Obama endorses rights of Muslims to build Ground Zero community center

New York Times Article - hopefully it stays active (they don't alwa...

“This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”

The president of the United States, enthusiastically upholding the very first sentence of the very first amendment of our Bill of Rights? Imagine that!

I for one give Obama a standing ovation. While I'm certainly not a fan of religion, and especially the gruesome, mutant, evil twins that are Islam and Christianity, in lieu of a secular planet, I for one am quite glad that 99.9% of the 1 billion Muslims on Earth are practicing the non-terrorism flavor of their faith. If it was a Christian fringe group that took down the World Trade Center, I'm betting the happy-fluffy-Jesus crowd would be stumbling over themselves to build a church at Ground Zero as a way of saying "Our faith is normally way more peaceful than that, really." (And as a way to prey on the grief of the victims' families, but that's another discussion).

Just like my support of freedom of speech means supporting the rights of assholes to say offensive crap, I may not like the religion but so long as they aren't actively breaking any laws, I fully support their right to practice it.

Meanwhile, a black, Democratic president with a funny, Muslim-sounding name, daring to say publicly that the Constitution applies to everyone, not just Conservative Christians?!?

Cue the Rightwing outrage in 3...2...1...

Views: 304

Replies to This Discussion

No, what you said wasn't factual. It was picking and choosing. Republicans all think alike. Ron Paul doesn't? He's not a real Republican. Snowe, Collins, Voinovich? Not real Republicans.

You wrote, and I cut and paste, "Republicans vote in lock step 95% of the time almost regardless of the issue." I pointed out:
a. Your figures are wrong for both the House and Senate.
b. The Democrats vote more in lockstep than the Republicans.

The filibuster and cloture are entirely different issues. You made a statistical assertion. I brought in the numbers proving that assertion false. It's actually very simple.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian, the only reason he ran as a Republican is because of the bi-partisan monopoly. You could argue Libs are taking over the Republican party in the form of Paul and the Tea Parties but I haven't heard you say such. I'm honestly not sure what a 'real' Republican is.

In any case Republicans defiantly do vote in lock step on procedural votes (filibuster/cloture), and they make it matter. If Republicans didn't vote in lock step then they wouldn't be able to filibuster like they are because of the Democrats being on the border of a super majority (59-41).

When the roles were reversed and Democrats were in the minority they didn't filibuster in the same manner and thus didn't have a chance in hell of stopping Bush policies: two wars, torture, medicare d...

The only thing they were able to stop was the privatization of social security.
All you are doing is saying that when someone is known for going against the party, they are not "real Republicans." Actually, Collins, Snowe, and a few others in the Senate vote less with their party than Paul. It simply shows me that there is greater diversity than you admit. Numberwise, there is less diversity among the Dems. Limiting the discussion to filibuster is a different topic, but that is not what you originally said. You were simply talking "lockstep."

All of this is important, by the way. You can't defeat an opponent unless you can identify that opponent first. Sweeping generalizations hardly help. Your initial statement about Republicans was just such a generalization.
So you don't think it shows solidarity when they have filibustered more in the last 2 congresses than any other time in history? Or when they filibustered health care legislation longer than any other bill in history (even civil rights)? All with less representatives than they have had in the last 30 years...

Also, it appears that voting on party lines appears to alternate every 4 years or so. I only took the graph back to 1991 so we are starting with the last year of Bush and ending at present. I'm not sure what it means if anything due to the standard deviation being so low but enjoy.

Filibusters over same period (oops, accidentally deleted spreadsheet for last graph and Google freaked out):

I'm new here, but I wanted to jump in on this topic. I am frightened and appalled at the behavior of the right-wing loudmouths on this issue. Now it seems that thousands are behaving toward any Muslim (or suspected Muslim) the way the Odious Rev. Phelps does regarding gay people and their friends and families.

I was reading comments to a story on Yahoo News yesterday, and the vitriol was being posted so thick and fast that their server froze up. Several times. And it was some of the most unbelievably hateful stuff I've ever read.


The story? It's about a woman, American citizen and Muslim, whose son was a NYC EMT who died trying to rescue people at the WTC disaster. The posts in the comments section were calling her a foreigner and worse, and her son a probable terrorist accomplice.

The haters were going on and on and on about the site being "hallowed ground." Nor did it matter to them that the actual site for the proposed Community Center is 2 very long blocks from where the WTC was. And I read somewhere that the site was chosen for this purpose some time before 2001. So why is it now a "slap in the face" (a phrase used way too often in the comments) to the families of the victims to build an Islamic center at that address?

What IS "hallowed ground," anyway? And what part of this planet has not experienced mass death and destruction at some time or another? Does that mean we have to put up tacky memorials everywhere, and never build anything useful in the vicinity? Doesn't leave much room for housing, farming, and business as usual.

I think a frightening proportion of US citizens are so obsessed with this issue that their brains (if they ever had any) have undergone complete and permanent meltdown. They worship disasters, and have totally forgotten our triumphs. How many people remember, or ever knew, what happened on July 20, 1969? And they vote. And have children.

But they seem to have a great deal of trouble spelling common English words...
This is just a way to stir up the Republican base and get them motivated to vote. Logic has no bounds here only forms of Fear.

Here is a leaked slide from the Republican National Committee on fundraising issues that is used to describe how they see their own base:

Do you think those slides are genuine GOPher products? If they are real, they obviously have a low opinion of their supporters. (Well, so do I, but that's another thing entirely. I think they have become totally despicable during the past 50+ years.)
I would say that the slides are real or else Steele's (RNC's Chairman) comments would have been less evasive and he would have put down the slides much harsher for being inauthentic, but check out his response and decide for yourself.

During the time of FDR a party swap happened where the conservative and liberal parties changed, maybe that is what you're referring to?
During the time of FDR a party swap happened where the conservative and liberal parties changed, maybe that is what you're referring to?

Partly...I was also thinking of the way the GOP was during the Eisenhower administration. There was plenty of catering to corporations by the GOP back then, but nothing as blatant as it is today.

And I also admire Ike for his warning against letting the military-industrial complex have any more power than it did in 1959. He was right, but apparently nobody was paying attention. There's a book about that mess by Robert Scheer...The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America (2008).

He does very thorough research, and is one of the best journalists that ever wrote a line, IMO. I believe every word of it. Bloody frightening.
For you Roger Ebert fans: Ten Things I Know About the Mosque
For you Roger Ebert fans...

I read Ebert's essay. I agree with a few points; points being made by the rest of us that Muslims have as much right to build a holy place as anyone else, and especially that this is a missed opportunity to brag about how we really do promote freedom in the U.S.

But he utterly lost me when he said the Imam used 'poor judgement' in building there. Would our very Christian country say that a pro-choice Episcopal church is using 'poor judgement' in building near a planned parenthood clinic, lest they be confused with Catholics or Baptists?



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service