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.
Say Alfred: while both are bad, which is worse:
progressives aggregating power to themselves and skimming a bit during the process to their personal benefit while promising benefits to the poor, middle, and rich classes and generally failing to deliver,
or
republicans aggregating power to themselves and skimming a bit during the process to their personal benefit while promising benefits to the Super Rich Class and generally succeeding in that endeavor?
or – how would you generally describe both sides of the process?
It just too bad he can’t bring himself to support the other amendments
A message from your new Overlords brought to you by change da channel
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gVwIhH-X7sg
Christopher Hitchens gets it right on this issue:
http://www.slate.com/id/2263334/
I don’t like anything much about the Cordoba Initiative or the people who run it. The supposed imam of the place, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is on record as saying various shady and creepy things about the original atrocity. Shortly after 9/11, he told 60 Minutes, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” He added, “In the most direct sense, Osama Bin Laden is made in the USA.” More recently, he has declined to identify the racist and totalitarian Hamas party as being guilty of the much less severe designation of terrorist. We are all familiar by now with the peddlers of such distortions and euphemisms and evasions, many of them repeated by half-baked secular and Christian spokesmen. A widespread cultural cringe impels many people to the half-belief that it’s better to accommodate “moderates” like Rauf as a means of diluting the challenge of the real thing. So for the sake of peace and quiet, why not have Comedy Central censor itself or the entire U.S. press refuse to show the Danish cartoons?
#67–Mr Show==what part of “Get out of my country” would you disagree with?
#72–Alfred==You know asking a series of argumentative questions does not answer a direct question?
1. How else do explain the Republican party support for progressive Dede Scozzafava, to take over a conservative republican’s seat? /// Never heard of him. Pragmatically one would say the districts politics has not been captured by the Tea Party so the Pukes are being pragmatic about who can win?
2. They are progressive lite, not conservatives. /// Well, as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, I agree that neither party is fiscally conservative but that fact alone, does not make one a progressive. Progressive doesn’t even mean not being fiscally conservative (balanced budget) either. See the value of the dictionary?
3. Obama care is funded. You might disagree with the OMB, but again you would be playing with your own made up definitions.
I agree both parties are failing America, but why all this hate for “progressives?” I guess it is catchier than “fiscally irresponsible impulses in our representatives.”
CONGRESS shall make no law…
CONGRESS… <—- Thats the key word here people.
CONGRESS.
It doesn't say "New York shall make no law"
The constitution was written to restrain the federal government NOT to restrain state governments.
The end.
Ha, ha. DA–stuck in the 19th Century are we? 14th Amendment/due process applies most of the FoR to the States.
So wrong, it ought to hurt.
Bobbo, you’re right.
Just to clarify I don’t give a shit if they built the biggest mosque in the world right on ground zero. I wouldn’t care. I believe the rule of law should be followed, because the only alternative is suffering under the rule of men. That said, I would be in favor of repealing certain parts of the 14th amendment.
Well Alfred==you are too deep into your own private allusions to be any help at all in your own solution.
Progressive’s do not seek to “progress past the constitution.” When you figure out what you are really talking about, give us a straight up explanation and a link or two?
Good Luck.
Thanks DA==yes, I would delete being born of illegals makes you legal, but I would make the Bill of Rights apply to the State as I am sure you would as well?
The notion that anyone wants to recognize the “right” of religious freedom to build a Mosque in America but deny the actual building of one because of “sensitivities” is simply retarded. If a Mosque should not be built as ground zero or however miles away one’s sensitivities implore, then in reality no Mosque should be built in America.
And I’ll say again, for the little it is worth. By and large Catholics, Protestants, and Jews can be thought of as “Religion” but Islam is Religion PLUS Government. A government that will force the Muslim Religion on all its people.
Reasonable people can still discuss whether or not crossing the ocean will moderate the Muslim Religion. In my mind, that pressure would be there. I’m just not willing to accept the objective risk involved. Why should any free person?
