Over the weekend, President Obama did something that all American presidents are called upon to do. Defend the Constitution of the United States.
One of those tenets is Freedom of Religion. Not amend section A: popular religion [this week] only.
It’s how and why I feel free to tell folks I’m an atheist – or introduce someone in my family as a student of Buddhism – or note in the course of a conversation about San Antonito Chapel down the road that most of my neighbors are Catholics.
But, right-wing nutballs and the proto-fascists who infest the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party go crap out of their mind if Christian godliness and morality ain’t the only way endorsed to fly straight to heaven. Much less catch a tax break from the IRS.
So, combine all the hypocrisy into one big ball of cigar-snot and mealymouthed punditry – and you get this weekend’s tempest in a teabag.
Here’s a copy of the dangerous sedition uttered by Obama.
I’m not getting into cutting and pasting and commenting line-by-line because, frankly, it’s just the usual straight-up rhetoric required of any official who’s trying to explain our Constitution to people who don’t think it’s worth defending. The whole point of having a standard by which to govern a nation is that it is a standard to be upheld – not amended every time someone asks a hard question or a tough challenge comes along.
Our Founding Fathers realized that and fought and died for it. Now, because some terrorist gangsters come along and say our standards are worthless – a certain portion of our population is willing to prove them correct.
#28
Wouldn’t the nice people in the proposed Synagogue also have a problem with the pig farm and slaughterhouse?
*rolls eyes*
That’s the quickest Lame Duck ever. Buh-bye Bozo the President.
I too am an atheist and I think that putting anything that remotely validates the act that took place in NY is the height of stupidity. It would be strategically stupid with respect to the war on terrorism. It would be politically stupid with respect to his own party. Just because people have a right to build a Mosque on the site of 9/11 is a far cry from saying it is appropriate. A differentiation that Obama clearly does not get. IMO, we shouldn’t put any religious building on that site. Here’s an novel idea, why not just rebuild the towers?
# 28 Steve S ‘build a Synagogue on one side and a pig farm and slaughterhouse on the other’
Oh I hope not. I hate to see them get hurt when someone bomb the mosque.
First off — freedom of religion is just that, but if the city is concerned about restricting it, they can zone to their heart’s content. I believe this was supposed to be a social center and not a mosque… plus there is already a mosque in the area anyway, I believe it is 3 or 4 blocks away.
This is a silly discussion and is designed to be a distraction to the real issue — that there is nothing there after 10 years. At this rate it would have been fucking simpler to just rebuild the towers as they were, since I think they took less time.
The President HAS to weigh in eventually when people make high profile arguments AGAINST the constitution. He is, ultimately, defending it against all comers, including us.
So yes, it IS appropriate for him to argue about it. It would NOT be appropriate for him to send the corp of engineers in to build the building.
However, I will say that he should take the opportunity to state that all of islam should take a defined stand against those that subvert it for violence. Divorce themselves from those parts that argue for continued violence, then ratify it in their countries’ laws.
It would be better if they saw the light and just renounced all religions, but few folks are brave enough to take on their own ingrained superstitions.
As long as religion pays no taxes there should be NO negativity towards their government. Since we have this Constitution thing as their stumbling block maybe there is a solution out there. TAX ALL RELIGION. NOW. FOREVER. Then maybe if they invest financially in this country they can be allowed a little more sway.
TAX. ALL. RELIGION. Let’s make it “temporary” wink wink. You know like the most other taxes.
I too find it strange that this is chosen to represent the President as someone who defends the Constitution.
Give me a break.
#3 – LDA,
The correct Constitutional position would be for the Federal Government to have no opinion (Barack can express an opinion but the President should not).
Are you honestly saying that the federal government should not defend the constitution? Who should then? Of course it is the job of the federal government to ensure that actions taken in this country are constitutional.
#7
in their religious texts the requirement for followers to do harm to non-believers
And the Jews are commanded to do the same. And Christians, not commanded to do so did it anyway and said it was God’s will. And many people do it even without a religion.
It is NOT the religion, it is the humans. That is always the point. We cannot hold a book filled with the scribblings of humans responsible when HUMANS are solely to blame.
#14
It’s simple, really. If those who want a Mosque will stand up in public and say in both English and Arabic that Hamas is a terrorist organization, that Israel has the same right to exist as does any Islamic nation, that Sharia law is secondary to American law, and that all other religions will be respected equally with Islam, then Americans, as tolerant people, will welcome that Mosque- and that Muslim community – into the broader community of faith.
It’s simple, really. If those who want a Church will stand up in public and say in both English and Latin that The Vatican hid child molesters, that people have the right to choose to have abortion or use birth control, that the Catechism is secondary to American Law, and that all other religions will be respected equally with Catholicism, then Americans, as tolerant people (All laugh together now). will welcome that Church and that Catholic community into the broader community of faith.
