Obama's speech to Muslims

monkey

Guest
RedeemedChild said:
BTW I like Hispanics, especially Hispanic girls for that matter. I think they are far better than spicy peppers.

Now here's something I can emphatically agree on!!

I love Mexican Girls!! There's something about those Spanish eyes, and dark hair.

This discussion has taken some twists and turns, but it is definitely interesting.
 
WillKill4Food said:
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.

If you're to be sorry for anything, it's that your interpretation is the only correct one, or let it be your your unsupported comment regarding most Hispanics being Catholic, how do you support that?. Hate is not necessay for racism. All that's needed is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits. Racism: Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their race.

Yours is not only definition and interpretation of the concept.

If you take his sentence OUT of context it's not racist. No matter how you re-structure the statement it encompasses all of these unreasoning prejudices, as mentioned last post.

If was soley her faith he would have no reason to include her race...but he did. The primary determinant of her faith? Her race.
 
Last edited:

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
monkey said:
This discussion has taken some twists and turns, but it is definitely interesting.


Indeed. 5 pages in, and despite some given passionate responses, it's a reasonable discourse.

As of this write, keep it up, you all should be recognized for having an 'adult' discussion, and keeping the greater good in mind. We mods appreciate that more then you know.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
If you're to be sorry for anything, it's that your interpretation is the only correct one, or let it be your your unsupported comment regarding most Hispanics being Catholic, how do you support that?
I thought it was common knowledge... But, for the record: In the United States some 70% of U.S. Hispanics report themselves Catholic.
70% is a majority no matter how you slice it.

Now that that's settled.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Hate is not necessay for racism. All that's needed is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits. Racism: Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their race.
...​
If you take his sentence OUT of context it's not racist. No matter how you re-structure the statement it encompasses all of these unreasoning prejudices, as mentioned last post.
Ah, yes, but did he? Did he treat her differently because of race, or was it religion? Let's take a look at his words, in context.

RedeemedChild said:
Another thing that Obama has done that I do not approve of is left certain policies that still allow Military Tribunals to take place. 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. And then there are rumors that Obama supports doing away with Religious Liberty via a National Sunday Law AKA National Day of Rest that would oppress Jews, Seventh Day Adventist and Muslims.
So here we have it. In context, the statement is no more racist than it is out of context. Because he focuses on religion. In this paragraph, the first sentence does not mention religion at all, does it? The third sentence focuses on religious liberty. And the infamous second sentence, the "racist" one, simply says that he fears she will be more favorable to Catholics than Protestants because she is a Catholic, as are most other Hispanics.
Now, please remind me, where is the racism? We have a statement fearing religious discrimination accompanied by the fact that, like most other Hispanics, Sotomayor is Catholic. I can't say why that he added in "as are most Hispanics," but I doubt that there was any racist sentiment involved, because it is just an offhand mention.

Rocket Surgeon said:
If was soley her faith he would have no reason to include her race...but he did. The primary determinant of her faith? Her race
He never said that her race is what he used to determine her faith. Look up Sotomayor. She is a Roman Catholic. And, like I showed you, the majority of Hispanics are Catholics. So, while his assumption that her faith would affect her more than the faith of others would affect their decisions is certainly xenophobic (that is, fearing those different from you) and it is a very - I don't want to say stupid - ignorant thing to say from the get-go, it is not, and cannot be, racist.

Now, can we please focus on something else and get the discussion back on the topic at hand?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Cairo, 04 June 2009: Eyewitness Account

Just got back from Cairo yesterday and was there while Mr. Obama was in town. My friend was getting married to a Coptic Christian Egyptian and her family & relatives were excited about Obama coming. I have no idea about the Muslim disposition on his speech but at the time he spoke, we were eating in a restaurant in the Heliopolis section. (The president's visit actually ruined our plans for Thursday!) Although I was unable to hear what he was saying because of the simultaneous Arabic translation, there were about 3 or 4 screens in the restaurant and every Egyptian eye and ear was glued to the TVs (staff included). I hope he wasn't pandering...

Throughout the week, police and military presence was high with very tight security in certain places. To beautify the president's route, there were men actually sweeping the busy highways and overpasses with brooms amongst the pandemonium of Cairo traffic! Plus, two of my friends saw the presidential, heliocopter escort to Cairo University and I literally walked in Obama's footsteps inside a pyramid less than 24 hours after Dr. Zawi Hawass guided him through.(y)

I don't really have an opinion on the speech since I was unable to hear it but did have an eye-opening/life-changing experience the night before Obama arrived.

