Obama's speech to Muslims

WillKill4Food

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
It's funny you bring up Lincoln and Bush in the same sentence. You know Lincoln condemned the idea of a pre-emptive war, which I'm sure you realize is EXACTLY what Bush initiated.
Remember that I didn't laud Bush as being an equal to Lincoln. I merely showed that one of Lincoln's policies was comparable to a Bush policy.

Pale Horse said:
OH SNAP
historians are cool
Not sure how to interpret this, but let me clarify one of my previous statements.
I didn't see how RedeemedChild could have thought that each president was great when their ideologies, policies, and what they did as president contradict one another and accomplish diametrically different ends.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
RedeemedChild said:
I have nothing against Catholic's as people but against the system, yes I do.

That is why I enjoyed The Golden Compass movie for it's anti-Catholic themes along with the new movie Angels and Demons. It does seem Dan Brown can carry some of his anti-Catholic ideas a bit to far but it sure does make for a good thriller on the big screen.

BTW I saw a documentary on The History Channel regarding Hitler, The Vatican and World War II it turned out that the Papacy played a large role behind the scenes in the support of Hitler.

Pope Pius XII also sheltered a considerable number of Jews during the Holocaust. And I know all about the Inquisition and indulgences and the Crusades and modern sex scandals. (I also know that Dan Brown is full of <I>merde</I>.)

But Catholicism - unlike a certain other branch of Christianity - is about following a tradition and conceiving of yourself as a part of a larger entity than yourself. It's about coming together in a community, and about the humility of recognizing that your interpretation is probably not the best one, and that it's a good idea to understand how people have read and thought in the past, so that we might prevent the same kind of scriptural misinterpretations that can so easily run rampant. It's why Jews and Catholics are closer together than Protestants and Catholics, because the first two are about groups, not about atomized individuals. And I think you'll agree that we need things to hold us together, not rip us apart from one another: tribes of many, rather than tribes of one. It's about guilt and redemption, for we are all going to fail and deserve second chances. And it's about the responsibility of good works, which is what religion really ought to be about. Faith doesn't do much for us in this world.

But, sure, if you want to go on fearing the Pope, go ahead.
 
RedeemedChild said:
Padme Amidala's (Natalie Portmen) line from Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith erriely in my mind "Is this how freedom ends? With thunderous applause?"

No offense but that line makes me want to cut her head off...she and "Representative Binks" are complicit if not directly to blame for the rise of the Empire. Her contempt is rather poorly written drivel.

Maybe taking responsibility would have been more in order.

RedeemedChild said:
And while I don't think Sonia Sotomayor is a racist I do fear that she might choose to be more favorable toward Catholics than to Protestants due to the fact that she is indeed Catholic as are the majority of Hispanics.

Racism, by its simplest definition, is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences ...

Your statement is racist.


Attila the Professor said:
Pope Pius XII also sheltered a considerable number of Jews during the Holocaust. And I know all about the Inquisition and indulgences and the Crusades and modern sex scandals. (I also know that Dan Brown is full of <I>merde</I>.)

But Catholicism - unlike a certain other branch of Christianity - is about following a tradition and conceiving of yourself as a part of a larger entity than yourself. It's about coming together in a community, and about the humility of recognizing that your interpretation is probably not the best one, and that it's a good idea to understand how people have read and thought in the past, so that we might prevent the same kind of scriptural misinterpretations that can so easily run rampant. It's why Jews and Catholics are closer together than Protestants and Catholics, because the first two are about groups, not about atomized individuals. And I think you'll agree that we need things to hold us together, not rip us apart from one another: tribes of many, rather than tribes of one. It's about guilt and redemption, for we are all going to fail and deserve second chances. And it's about the responsibility of good works, which is what religion really ought to be about. Faith doesn't do much for us in this world.

But, sure, if you want to go on fearing the Pope, go ahead.

Hear hear! I'm 100% with that post! Even though it shames me for the content at the top of my own post.
 
Last edited:

Short Round

New member
Finn said:
The only last thing I'm left to wonder is how a guy who gives out statements that technically equal painting a bullseye on one's own forehead exactly intends to keep people around him "safe"...

Of course. You have to resort to insults.
 
WillKill4Food said:
His statement was not racist, per se, as his fears seemed to be focused more at religion than race, but xenophobic indeed.

Per Se...sure, if you take his sentence OUT of context it's not racist.:rolleyes:

If you disect it and remove the qualifications, yeah sure...

But then that wouldn't be what he wrote would it?
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
WillKill4Food said:
Not sure how to interpret this, but let me clarify one of my previous statements.
I didn't see how RedeemedChild could have thought that each president was great when their ideologies, policies, and what they did as president contradict one another and accomplish diametrically different ends.

I'm totally with you, totally. speaking in small print 'cause this topic is generating a lot of buzz and my companions are knee deep in it.
 