-Fixd
(See how dumb that sounds? And you have my permission to make it like a MadLibs with any faith or ideology substituted)
#16
They can build their church, just build it somewhere else. There is no reason to have it right there near ground zero. That would be like us wanted to erect a statue of our president in the middle of Hiroshima.
No it is not. First of all we are NOT Japanese citizens so we can’t put it there. Second these ARE American citizens that want this. They have every right to do so if they can buy the land, build the building and maintain it. If you don’t believe that, then PLEASE help the Sioux tear down Mount Rushmore!
#17
And they have the right as American citizens to build a place of worship without segregation merely because they are Muslim. The sword cuts both ways there pal.
#25
When the Port Authority finally drags its head out of its rear and gets working on the foundations for the buildings that are will be located at ground zero. Unlike the Mosque, St. Nicks was right under the South Tower. It is a different situation.
#35
Yes religious institutions SHOULD be taxed. Charlemagne taxed the church in his time. I see no reason why not to now.
Cursor_
Cursor..
WOW,
someone gets the POINT..
Love it.
REligion is to the INDIVIDUAL as government is for the INTERACTION of more then 1 person.
No, I’m afraid that Cursor may have missed the bigger point.
If the President is to defend the constitution, he should defend the entire constitution.
What about Habeus Corpus? The 2nd amendment? The 14th amendment? the 1st amendment?
Selectively choosing to back one particular part of the constitution and ignoring the rest speaks to a broader agenda.
What happened to this? “it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion”.
Well, that’s a nice insult to a huge part of the American population.
How about his insult to Postal workers? (Lazy ass bums!)
How about his insult to the Police force (they must be all racist, Obama said so!)
We all know he loves the military, given that he labeled all returning veterans potential terrorist.
Now, not to mention this current insult to virtually everyone else.
I’m wondering what is worse about this guy. Is it he’s a really ineffective President? (The real power brokers such as Pelosi and Reid run the show)
Is it he can’t keep his mouth shut?
Or is it, and I think this may be it, that he has ruined any chance for any other minority to become President for at least a generation?
MRouse said,
“#28 Wouldn’t the nice people in the proposed Synagogue also have a problem with the pig farm and slaughterhouse?”
Somehow, in this case, I don’t think they would mind:)
I have always admired Jacob Shallus, for his penmanship.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-10-2010/municipal-land-use-update—ground-zero-mosque?xrs=share_copy
-and battle for your mind continues..
-s
@Cursor_ #40,
Let me repeat my point which you disagree with but cannot point to a source – Islam is the only major religion in the world that has canonized in their religious texts the encouragement and blessing for followers to do harm to non-believers.
People may make decisions to use the umbrella of their religion do commit violent acts, but Islam is the only one to specifically endorse violence against non-believers. Qu’ran 4:74-76, 4:89, 4:95, 9:29-42: Bukhari 52:256 et cetera, et cetera.
#42
I get it and I stay on topic as well.
I never ever said Obama is a fine president. In fact when the election was going on I repeatedly told these naive fucks that he was another plutocrat that will bring NO change as none of them do. They cannot change anything because the system is broken.
The history of the USA is filled with either middling or bad presidents. I see him as middling. Just as I didn’t see Bush II being as bad as Nixon, Harding, Coolidge, Wilson or A. Johnson.
I am sticking with the topic at hand and this imbecilic notion that just because they are Muslim they cannot build a place of worship. I may not ascribe to loony religious shit, but I will stick with what ethics hold true. That IF you want a church built nearby, so too should there be allowed a mosque, temple, monastery, hell even a satanic church if they have the money and get the permits.
I don’t CARE about religion. I care that human beings stay upright on two legs and conduct themselves in an ethical manner they same way as THEY wish to be treated in.
Cursor_
@Cursor_,
I forgot to finish my point. Painting all religions BAD because people claim to commit violence in the name of religion is a poor way of addressing “stoopid hooman” shortcomings of our tendency toward violent conflict.
That’s got a nice ring to it. “The Hypcrite Party.”
Fits some to a T.
I thought the critical distinction with Muslim Religion is that it is a political system as well–ie, not just one thing. Hard for Catholics, Protestants, and Jews who think in terms of separation of church and state as a matter of dogma to “understand” a religion that makes no distinction as a matter of dogma.
The C,P,&J think “render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s” while the Muslims think: “I am Cesar.”
One day, a simple “loyalty oath” will be required and it will then be time for people to fish or cut bait. The earlier the better.
Is it tolerant/respecting of minority rights/religion to allow someone who wants to cut your throat into your house? Well, the saving grace is that it looks like this is going to blow up in Spain, France, Germany maybe in Britain while the Muslim Jihad is still in its adolescence here in the USA.
We are all the same, and yet different, at the same time. Knowing what rule applies to what issues is the key to success.
Silly Hoomans.
@bobbo,
I forgot to give credit to you in #49 for my use of your “stoopid hooman” trademarked phrase.