9/11 was an act of war, and this is a declaration of victory by the Muslims. So in the US, it is just a matter of Constitutional law, while for the builders it is a declaration of Muslim supremacy, conquest of America. This puts it in line with
Mecca, particularly the one building that housed numerous Arab gods, but after returning to Mecca from Medina, the others were destroyed.
Hagia Sophia was converted during the Ottoman Empire after 1000 years as a leading Christian Church.
The Ayodhya Mosque built on a holy Hindu site.
Al-Aqsa Mosque built on the site of the Jewish Temple.
#81 “A rational person would question why Obama involved himself in this mosque controversy at all.”
He fell into the Mark Twain trap. Instead of keeping his mouth closed and being thought a fool he opened it and proved he is one.
My god can beat up your god.
(sigh)
Its pretty obvious that Obama spoke out because he wants to keep his cred with Muslims around the world. I think he is wrong to think he can talk someone out of their dogmatic beliefs. That could be hope over experience, but not irrational.
What is irrational is trying to claim this is a zoning issue. Pathetic.
Alfred1 said,
“Its not a constitutional issue, its a zoning one, so why is the President of the United one, so why is the President of the United States, our commander in Chief involving himself in a zoning dispute?”
A good observation and a good point. Of course they have a right to build a mosque there. This was never a case of constitutionally. This is a case of sensitivity to those who lived through this act of terrorism.
The president has an increasingly bad habit of speaking about a subject before thinking it through.
Zoning Freaks: Please state the zoning issue that is not in fact a straight forward assault on the First Amendment?
“Sensitivities?”
Haw Haw!!!
I guess you’d say it was an issue of chocolate ice cream if you thought that could mean the Mosque could not be built?
# 5 Chris has a point,
Freedom of religion is constitutionally supported and I agree with that. However, I see this as a matter of tact as many that were directly or indirectly affected by 9/11 would perceive this as pouring salt into the wound. It’s interesting how presidents support the constitution when it’s convenient and shred it when it’s not.
Many (by no means all) Muslims around the world celebrated the destruction of the towers and the people that were killed. Some Muslims claim that the extremists were not Muslim to begin with, or at least grossly misguided. Then there is that whole building 7 and put options on the airlines thing that I won’t get into here that implicates non-Muslims in the attack…
One thing is for sure – that event changed the course of history as we know it and not for the better in my opinion.
# 39 Misanthropic Scott
I am not quite following your logic. I was making a legalistic argument about the role of the President (not the individual). I was suggesting that the part of Government that is given the role of defending the constitution is the Judiciary not the Executive. The Constitution allows the Federal Government power over certain areas of governance. Religious matters are not for the Government to approve or disapprove of.
To defend the constitution pursuant to religious issues is surely to stay out of it unless there is discrimination by Government. If there is religious discrimination by Government it is the Courts job to rule on it, not the Presidents.
I do not care whether Barack opposes or supports the issue (I support his individual right to have an opinion and share the opinion that the building cannot be disallowed on religious grounds).
This is really more an issue of supporting the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. The Bill of Rights upholds freedom of religion, the Constitution says stay out of it. I wasn’t aware that the building was being disallowed on religious grounds so I am not sure why the President thought he should get involved in an official capacity.
LDA==if you can’t quickly think of 15 reasons why you are so obviously wrong, then I think you and dexton could have many long discussions on the value/meaning/application/history of constitutional rights and the amendments that are part of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. Maybe you should throw in the scope of zoning laws and the executive branch of the gov like maybe reading the Pres Oath of Office?
Those kind of things? Maybe have some chocolate ice cream too?
#80 – MikeN – So what’s your point? The romans converted every Greek and eqyptian temple they came across then the christians came along and convertd rhem all again. Tradition. I’ve seen gas stations in the USA converted to synagogues and churches. And I’ve seen synagogues and churches converted into each other.
Sorry. Sitting in a airport waiting for the rain to stop. I hate typing on my phone.
