Political Discussions
Who better to defend the faith?
Posted by anticsrocks • 6/09/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: bush, Church, Islam, muslim, obama, state
I heard about this on the radio today, and looked it up. It is a very insightful piece that puts things into perspective nicely.
Basically the author asks what the reaction would have been had G.W. Bush said, "So I have known Christianity on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Christianity must be based on what Christianity is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Christianity wherever they appear."
Obama said it of course when he addressed his favorite audience, the Muslim world. Just take out the word Christianity and put back the word Islam. What about the separation of church and state? When did defending religion become one of the President's duties?
Here is the link -
beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2009/06/potus-as-the-great-defender-of-the-fait...
Had Bush said that, the media would have torn him apart much like the lions did the Christians in Rome. However, since it is Obama and the press have such a "slobbering love afair" with him, he - as usual - gets a pass.
On top of that, we have Newsweek editor Evan Thomas declaring that Obama is "God."
"THOMAS: ... Obama is 'we are above that now.' We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something - I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above - above the world, he's sort of God. He's-
MATTHEWS: Yeah."
(shivers running up his leg at this point, I am sure...)
Here is the video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr4VZ8xCzOg
User Comments
-
religious faith, or the faith in Freedom? -
It is sickening. These people are ignorant on the facts and are only going with their emotions.-
those who are fully incapable of feeling emotion are also incapable of rational thought (in cases of injury etc). There has to be a balance.
-
It could be argued that this entire thread is based on emotions -- specifically fear. The OP is based on a hypothetical ("what if").
The U.S. has done a lot of damage interfering with Muslim affairs (arming Iran, Iraq, the Afghan mujahedeen...). It doesn't do any harm to recognise that fact. Diplomacy is a lot cheaper (and usually more effective) than war.
-
-
The founding fathers had Christian faith and can be quoted in such many many times. However they understood that not everyone had the same values. With disagreement to what the Church of England imposed how would we not be hypocrites to impose the same BS? This was call for limited government because the more power it has the less accountable, more centralized and corrupt it becomes. George Bush may have been a good Christian depending on your view, but regardless this kind of hypocracy makes him a bad American.-
it was also generally believed by our founders, that the separation was benificial for the purity of religious practice as well. Listening to Evangelical radio during the Bush administration was proof positive of this. Unfortunatly both embrace this breaching of the "wall of separation between church and state"
jeffersonsmammoth.blogspot.com/2009/02/church-and-state.html -
I outright have to second that "both embrace" part. Yes, unfortunate but true.
-
To anticsrocks...
Look I'm a non-interventionist, not to be confused with an isolationist as they are not the same.
When it comes to separation of church and state it is PARAMOUNT that it is upheld. Whatever power you give to the government (or that they take) even if you believe it is for good, once they have that power they can use it to il and to ail. The founding fathers understood that people are different and have different values, that everybody has a right to them, and that government has no business having the power to violate that. Once it has that power it most certainly will corrupt and do the latter one way or another eventually.
If you want them to violate you values let them through that threshold, and you will get what you want. Thomas Jefferson as an example said that free governments are formed out of jealousy. -
@libertycast1 - I'm not sure I understand what you mean in relation to me. I believe that Obama saying that "...as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear" is wrong. It is NOT our President's job to do that. Not at all.
I too believe in the separation of church and state.
-
-
This is all well and good, but no one answered the question. Seriously, why is Obama getting a pass on this? The United States President is not now, nor ever has been empowered to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
@libertycast1 - Your comment is a bit vague. Do you think that it was okay for Obama to make the statement he made about Islam?
@sati - you also are not answering the question. Had Bush 43 said the same thing about Christianity that Obama said about Islam, would you have, or would the mainstream media have given him the pass that Obama is enjoying?
I for one, do not want my President to become worried about fighting religious stereotypes of any kind. It's just not his job. This was pandering, pure and simple and it is wrong for him to take up this cause.-
Given that it seems you do not approve of President Obama denouncing those who stereotype Islam...
Do you think that President Obama, in the same speach, was wrong to denounce people who are "Threatening Israel with destruction" and "repeating vile stereotypes about Jews"?
Or to call for equal rights for Women in Islamic countries.
By your thinking the President of the USA should not be empowered to stand up for anyone's rights. Do you really want the US to stand for nothing?
www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-Unive... -
Talk about taking things out of context. I said no such thing at all. In fact, Obama should show much more allegiance to Israel, however that is not the subject for debate on this thread. Do you care to start a thread saying that the United States should abandon its closest ally in the Middle East? I would gladly debate that with you, poly.