2009June04_CairoObama.jpg
 
WillKill4Food said:
I thought it was common knowledge... But, for the record: In the United States some 70% of U.S. Hispanics report themselves Catholic.
70% is a majority no matter how you slice it.

Now that that's settled.

I'm glad you'r so easily satified, it shows how seriously we should take you. That is definitely a majority of US Hispanics who participated. Did they get them coming out of jury duty? In the mall? Did you read they pdf? Tell me how many pages concern themselves with simply defining Latinos vs Hispanics, the census, church records, those who speak english, etc. I contend we're disagreeing based on different premies, and I consider yours, defining his remark of the so called catholic hispanic majority as fact and not rhetoric to be false. Not only that you are speaking for him but that you can blithely label it fact when the study you cite repeatedly calls into question the data and methods the reasearch results were based on.

Anyway you're wrong. Glad that's settled!:rolleyes:

WillKill4Food said:
So here we have it. In context, the statement is no more racist than it is out of context.(conjecture) Because he focuses on religion.(puntuated by race) In this paragraph, the first sentence does not mention religion at all, does it?(everything builds up to the final destination...race) The third sentence focuses on religious liberty. And the infamous(you are such a grandstanding overexagerator) second sentence, the "racist" one, simply says that he fears she will be more favorable to Catholics than Protestants because she is a Catholic, as are most other Hispanics.
Now, please remind me, where is the racism?
Any attitude which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their race.

He very simply attribute her percieved pro catholic stance baced on her race. If it was simply a religious bias her race would not have been mentioned.

WillKill4Food said:
We have a statement fearing religious discrimination accompanied by the fact(unacceptable conjecture) that, like most other Hispanics, Sotomayor is Catholic. I can't say why that he added in "as are most Hispanics,"( in best Toht voice: I know you can't) but I doubt that there was any racist sentiment involved(no greater truth have you writen...you doubt, you don't know), because it is just an offhand mention(so says you). He never said that her race is what he used to determine her faith(he just ended his rant with throwing the race comment in there for no reason, maybe his post wasn't long enough). Look up Sotomayor. She is a Roman Catholic. And, like I showed you,(how old wasthat study? how many different studies did it draw from all the way back to 1990...did any information overlap? You got Nothing!) the majority of Hispanics are Catholics. So, while his assumption that her faith would affect her more than the faith of others would affect their decisions is certainly xenophobic (that is, fearing those different from you)(duh:rolleyes: ) and it is a very - I don't want to say stupid -(but I'll write it, now nowI didn't say it) ignorant thing to say from the get-go, it is not, and cannot be, racist(but you cast all these comment into doubt with your own doubt...it can't be?).

Now, can we please focus on something else and get the discussion back on the topic at hand?

No you can't, you HAVE to respond...you can't help yourself, I dare you not to! I can see it now...your fingers spasmatically jerk to thekeyboard, you stop yourself, sweat drips down the side of your face, Pounding in your head over and over again IT'S NOT RACISM DAMIT! I'M RIGHT!. Ohhh you grumble and start typing, you click on the cancell button but there it is mocking you laughting at you in the dark recesses of your parent's house the name illuminated on your forehead: ROCKET SURGEON burning into your...oh that's your mom better answer her, I'll wait.

RS: (whistling) SSSSWWWOOSWEESSSOOSEWSWE

...ah, you're back, you smell like dish soap, never mind, burning into your brain! AAAGGGHHH!! Got...To...Resist...I said I won but he wont accept it! I linked to a survey that has a title that supports my argument yet he still won't back down I WON I WON I WON I WON!

I Settled it I don't need toconvince any onebut myself I'm right!I can say it's a fact and then doubt it all I like it's my perogative! It's my perogative! my...per...

AND CUT! Nice one now try it from the top this time less condescention and contradictions, and faulty logic and more openess to other possibilities...oh and if you're a girl try it topless!

Action!


