Correct. The GOP needs to be fired and Americans educated.
18-24% of Americans Wrongly believe Obama is Muslim
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
Correct. The GOP needs to be fired and Americans educated.
Indeed, I think the issue demonstrates how ill informed Americans are these days. And the next question that should be asked is why are Americans so ill informed. And I think the answer has to be the proliferation of biased news reporting (e.g. Fox News, Clear Channel, etc) - in short it is the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine.
Yes Foxnews is terrible. Let's get some honest Iranian and Saudi news in America for an improvement. It will expose how America masterminded 9/11 with the help of the zionists.
No, and I'm not sure how tha follows from what I said.
Not exactly. The issue was simply the relevance of Obama's religion. How it might impact his re-elect-ability is one aspect of the answer. The other is simply the curious fact of the American people seeming to know the president less well as his time in office increases.
You can, with some justification, paint this as a conservative problem. However, this sort of crap is nothing new. Abraham Lincoln was called the ape baboon of the prairie. Worse yet, rumors were circulated that he was (gasp!), a Catholic! Like Obama, Lincoln had things in his past that gave some credence to these claims:
Then there was FDR, who was rumored to be Jewish:
Can you see the connection? The presidencies of Lincoln, FDR, and Obama all took place at times of great national distress. They all promoted policies that were considered radical and were strongly opposed by many. At times when people were looking for someone to blame, when people were ready to believe anything or anyone who seemed to offer a solution or even a scapegoat.
We made it thru those earlier crisises, let's hope we can get our shit together and make it thru this one. In the meantime, I think we can all agree that spreading false rumors about the presidents religion is not at all helpful.
Spreading half truths, distortions, and outright falsehoods is a major industry in this country. Spreading rumors about President Obama being a secret Muslim is good for the bottom line of an entire industry. That it may be bad for the greater good of the nation is apparently irrelevant.
Amen
Yes Foxnews is terrible. Let's get some honest Iranian and Saudi news in America for an improvement. It will expose how America masterminded 9/11 with the help of the zionists.
Why don't we settle for fair and balanced reporting like we use to have in this country when the nation was at its zenith?
A Problematic Pretense
It's a curious couple days over at The New York Times. Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich both have interesting columns on the xenophobia toward Islam that the right wing is capitalizing on.
For Dowd, though, we need to revisit an earlier post of yours in this thread, and consider how it compares to your current statement:
One of the things you do that makes it hard for you to shake the image of being just another right-wing shill peddling bullshit and hoping to profit from bigotry is that you have to be pushed back to statements like the quote at the beginning of this post. Think of it this way: When Maureen Dowd—
—is closer to reality than you are, you ought to be able to figure out you've taken a wrong turn somewhere.
Or Frank Rich, for heaven's sake:
And let's be clear about this: Frank Rich is one who annoys me to no end. That is, if I feel the need to go Ren Høek all over the world, all I need to do is read Frank Rich. I mean, yes, I have, in the past, found a Rich column that I both appreciated and enjoyed, but it reaches back twenty-three years, and is a review of a Broadway play I saw the following spring.
But, yes, the guy occasionally has a point, and sometimes those are even worth considering.
Ask around. A lot of people have trouble figuring out how Dowd and Rich even warrant regular circulation. I actually don't know anyone who likes their columns. Indeed, I might speak poorly of them, but it turns out I have the best view of them among pretty much anyone I know. And, no, that's not a very good image. They're the type of writers who will, fifty years from now, provide an amusing insight into the mentality of the times, though in truth it won't speak well of where this nation is at.
Still, though, they have a more useful point than you opened with in this thread. And when Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd are closer to the mark than you are, yes, you have taken a wrong turn somewhere.
Look, I know the amount of shit you've been getting lately frustrates you, but it is very hard to take your rhetorical abortions seriously. It isn't just that you scale back from some outlandish position; hell, that would be just fine and dandy. But you also try to pretend that was what you were after the whole time. And from one occasion to the next, the difference between what you say and what you apparently meant is striking.