RedeemedChild

New member
Attila the Professor said:
And I think you'll agree that we need things to hold us together, not rip us apart from one another: tribes of many, rather than tribes of one. And it's about the responsibility of good works...

Well I don't oppose groups or those who believe in "good works" after all some of my friends are Catholics.

However, "tribes of many as opposed to tribes of one" go against everything that I've come to believe via my patrons such as Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek), Guillermo Del Toro (Hellboy), George Lucas (Star Wars), Phillip Pullman, (The Golden Compass), Martin Luther( The Father of the Protestant Reformation), Galileo Galilei (Father of Science), Glen A. Larson (Battlestar Galactica), Bill Gates and I could go on and on.

One such statement from Star Trek III The Search for Spock moves me in response to what you've said regarding "tribes of many over tribes of few" is Kirk's defiance upside down turn of Spocks statement which Kirk changed to "The needs of The One outweigh the needs of the Many" and that was also Mr. Roddenberry's personal belief.

Regarding what you said regarding "good works" the Holy Scriptures tell us "that Faith without Works is dead." James 2:20. What I'm trying to say is that there is nothing wrong with good works but without faith it's all worthless. Christ has encouraged us to have "Faith" and "Believe."
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Per Se...sure, if you take his sentence OUT of context it's not racist.:rolleyes:
He said her decisions could be tainted "due to the fact that she is indeed Catholic." Where's the racism? He did say that the majority of Hispanics are Catholic, but I don't believe that qualifies as racism, does it?

Pale Horse said:
I'm totally with you, totally. speaking in small print 'cause this topic is generating a lot of buzz and my companions are knee deep in it.
Oh, okay. I understand now.

RedeemedChild said:
One such statement from Star Trek III The Search for Spock...
Is it possible that you could engage in open debate without quoting a film, for Christ's sake (and my own, for that matter)? Is cinema the full scope of your knowledge of the world?

And, by the way, the point of that quote was that it was a paradox and is the antithesis of any utilitarian logic. I seriously doubt anyone in that film would expect this one axiom to apply to all situations.

RedeemedChild said:
Regarding what you said regarding "good works" the Holy Scriptures tell us...
Did you ever think that perhaps, just perhaps, there is truth to be found outside of your little book?

And now, for a gem of a statement that I found a while back...
RedeemedChild said:
Furthermore as a Protestant I don't agree with Obama's moral position on Abortion and Gay Rights either.
You know, last time I checked there was a clause outlining Separation of Church and State somewhere in that thing they call the Constitution... Hmmm.

You know, the morality of the issue isn't what matters, when it comes to same-sex marriage, at least. I do agree with you on abortion, not because of my religion, but because I think it violates the Rights of the unborn. But that's another argument itself.

But when it comes to "Gay Rights," well, first off, I have to wonder how anyone can oppose "Rights" for homosexuals. Aren't they citizens? Aren't they Americans just like you and I? What "Rights" should they be deprived of? In referencing "Gay Rights," aren't you implying that their Rights are being infringed upon?

It seems that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government. "Gay Rights" isn't a question of morality; it's a question of civil liberties. It seems that you think it would be convenient if America were composed of so many mindless drones and that our nation would be utterly utopian if only we had a government strong enough to impress its moral resolve on the populace.

But indeed the opposite is true, and our Founding Fathers knew this. The role of any government, as penned by Thomas Jefferson and embodied, indeed enshrined, in the Constitution, is to secure and protect the unalienable rights of its people, to ensure that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are available for all (including our friends, the homosexuals).

But you seem to want to impose his own will on all Americans, throwing Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for a minority to the wind.

The fact is that our Constitution is set up to allow to each his or her own moral convictions, and while your interpretation of scripture and your faith in Protestantism may lead you to oppose homosexuality, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (that pesky little line that outlines Separation of Church and State) prevents Washington from forcing others to abide by your creed. Each American must decide how to live his or her life, and it is not, by any means, the job of an Orwellian Big Brother to decide the validity of homosexuality as a lifestyle.

By allowing heterosexual unions and precluding the existence of same-sex unions, the government is essentially putting its stamp on heterosexuality and saying to the homosexuals of the country, "We don't think you're equal."

Regardless of your thoughts on homosexuality, there is simply no legal basis by which to continue denying Rights to homosexual Americans. At the very least, our nation’s legislatures (state by state, because, in our current state of affairs, federalism dictates that each state must decide its own marriage laws) should grant strengthened same-sex civil unions.

To deny such a basic freedom to masses of Americans, without any legal basis, is in no way conducive to the preservation of Liberty, and sets a precedent for the legislation of morality that cannot be allowed.
 
Last edited:

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Short Round said:
Of course. You have to resort to insults.
The fact that somebody decides to use the "I'm calling out an insult" card to dodge the actual moral of the story kind of reminds me of this one saying which involves pigeons...

Which I won't cite here in order to prevent myself from spewing out an actual insult instead of just an ironic remark that nevertheless seemed to sting someplace.
 