I HAVE WON! WOOOOOOOO WOOOOOOO I'VE SETTLED IT. I DARE YOU TO COME BACK, YEAH WALK AWAY YEAH, DON'T LOOK BACK...TELL YOUR STORY WALKING



just kidding, but you're so closed to the idea there was really no place else to go, you ask to be reminded but you're self endulgent "facts and proof" steered us towards parody I just stepped on the gas. Enjoy, (but I know you can't) grinding your teeth is bad for you...:hat:
 
Last edited:

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Speaking of Catholic majorities...RedeemedChild, are you also troubled by the other Catholics on the Court? By which I mean Chief Justice Roberts, Associate Justice Kennedy, Associate Justice Scalia, Associate Justice Thomas, and Associate Justice Alito?

At any rate...

RedeemedChild said:
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.

Forgive me if I am somehow unpersuaded by this citation. Look at America today. Are you happy with it? Are you happy with the divorce rate? Poverty? Reality television? You're an Obama fan - isn't a big part of Obama's appeal the fact that he's a communitarian, a former community organizer?

At some point, individualism just went off the rails in our culture. Unhappy with your marriage? Pick up and leave - it's your free right! Who gives a damn about your family, right? Or, "hey, y'know what mom, thanks for the labour and raising me and everything, but you're getting senile now...how about I stick you in a cheap nursing home and sell off your stuff?"

This is the dark side of tolerance, and the dark side of freedom. Not that people are free to do and say reprehensible things, although surely the KKK and their like are a huge problem too. No, it's the death of responsibility. The late '60s killed it on the left and the 80s killed it on the right.

RedeemedChild said:
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."

Honestly, what's the point of a church if it's not to do good for what it would consider God's people on earth? Salvation is a sidebar, as far as the social purposes of religion are concerned, and frankly, it's a selfish one. Look, I'm a man of faith, but you know what the two major criterion for judging a religion are to me? A) Does it give people a grounding on which to live their lives? and B) Does it lead them to do the good in the world and not just care for themselves? Tradition and community; responsibility and selflessness. That's what religion is good for, and I don't see how you can consistently present your views as grounded in faith when they seem to be so inward looking.
 
Last edited:

RedeemedChild

New member
WillKill4Food said:
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.


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.

Well WillKill4Food it is true that the our forefathers (especially Thomas Jefferson) believed in the importance of Separation of Church and State. They believed that it was vital and in a way the lifeline for the protection of freedom and Religious Liberty in the United States.

BTW monkey I'm all happy to see someone feels the same way about our Mexican friends.

On another note what's all this about Newt Gingrich saying that he is "not a citizen of the world?" As far as I know we all live on ONE planet and we all are "citizens of the world." I just wish that he'd go before the United Nations and try telling them that and see how well he sails after that.

object>
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Rocket, rather than piecemeal quoting your post, let me just say a few things.

First off, at the end of the paper, the statistics still clearly show that the majority of Hispanics are Catholic. And I quote:
One factor that will be important for religious identification is whether the shift from Catholicism to Protestantism is greatest between the first and second generation or between the second and third generation. In the Hispanic Churches in American Public Life poll, Espinosa et al. (2003) find the that the proportion of Hispanics currently identifying as Catholic is 74 percent in the first generation, 72 percent in the second generation, and 62 percent in the third generation. This suggests that the shift is greatest between the second and third generations. Our results suggest the shift is greatest between the first and second generations: 74 percent in the first and 47 percent each in the second and third generations. And the 2002 National Survey of Latinos indicates a more balanced shift: 76 percent in the first generation, 66 in the second, and 50 in the third.
In each case, the statistics point towards a majority, except in the third generation under the National Survey (which allows for the unlikely possibility that 50% of those surveyed were all of the same non-Catholic belief system)
and the results of the paper's authors (which allows for a similarly unlikely possibility that 48% of those surveyed adhered to a non-Catholic religion or none at all), in which case the position of Catholicism as the majority could be questioned. But, for all intents and purposes, we can say that the majority of Hispanics are Catholic. Of course, not all Hispanics were surveyed. But clearly enough were, and enough have been throughout all of these surveys, to show that the majority of Hispanics are, indeed, Catholic. Your argument is not with this survey alone; it seems you have a problem with all of statistics.

Rocket said:
If it was simply a religious bias her race would not have been mentioned.
Well, fine. Why don't we ask him? RedeemedChild, why in God's name did you unnecessarily mention race?

Rocket parodying me said:
I linked to a survey that has a title that supports my argument
I actually did read about half the paper in an honest attempt to find out whether or not I was right, but I won't lie: I didn't read the whole paper. But I did read more than just the title... :rolleyes:

Rocket said:
just kidding
Yeah, I was surprised that more than half of your post was just mocking me. But you have a good sense of humor at least.

