -- then that faith is ultimately cheapened and degraded by this sort of treatment.
Another thing that bothers me, along these lines, is that many of the same people who argue that America is a Christian nation, so sayeth the Framers, are the same ones who call themselves "strict constitutionalists." So it's fine to give the Constitution a Christian gloss, because "it's what the Framers would have wanted," but giving due process or equal protection rights a broad reading is out of the question because the Constitution is a dead document.
Another thing that bothers me, along these lines, is that many of the same people who argue that America is a Christian nation, so sayeth the Framers, are the same ones who call themselves "strict constitutionalists." So it's fine to give the Constitution a Christian gloss, because "it's what the Framers would have wanted," but giving due process or equal protection rights a broad reading is out of the question because the Constitution is a dead document.
Yeah, check out the spoiler. It's "strict interpretation" to change the Constitution to add pro-Christian attitudes (ones that don't actually appear in it, and were never meant to appear). But it's "revisionism" to oppose those moves, or to more broadly intepreret any of the other rights the first 10 amendments bestow (with the one exception of guns, but I really don't want to go there, because that's a more complex issue, and one that I can easily see both sides of).
Politics in particular is the oil spilled into my water. It's dirty, never mixes well, and leaves a slimy residue over everything it touches.
|
|
I could give two farts about his religion. As long as he didn't try to force his beliefs on me, he could worship Molly Ringwald for all I care.
A similar tactic to the "Obama is a secret Muslim" was played against Bobby Jindal (current Louisiana Governor) by Louisiana Democrats. They always tried to refer to him by his given Indian name (Piyush) in their ads, and played up the idea that he was some kind of foreigner, even though he was born and raised in the United States.
I could give two farts about his religion. As long as he didn't try to force his beliefs on me, he could worship Molly Ringwald for all I care.
Ooooh... Molly Ringwald.... niiiiiiice....
|
|
I could give two farts about his religion. As long as he didn't try to force his beliefs on me, he could worship Molly Ringwald for all I care.Ooooh... Molly Ringwald.... niiiiiiice....
How dare you sully the calf length boots, grey plad skirt and orange tee-shirt of the Goddess Molly Ringwald with your pathetic attempt at worship!
As to Obama...I think it would be better for America if he was muslim. I think that the USA would be better for it. Now all he has to do is recognise the Space Commonwealth, and we can move straight along to the one billion billion dollar contract to colonize the Moon, and terraform Mars.
|
|
I could give two farts about his religion. As long as he didn't try to force his beliefs on me, he could worship Molly Ringwald for all I care.Ooooh... Molly Ringwald.... niiiiiiice....How dare you sully the calf length boots, grey plad skirt and orange tee-shirt of the Goddess Molly Ringwald with your pathetic attempt at worship!
As to Obama...I think it would be better for America if he was muslim. I think that the USA would be better for it. Now all he has to do is recognise the Space Commonwealth, and we can move straight along to the one billion billion dollar contract to colonize the Moon, and terraform Mars.
Dude, I'm starting to like you... That was awesome.
|
|
Dude, I'm starting to like you... That was awesome.
What was awesome? If its that whole colonize the moon thing, we can have colonists there in ten years, and an underground city for ten million within fifty but it would be heavily one way...and the tourists would be confined to the Spaceport, not the underground city being mined out of the heart of the moon.
Dude, I'm starting to like you... That was awesome.What was awesome? If its that whole colonize the moon thing, we can have colonists there in ten years, and an underground city for ten million within fifty but it would be heavily one way...and the tourists would be confined to the Spaceport, not the underground city being mined out of the heart of the moon.
Yeah, the city at the center is for Moonboys only. Segregation will be legal on the moon, along with drugs, polygamy and prostitution. Anything goes on the moon (except humans integrating with Moonboys).