I think that Obama should stop trying placate all the evil terrorist leaders and terrorist states and show some backbone. It is clear he will not do that. As for foreign policy, he is much more like Carter, it seems. Obama's constant attempts at what he calls diplomacy leaves America looking weak. No one should be a bully, but his weakness comes at a price. For example, because of his weak stance on foreign policy, the U.S. now has no leverage at all with North Korea and therefore can do little about the two reporters sentenced to 12 years of hard labor.
Tell me, do you think they feel that Obama should continue to try and placate dictators in the name of "looking good to the world?" I for one do not care if the likes of Kim Jong Il, Ortega, Chavez, the Castro Brothers, the mullah's of Iran or any dictator "like" us or not. I would much rather they respect us. -
Well don't worry the Arab people still despise our prez just as they did the last one, they like us though.
Let's for a minute here understand that the diplomacy/politics is to put us in a certain light with the Muslim world leaders to benefit us in the long run. You have to know how intertwined our foreign policy. It is not about looking good to the world, it is about saving our skin, our economy and our power as well. Do not think for any reason what is done is not in the best interests of our security and our economy.
You mean backbone like Bush did by invading Iraq? -
No, I mean backbone as in being a President that other leaders respect because he demands that respect. It is hard to respect someone that you know is worried about being liked by everyone.
I know Obama is not an idiot. I mean he is a smart man. However, with that being said, he is also either very naive or very arrogant in thinking that he can get tyrants and despots to bow to his whims because he is nice to them. If I had to guess, I would say he was a little of both. I do not put him in the same class as Carter. Of course I am referring to Carter's astonishment that the Soviets would lie to him. Obama knows that he can't trust the dictators, but I think the problem lies with Obama's belief that by blaming America he puts himself on a level playing field with them and that they will respond in kind. This is dangerous. -
@cooper
I wouldn't generalize. I know that Ralph Nader is always talking bad about Obama, but I'm sure that not all people of Arabic descent feel that way. -
"When did defending religion become one of the President's duties?"
If you don't want him to denounce those who stereotype Muslims then using your logic you should not want him to denounce those who stereotype Jews either.
Your discussion is on the topic of President Obama's Cairo speech. It is fair to take the speech in full, not a small portion of it as you have.
Polybore has not suggested, even in the slightest, that the US abandons Israel. However that is what the logic of your argument says he should do. -
Polybore...are you twins?
I stand by what I said, had Bush said that same thing about Christianity, the press would have torn him up. Look what they did when he mentioned that he prayed about the Iraq situation.
anticsrocks refuses to refer to himself in the third person. Damn! Never mind. -
Obama is a Christian and he was talking abut his experience of Islam. In the way he said it it makes perfect sense. If Bush had ever said:
"So I have known Christianity on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Christianity must be based on what Christianity is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Christianity wherever they appear."
It is unlikely that the press would have torn him up for anything other than saying something completely nonsensical although that was pretty much par for the course and would have been unremarkable.
Not twins. We are polybore. -
poly, please stop legitimizing everything Obama does. What he said is completely silly. He wants it both ways, while campaigning he doesn't want his Muslim roots mentioned, now that it serves him well, he touts them.
Here are just a smattering of what Bush faced with regards to religion:
www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm
This one is more recent, but still illustrates my point.
friendlyatheist.com/2009/05/29/gods-president/
www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/arts/television/29STAN.html
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
www.opednews.com/droubay_052204_armageddon.htm
atheism.about.com/b/2005/10/07/more-on-gods-orders-for-bush.htm
I could go on, but really to say that it "...is unlikely that the press would have torn him up for anything other than saying something completely nonsensical" is just not being intellectually honest. -
Rather surprised that you think that polybore legitimises everything that Obama does when historically this is not been the case.
Why Arizona should not award Obama a honorary degree.
www.polybore.co.uk/2009/04/why-arizona-state-university-should-not.html
Obama’s three year target to double renewable energy production is unrealistic and will fail.
www.polybore.co.uk/2009/03/obamas-three-year-target-to-double.html
Slightly off of you to accuse polybore of being anything other than objective in their participation with your discussion topic. Especially so when it would be fair to say that your criticisms of Obama's administration are skewed by your politics.
Sorry but when polybore wrote...
"It is unlikely that the press would have torn him up for anything other than saying something completely nonsensical although that was pretty much par for the course and would have been unremarkable."
...it was kind of a polite way of saying that the supposition on which you base your argument is nonsense.
When it comes to intellectual honesty perhaps you might consider how honest it is to portray a US citizen under oath, the President no less, and who is a Christian as being some sort of secret Muslim. Which pretty much what you are getting at. Isn't it? -
"When it comes to intellectual honesty perhaps you might consider how honest it is to portray a US citizen under oath, the President no less, and who is a Christian as being some sort of secret Muslim. Which pretty much what you are getting at. Isn't it?"