Let's just agree to disagree. Our little argument over trivialities is taking away from the rest of the discussion.

RedeemedChild said:
On another note what's all this about Newt Gingrich saying that he is "not a citizen of the world?" As far as I know we all live on ONE planet and we all are "citizens of the world."
Sigh. Really? Let's take a look at the role of government, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, one of our nation's Founding Fathers.
Jefferson said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Now, what is a citizen, exactly?
One of Webster's various definitions that is particularly fitting to our situation (though each says basically the same thing) is as follows:
Citizen: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it.
Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but when has the world as a whole stood up and protected our Live, our Liberties, our individual Pursuits of Happiness. Never. We have our Allies, but that's different.
We can't be citizens of the world (as utopian and hunky-dory as that sounds) because the fact is that the world doesn't serve the role of government. Certainly, we're all part of the world, but we are not citizens of any government but that which protects our Liberties (which, for you and I at least, is the government of the United States, state and federal).
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Starship Troopers

Someone asked me once if I knew the difference between a civilian and a citizen. I know now. A citizen has the courage to make the safety of the human race their personal responsibility.

WHOOPS! Wrong thread.
 
WillKill4Food said:
Your argument is not with this survey alone; it seems you have a problem with all of statistics.

On the nosey! Numbers don't lie, statistics do! Whichofcourse paraphrases Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

WillKill4Food said:
Yeah, I was surprised that more than half of your post was just mocking me.(sorry about that...it was themoodI was in) But you have a good sense of humor at least.

I didtry to make it absurd.

WillKill4Food said:
Let's just agree to disagree. Our little argument over trivialities is taking away from the rest of the discussion.

Let me disagree once again, I thought it turned out pretty entertaining...:hat:
 
RedeemedChild said:
It is true that the our forefathers (especially Thomas Jefferson) believed in the importance of Separation of Church and State. They believed that it was vital and in a way the lifeline for the protection of freedom and Religious Liberty in the United States.

Well the Jefferson Bible points to his distaste of religion, when he chose the word "sacred," in the phrase, "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable"Jefferson had suggested intentionally or unintentionally that the principle in question—the equality of men and their endowment by their creator with inalienable rights—was an assertion of religion. By changing it to "self-evident," Franklin made it an assertion of rationality."

The men were just as dynamic complicated and torn as they are today. They had to choose which evils they could change and they prioritized well. Slavery could not have been abloished and a new nation formed, yet the ground work for that change they laid out well.

I cringe at people who mock the founding fathers use of the term all men are created equal. It was just those words that kept the issue in the hearts and minds of the country.
 
Last edited:

RedeemedChild

New member
WillKill4Food said:
Rocket, rather than piecemeal quoting your post, let me just say a few things.

First off, at the end of the paper, the statistics still clearly show that the majority of Hispanics are Catholic. And I quote:

In each case, the statistics point towards a majority, except in the third generation under the National Survey (which allows for the unlikely possibility that 50% of those surveyed were all of the same non-Catholic belief system)
and the results of the paper's authors (which allows for a similarly unlikely possibility that 48% of those surveyed adhered to a non-Catholic religion or none at all), in which case the position of Catholicism as the majority could be questioned. But, for all intents and purposes, we can say that the majority of Hispanics are Catholic. Of course, not all Hispanics were surveyed. But clearly enough were, and enough have been throughout all of these surveys, to show that the majority of Hispanics are, indeed, Catholic. Your argument is not with this survey alone; it seems you have a problem with all of statistics.


Well, fine. Why don't we ask him? RedeemedChild, why in God's name did you unnecessarily mention race?


I actually did read about half the paper in an honest attempt to find out whether or not I was right, but I won't lie: I didn't read the whole paper. But I did read more than just the title... :rolleyes:


Yeah, I was surprised that more than half of your post was just mocking me. But you have a good sense of humor at least.

Let's just agree to disagree. Our little argument over trivialities is taking away from the rest of the discussion.


Sigh. Really? Let's take a look at the role of government, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, one of our nation's Founding Fathers.