Short Round

New member
Finn said:
The fact that somebody decides to use the "I'm calling out an insult" card to dodge the actual moral of the story kind of reminds me of this one saying which involves pigeons...

Which I won't cite here in order to prevent myself from spewing out an actual insult instead of just an ironic remark that nevertheless seemed to sting someplace.

Uh...you are the one who used an insult instead of refuting what I said. All I did was call you out on it.
 

RedeemedChild

New member
WillKill4Food said:
His statement was not racist, per se, as his fears seemed to be focused more at religion than race, but xenophobic indeed.

Thanks WillKill4Food. It was not my desire to sound racist at all. BTW I like Hispanics, especially Hispanic girls for that matter. I think they are far better than spicy peppers. :eek: :hat:

I'm only speaking from a religious standpoint. Freedom of religion is more important to me then being supposedly "politically correct." Yet at the same time it is not my desire to be racist at all.

I must also stress that Sonia Sotomayor was not at all trying to be racist either in her much overly taken out of context and misquoted statement regarding a "white man" vs a "Latino woman". What she was trying to say was that after having suffered such bad treatment as a Hispanic and coming from the dark side of a community (the Bronx) she would administer justice in a kind, compassionate and loving way as opposed to the stiff and cold manner of which some think it should be administered thanks to popular culture via programs like CSI and Law and Order.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Short Round said:
Uh...you are the one who used an insult instead of refuting what I said. All I did was call you out on it.
I didn't insult you, dear friend. I merely pointed out that your comments are of the kind that certainly aren't helping in making the views of the Muslim world more favorable towards us Westerners.

Note that I don't care what you actually think, I'm simply hoping that you'd keep a little lid on it. Just in case I find myself standing next to you one day.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
RedeemedChild said:
Yet at the same time it is not my desire to be racist at all.
Don't thank me. Really. You were xenophobic, and I disagree with you. I was merely correcting Rocket Surgeon.

RedeemedChild said:
I must also stress that Sonia Sotomayor was not at all trying to be racist either in her much overly taken out of context and misquoted statement regarding a "white man" vs a "Latino woman".
Except, well, just read the rest of the speech. She never qualifies her statement. It was not take out of context. A lot of the time things are, but this wasn't.

Consider this. It would be intolerable for a white man to say "A wise Anglo-Saxon male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn?t lived that life," so why you find this statement acceptable when the roles are reversed?
 

Short Round

New member
Finn said:
I didn't insult you, dear friend. I merely pointed out that your comments are of the kind that certainly aren't helping in making the views of the Muslim world more favorable towards us Westerners.

Note that I don't care what you actually think, I'm simply hoping that you'd keep a little lid on it. Just in case I find myself standing next to you one day.

There you go again. I am talking about terrorists, not all Muslims. I have no sympathies for terrorists and at the same time have nothing against peaceful Muslims. Muslims can understand this.

Same here. I don't care what you think either. No, I won't "keep a lid on it" because if everyone who understands this situation did, we'd be in big trouble. The world would be in big trouble.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
WillKill4Food said:
You know, last time I checked there was a clause outlining Separation of Church and State somewhere in that thing they call the Constitution... Hmmm...

Almost, anyway. But you're spot on when it comes to citing so I feel a bit ashamed to have to say "no it doesn't".
 
WillKill4Food said:
You were xenophobic, and I disagree with you. I was merely correcting Rocket Surgeon.

I LIKE THIS THREAD, IT'S EXCITING!

Don't worry Reedeemed, I didn't say you are racist, just that your statement was.

The Statement proposes that her race determined her faith, which he's scared she will descriminate in a professional capacty.

His fear is rooted in racism and religious descrimination.

You've corrected nothing, that he's scared doesn't preclude racism. Nor does it account for a majority of the sentiment. The basis is race, then faith, then fear.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Pale Horse said:
Almost, anyway. But you're spot on when it comes to citing so I feel a bit ashamed to have to say "no it doesn't".
Well, I was careful to say "outlining" because I realize that it doesn't explicitly state the Separation of Church and State. But the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause in particular, adequately imply the existence of this Separation. When the government can't express favor or disfavor towards a religion, then it really can't take any action towards religion at all, hence the division that Jefferson would refer to as the Separation of Church and State.

Rocket Surgeon said:
...race determined her faith, which he's scared she will descriminate in a professional capacty.
Hmm... He said that, like most Hispanics, she is a Catholic. Well, she is a Catholic. And saying that most Hispanics are Catholic is not racist, at all. It's an accurate statement.
He never said that she would rule in favor of Hispanics. He said she'd rule in favor of Catholics over Protestants, and not because she's a Hispanic, but because she's a Catholic.
Sorry, you're wrong. His fear is rooted in religious discrimination, but not racism in the slightest. Hence the xenophobia. The basis is faith, and his comment on race is negligible and merely a side comment that, quite frankly, was rather useless.
 
Top