Yeah, the city at the center is for Moonboys only. Segregation will be legal on the moon, along with drugs, polygamy and prostitution. Anything goes on the moon (except humans integrating with Moonboys).Dude, I'm starting to like you... That was awesome.What was awesome? If its that whole colonize the moon thing, we can have colonists there in ten years, and an underground city for ten million within fifty but it would be heavily one way...and the tourists would be confined to the Spaceport, not the underground city being mined out of the heart of the moon.
Oh man, I am so there. Who cares about the segregation, I'm going to the moon to marry my three wives.
Isn't Rodham an Obox-obite name? Just saying.
|
|
Maybe this belongs on the rant thread, but I didn't feel it belonged there so thought I'd put it here instead.
As near as I can tell (from the news clips this morning), the Democrats were at it yesterday. Clinton was asked if she thought that Obama was Muslim and she basically said that she was willing to take him at his word. She then went on to say that it was "scurrilous" for anyone to suggest that he was.
This really bugged me. This country was founded on a number of "freedoms" -- freedom of speach, freedom of religion, etc. We have mosques all over the US. If it truly is so bad to practice that religion, maybe we should just lock them all up now. (I am not serious.) Apparently it is impossible to be a good person and be a Muslim at the same time.
The comment really got to me. I could go on, but I would eventually just be repeating myself.
I'm sure Sen. Clinton meant that it was scurrilous to suggest Obama follows Islam when he says he is something else; that is to say, scandalous to suggest he would lie about his religious convictions, not that being Muslim was scandalous.
Interestingly, in a U.S. poll of "which of the following would you be LEAST likely to vote for for president," atheist came out #1, ahead of Muslim, even. Same for the poll about who you'd least want marrying your daughter. Although the Constitution forbids a religious test for office, there is one all the same: the voting public.
This suggests to me that competence and issues don't count any more: 60% or so of America has gone "faith-based." If you needed any more evidence, ask a random person -- one with NO knowledge of climate science whatsoever -- what they think about global warming. The answer may not be based on any evidence, but it's bound to be a VERY decisive one, one way or the other. I'm consistently astonished at roomfuls of people who will happily argue themselves blue in the face, pro and con, without knowing anything at all about whay they're talking about.
None of them will ever admit "I don't know," because that implies a lack of faith -- and hence a lack of "values" -- in the popular view. And nobody likes someone with no values!
As a "out of the closet" atheist, I can confirm we are definitely looked down upon by large swaths of the population. Which doesn't really bother me; my life isn't about pleasing other people. But it does preclude a career in politics... :P
|
|
I agree. I wonder if the question itsself wasn't a bit loaded.
If you had to take a drink every time a reporter asked a loaded question that made either the respondent or the person they were referring too look guilty of something no matter how it was answered, you'd probably die of alcohol poisoning before the average candidate interview was over.
Nobody wants news anymore, they want to go 'GOTCHA!' with their specifically-designed-to-be-twisted-later questions. "OMG! Did you hear what she said, when I asked her if she was still eating babies?"
As a "out of the closet" atheist, I can confirm we are definitely looked down upon by large swaths of the population. Which doesn't really bother me; my life isn't about pleasing other people. But it does preclude a career in politics... :P
Could be worse, you could be that Atheist Homosexual Native American Working-Class Too Young / Too Old Muslim stiff mentioned upthread.
Then again, avoiding a career in politics could be seen as it's own reward. :)
|
I was under the impression that "scurrilous" in this context meant suggesting he was a 'secret muslim' is slander, even (and especially) in the form of open ended questions that no individual can answer with authority. Not because being muslim was bad, but because it was being used as an underhanded attack based on no factual information, and continued despite his own statements on the issue.
Every innuendo on the subject links back to the fact that Obama's father was muslim which no one denies. Thus the middle name, and the fact that he went to a muslim school for a few years as a young child. Maybe that freaks out some xenophobic people, but it's not any kind of hindrance in his ability to lead- and doesn't make him a muslim either. Considering where we are today, it could certainly do the US some good foreign policy wise to have a leader who had some basic understanding of Islam.
One of my favorite bumper stickers:
Last time religion and the government worked together, it was called the dark ages.
I'm sticking with that sentiment.