47,
Persecution of Luterans
Persecution of Protestants
The Inquisition.
the holy wars over Jerusalem..Check the history to find out what started it.
The ORIGINAL KKK..
Priests Sent on ships to other lands, Condeming ANY RELIGION/BELIEF other then of Christian/Catholic..
IRELAND.. If you dont know this one…Im very sorry for you.
DO you know the differences between the Jewish religion and Christians? only 1 thing. The BELIEF that Christ was the Promised one.
The changes in the bibles OLD testament, over the years, has COME FROM HUMANS. Go ask a Rabi of what is taught.
#52–ethanol==I rise as if summoned by some black art. Thank You and no reference is required. I’m sure I lifted it from someplace even if I don’t recall where. I’m thinking maybe Bugs Bunny, or that little Martian Guy. Maybe with my own twist.
I do think grammar reamins important even while I violate it more than anyone else here. Hooman is singular applied to one person you are talking about. Hoomans is plural meant to apply to all of us. Wisdom comes more easily when we recognize ourselves whenever we use the plural. I don’t “know” that for sure, as I am still waiting.
But take my example above at #51==I do recognize in myself a desire to avoid conflict, a wish that we all just got along with one another, a desire to be left alone and thinking if I leave others alone they will leave me alone. I am a stoopid Hooman if I fail to recognize the Muslims are not of this same mindset.
Too many like to point out that most Muslims just want a happy life like everyone else. That takes a few pages of exposition to show its not exactly true. Religion must be evaluated not by the sheeple in the field but by the wolves in sheeple clothing in the field. One easy way to do this, too often avoided, is to take Muslims at their own words as linked above.
We are all Silly Hoomans on more than one subject.
While Islam has some elements of a religion it is much more an aggressive, violent political/cultural movement. Should the KKK or Nazism receive constitutional protections if they declare themselves as religions. After all, what is a religion?
@ECA #53,
I agree that all of those things occurred and that people claimed to commit those acts in the name of religion. The critical difference is that the Bible (and especially not Jesus Christ) does not direct followers to commit violence against non-believers for not believing. Every one of the historical events you list were people committing acts of violence for power, falsely using the name of their religion.
As for a rabbi, there are many in my family and I can tell you that the destruction of the Temple is the source of the changes. Go read more if you’d like to learn about it.
56,
Then you must know the Edits that have been created in the Bible. Some thing just CHANGED, in the old testament. AS well as Preachers, being TOTAL demigods.
I love Christians that ASK If I believe in God and Christ?
I give my answer..
And a FEW make the suggestion that I will burn in HELL.
When..
“Even a man, pure of heart, may goto heaven.”
And I love the So-called Theologians..
that have read of Every religion, but NEVER lived them for AT LEAST 1 year each.
I love the “I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG” attitude many carry. With out knowing GENERAL MANKIND.
The General populace only wishes to BE LEFT ALONE. He wishes to do his thing, enjoy his life, abit. And that is ALL. And others WISH TO BUG THE SPIT OUT OF HIM.
#47
Halakha, the Jewish religious law, permits and encourages the killing of non-jews. Even going so far as stating that non-jews be put to death for violation of the commandments.
There is a trial going on even now that is addressing this issue here in the US.
http://haaretz.com/news/national/rabbis-refuse-to-be-questioned-on-incitement-to-kill-non-jews-1.307017
So Jews have that same idea.
From the time of the founding of the Catholic Church there have been bulls and writs regarding the killing of heretics and pagans.
So please let’s not just finger the Muslims.
The catholics may have stopped the practice due to secular humanism taking control of common law, but it was there.
As for Islam the Quran states if non-believers start a fight then Muslims should kill them. But to stop when the aggressor ceases.
191 And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
192 But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
193 And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers)
So please don’t paint Islam as being any more or less violent than other religious zealots. They are all the same. Humans MUST be the final arbiters in their lives. And if they CHOOSE to follow a code that is contrary to human ethics then that HUMAN is to blame not some THING.
Cursor_
No one ever said it’s illegal. They said it’s unethical. Is the Democrat party really this retarded?
#59–Cursor–a small % of jews support killing non jews, a small % of catholics “used to” support killing non-catholics, so you opine the great majority of Muslims wishing to kill non Muslims as the same thing? Would the “facts” of the numbers make any difference to your position or is it all theoretical?
If theoretical, does the theory make any difference either? The last line from your link: “According to Shapira, it is permissible to kill a non-Jew who threatens Israel even if the person is classified as a Righteous Gentile. His book says that any gentile who supports war against Israel can also be killed.” Not the characterization you gave it. And doesn’t the USA have the very same position without reference to religion?
Facts vs Theory. Facts are not relevant when the theory controls, but can you clearly state your theory, or is the theory as confounded as the facts?
Ha, Ha. Silly Hoomans.