No, that isn't it at all. First of all, let me say that I should not have accused you of legitimizing everything Obama does. However, you seem to be legitimizing what he is doing as related to this topic.
Secondly, I am NOT saying he is a secret Muslim, a sleeper, a terrorist or even a member of the Masonic Temple for that matter. What I contend is that the far-left controlled mainstream media in this country is so in the tank for him that honest journalism is all but lost. Had Bush uttered the same remark, and let's just remind everyone of what that remark might have been. All I did was take Obama's words and replace the term 'Islam' with 'Christianity.'
"So I have known Christianity on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Christianity must be based on what Christianity is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Christianity wherever they appear."
To continue...Had Bush uttered this remark, the press would have never let it go. We would have had commentators decrying, "Where is the separation of Church and State?!" "Who does Bush think he is? It isn't his job to defend any faith!" And etc...
You know, and I know that would EXACTLY be the case. What I am portraying Obama as is a Statist. A far-left liberal. A marxist with his 'redistribution of wealth' philosophy. We are CREATED equal, and have the same chance as any other American to make the best of our situation. We are not, nor we should be maintained as equal. Each person gets out of life what they put into it. That is common sense, and it is human nature. Socialism never works, it just never will.
-
-
Not to be nitpicky - but Islam can be used to describe religious belief, or a group of people. Kind of like Jewish is both a religion and a race.
I believe in Obama's statement (if it was said word for word, with this puter I'm not clicking any links right now) - he would be using the term "Islam" as a group of people, not a specific faith system.-
It can also refer to a system of government (tho technically all religion can
) -
In a specific sense, yes. In a broader sense that would just be a "theocracy".
In any case, I highly doubt that the statement was in reference to the religion, as it wouldn't make any sense.
-
-
As with many of the recent threads on this board, this one is more about the originator's fears than any reality. I am loath to enter that fantasy land.
-
That is kind of a cop out, mark. I mean what Obama says in that speech is not very Presidential. At least not the part about him being the defender of a faith, or even a race as Anok points out. I want my President to be the defender of, oh I don't know, maybe the Constitution?
-
I'm afraid that such an expectation has been snuffed out over the last 8 yrs
-
Oh please. Obama has stepped on the Constitution considerably more than Bush did.
-
well... he did vote to reaffirm the patriot act... didn't he
-
@anticsrocks I am not aware of any questions about the constitutionality of anything Obama has done, except possibly from those on the far, far right whose poisonous utterances sometimes resemble the foam of a rabid animal.
-
Where in the Constitution does it advocate:
- the government owning private corporations?
- redistribution of wealth?
- bailouts?
- the appointment of czars who answer only to Obama and bypass the checks and balances set forth in our Constitution?
- telling private corporations how much and in what manner they can pay their employees?
Yet to you all these things are just "far-right" rhetoric? If I remember correctly, you are a college professor. I can see your leftist mentality in the statements you make on BC. -
While some of our founders (primarily Jefferson and Madison) believed that the constitution should be interpreted strictly and amended if necessary, even they eventually devated from abiding by it's strict enumeration when necessity required or seemed to require it (see also Louisiana Purchase, Second Bank of The United States). They however did not do anything which the constitution stricly FORBADE. There is a difference. Many recent presidents (likely including our current) have done this, of which THE most prolific has been "W".
-
Call this stretching logic, but if you flip that "W" it makes an "M"... Could there be any relation to W's logic being upside down? And could that M be quasi related to that of, "Moron"?
-
On the other hand, around '03, I criticized him having a raging "war-on"
-
@ Antics - where in the constitution does it forbid the government interveneing in the economic market in those ways?
See, in order to stomp on the constitution, you have to actually do something that is against or undermines it completely.
Like - marshal law. Marshal law should be completely unconstitutional, as it removes constitutional rights from citizens (and since our rights are allegedly inalienable, then our constitutional rights shouldn't be able to be taken away, but there you have it) However presidents have used it (Lincoln, for one - Bush on local levels during Katrina).
What about the restriction of free speech? (Arresting protesters simply for having a "no Bush" t shirt on, free speech zones that started under Clinton, and gained serious momentum and stricter regulations under Bush - there's a host of free speech issues under Bush, actually). How about the ever thinning line between church and state under Bush? Invasion of privacy and entrapment under the patriot act?
The over turning of Posse Comitatus, and for a short time, habeous corpus under Bush?
I mean really - if you want to talk about trampling the constitution there are far better examples than government intervention in the "free" market. -
The whole of his Executive Branch, really. It's disappointing to realize that "conservatives" should have no conplaint to any vast subversive intrusions, were Eric Holder to decide willy nilly, to just deny that any part of the constitution were simply not to exist (a la Alberto Gonzalez)... unbelievable
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