I envy all those who travel by air:
http://tinyurl.com/2d9veh4
I agree with Alfred1, it is a NYC zoning issue. But every politico and anarchist has jumped on this as a US Constitutional issue. In order to forward their personal beliefs, by waving this thing around as a rallying flag. The objection ISN’T about building a mosque in America. Or in the state of New York. Or in the city of New York. It’s about building one within a block of “ground zero”, in Manhattan. Clearly there’s an agenda being played on the part of those who wish such a mosque be build there. When there never was such an interest before. The old St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, that was crushed by the falling debris of the Trade Towers, has yet to be rebuilt after nine years. And that was a pre-existing, historical landmark. Not some Johnny-come-lately project. If NY doesn’t want any other religious centers built in the area, for whatever reasons, it should be entirely up to the State’s law makers. And the US Gov. shouldn’t be forcing them to accommodate more churches or mosques, in any location, just to trump up an election issue. Obama may have his opinion. But he doesn’t have the authority to override NYC’s laws, just to please a faction of voters.
I swear. Every election cycle, we get these dumbass issues from out of nowhere. That prevent us dealing with, or addresses, the real issues. Like the economy, and this mess of a war we’re mired in. Nope. Forget all that. Let’s feud over where some spur of the moment building project can be located. If NYC feels uncomfortable about adding any more religious centers near the site. All they have to do is limit their number to the few that now exist, or existed before their destruction. No new applicants, period.
One more time: name the righteous zoning issue that is not a pretext for avoiding the prohibition of the First Amendment?
“Ok==lets say no “more” religious institutions within 3 blocks of WTC. What? They want to put in a non-denominational chapel in the WTC Memorial Building. Shit. We never did think of that one. Now what we gonna do?”
Is there a single “density” issue of churches zoning law anywhere in America? Is there?
Retards.
# 89 bobbo
The military takes an oath to defend the constitution too, do you think they should get involved? You missed the substance of my argument.
It is the Court’s job if there was actually an issue pertaining to the Constitution or Bill of Rights regarding Government action (like refusing on religious grounds to allow it to be built) to disallow the ruling and therefore uphold / defend the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights is, as you correctly state, part of the Constitution (and the original part’s only reference to religion is “no religious Test shall ever be required”. So that part was wrong on both counts. Thank you for your correction.
P.S. Please provide 14 more reasons why I am so obviously wrong.
P.P.S. How will chocolate ice-cream help?
#61
Some catholics?
Yeah, ok. Sure.
Cursor_
LDA==you are up too late. My own schedule is “variable.”
The military does get involved. Its called fighting wars as directed by the CIC=Obaman=The Pres.
But at least you admit the Pres has also sworn to uphold the Const, as does each member of Congress and the Sup Ct. Looks like everyone in the gov is required to support and defend the Const?
Now lets see. The Exec Branch is IN CHARGE of policing the enforcement of all Federal Laws and the Constitution. How in the world can he be in charge of enforcement and yet supposedly not supposed to tell we the people his views on what he is going to enforce????
Your view of the SCOTUS is overbroad. They do not enforce the Constitution EXCEPT by way of deciding law suits that have been filed and appealed up to them. When a cop beats you up for making phone call, who you gonna call? The SCOTUS or the cops? Justice Brown, or Obama==thru their minions???
Silly to have the basic functions of your government so abysmally cocked up and yet argue passionately as if you knew anything at all.
THESE ARE BASIC ISSUES. 10th grade Civics????
Chocolate Ice Cream won’t help. Just as claiming this issue is about zoning won’t help when the issue is the First Amendment.
Cursor==I am not a number.
When I posted I had the impression that you thought the number of catholics was minimum. You didn’t say that expressly, just my take. We’ll never know how many rank and file catholics wanted to kill non believers and those issuing papals and bulls were very small in number. Not like the Muslim religion.
An irrelevant point on the issue at hand, so why quibble?
Oh, well I do like chocolate ice-cream anyway. I said nothing about zoning. I agree this (non-) issue concerns the First Amendment.
I agree with most of your points except the issue is about allowing a mosque. It the mosque is disallowed on religious grounds there is no law enforcement action to be taken, there is an appeal process to overturn it, which is the role of the Judiciary. If someone burns down the mosque then you call the cops. You don’t call the President if someone steals your car.
The President DID steal my car. Now he’s hooking up the house.