Now, what is a citizen, exactly?
One of Webster's various definitions that is particularly fitting to our situation (though each says basically the same thing) is as follows:
Citizen: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it.
Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but when has the world as a whole stood up and protected our Live, our Liberties, our individual Pursuits of Happiness. Never. We have our Allies, but that's different.
We can't be citizens of the world (as utopian and hunky-dory as that sounds) because the fact is that the world doesn't serve the role of government. Certainly, we're all part of the world, but we are not citizens of any government but that which protects our Liberties (which, for you and I at least, is the government of the United States, state and federal).

I like you WillKill4Food. You're smart and you're also very sensible. To bad we can't meet face to face and sit around a table of Tea and discuss political and religious themes together every other night of the week.

And to answer your question I was not in any way trying to be racist in mentioning Hispanics. I only mentioned her race because I was trying to highlight the point (as you've already done very well by posting and quoting poles) that Hispanics are for the most part Catholics. BTW if I'd know that it was going to cause the knockdown and dragout that it has I would have remained silent on the issue.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
RedeemedChild said:
I only mentioned her race because I was trying to highlight the point (as you've already done very well by posting and quoting poles) that Hispanics are for the most part Catholics.
Poles? I wasn't aware that I consulted any Poles, though, were he still alive, perhaps this guy would know. He seems to be one Pole who would be very knowledgeable on the matter at hand. ;)

As for my polls, I still disagree with Rocket Surgeon that, while they can often be skewed and shifted to fit a variety of viewpoints, statistics are, in cases such as the one we were discussing (whether or not the majority of Hispanics are Roman Catholics) all we've got.

But I still don't understand why that it was necessary to say that most Hispanics are Catholic...

Anyway, back on topic, though I disagree with Obama on many issues, I think he is taking the nation in the right direction with his foreign policy (so far).
 

RedeemedChild

New member
WillKill4Food said:
Poles? I wasn't aware that I consulted any Poles, though, were he still alive, perhaps this guy would know. He seems to be one Pole who would be very knowledgeable on the matter at hand. ;)

As for my polls...

Boy, I'm still laughing. You're very funny. Nice sense of humor. I'm sorry about poles my friend. It was my intention to spell polls and not (well you get the idea.)
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
RedeemedChild said:
And to answer your question I was not in any way trying to be racist in mentioning Hispanics. I only mentioned her race because I was trying to highlight the point (as you've already done very well by posting and quoting poles) that Hispanics are for the most part Catholics. BTW if I'd know that it was going to cause the knockdown and dragout that it has I would have remained silent on the issue.

I still fail to see how that's a point worth making in the first place, or how you stand where you do on the whole individual vs. community question. Or, y'know, why she's more worrisome than the other 5 Catholics currently on the bench who haven't yet installed Benedict XVI as a fourth branch of government.

It's like with the other thread and your ignoring WillKill4Food's complaint about your truncating the Gandhi quote; once you enter into a conversation, you can't just leave things that are responding to you alone. That's not how it works.
 

monkey

Guest
Salvation is a sidebar, as far as the social purposes of religion are concerned, and frankly, it's a selfish one. Look, I'm a man of faith, but you know what the two major criterion for judging a religion are to me? A) Does it give people a grounding on which to live their lives? and B) Does it lead them to do the good in the world and not just care for themselves? Tradition and community; responsibility and selflessness. That's what religion is good for...

I very much agree with you Attila. Great post!
 

monkey

Guest
RedeemedChild said:
BTW monkey I'm all happy to see someone feels the same way about our Mexican friends.

[/IMG]

Absolutely RC.

In another twist to this conversation I would say a few words about Mexican immigration to the US.

While I do not want to throw the gates open, and I believe strongly in securing our borders, I also see a positive effect of Mexican immigration to the US.

As long as we do not lose our National Identity. Mexican immigrants must become Americans.............America must NOT become Mexico.

Anyone marching around waving a Mexican flag..........get the hell out of my country! Any Mexican waving an American Flag........and has entered Legally, ...Welcome to my country.
 

Short Round

New member
monkey said:
Absolutely RC.

In another twist to this conversation I would say a few words about Mexican immigration to the US.

While I do not want to throw the gates open, and I believe strongly in securing our borders, I also see a positive effect of Mexican immigration to the US.

As long as we do not lose our National Identity. Mexican immigrants must become Americans.............America must NOT become Mexico.

Anyone marching around waving a Mexican flag..........get the hell out of my country! Any Mexican waving an American Flag........and has entered Legally, ...Welcome to my country.

Wow, I actually strongly agree with you Monkey. As long as they become Americans and do it legally, it's all good.
 
Top