There are three sentences there. The first is flat out untrue. The second is a compelling issue. The third is a point even Maureen freakin' Dowd can get closer to.
Compare your statements:
This was another one of your attempts to blame Obama for the dedicated, hard work of Republicans. And once again you got caught advocating bigotry. And once again you started tracking back toward something more useful. Well and fine, except once again you tried to pretend your later statement, which stands so clearly at odds with the earlier, was the issue from the outset.
Repeating the FOX News line at a time like this doesn't help. Yes, those were times of great national distress, and so it seems today. But, then, these hideous and bigoted accusations were just that: hideous and bigoted.
Bruce Feiler, who you quoted, can even get reasonably close to the point:
Except, of course, that a politician who did subscribe to "our" values happens to be the one who got us into this mess. Feiler, however, chooses a more dismissive route:
I would contest his argument here. Quite clearly, Americans have not moved past these views, else we would not give them such credibility today. The fact that ludicrous, illogical, counterfactual, and, ultimately, stupid bigotry keeps resurfacing every time Americans get scared should make clear that we have not, in fact, moved past these views. They subside, and fester among the intellectually stunted, and at the first opportunity they rise up, and—surprise!—in the confusion and distraction they create, some frightened or angry people lose sight of what's important.
But it would be unfair, wouldn't it, to ignore the purveyors of such vicious falsehood? Because that's not open-minded, right? Because that's mean and rude and petty, isn't it? After all, "Race is absolutely not the motivation for opposition to Obama, but it is used by some as a tool in the fight against him." Who was it that said that? Then again, by that thesis, these hysterical people can't even formulate a coherent, halfway-useful argument, can they? So why should we give any credence to these people? Because some of them vote?
Great. Whatever racks up a GOP victory; that's the only important thing, right? How else could the nonstop efforts of a bunch of lunatics to smear the president according to xenophobia instead of actually building a coherent argument about the policies they so disdain equal "that the president has so lost touch with the American people that they no longer even know who he is"?
It's more than annoying. It's sickening. It is a process that only reminds that some people don't actually give a damn about the state of the society they're in. They want what they want, for good or ill, come hell or high water, and if they're willing to advocate racism, it doesn't mean that they're racist, but rather that Obama has lost touch with the American people.
Or, as Dowd puts it:
And more directly:
God help us if the answer is, "We're a bunch of frothing lunatics who can't cope with rational thought."
And, frankly, if Obama is out of touch with the frothing lunatics, that's probably a good thing. The only question is whether enough people will remain sane when they mark their ballots. And if the GOP and its advocates have their way, the answer to that question will be, "Hell no!"
Once upon a time we even went so far as to exchange remarks about how each of us hoped the best for America, but simply had different views of how to get there. I'm sorry, sir, but in light of the facts, I can't believe that anymore.
If the more moderate, halfway rational points you try to make after being called out are what you intended the whole time, why don't you start with them?
____________________
Notes:
Dowd, Maureen. "Going Mad in Herds". The New York Times. August 22, 2010; page WK9. NYTimes.com. August 22, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22dowd.html
Rich, Frank. "How Fox Betrayed Petraeus". The New York Times. August 22, 2010; page WK8. NYTimes.com. August 22, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22rich.html
—————. "Jim Dale in 'Me and My Girl'". The New York Times. September 29, 1987. NYTimes.com. August 22, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/29/theater/stage-jim-dale-in-me-and-my-girl.html
Feiler, Bruce. "Obama a Muslim! Lincoln a Catholic! FDR a Jew! Why Americans Don't Like Their President's God". FOX News. August 20, 2010. FOXNews.com. August 22, 2010. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...-ground-zero-mosque-lincoln-catholic-fdr-jew/
Madanthonywayne said:
It's a curious couple days over at The New York Times. Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich both have interesting columns on the xenophobia toward Islam that the right wing is capitalizing on.
For Dowd, though, we need to revisit an earlier post of yours in this thread, and consider how it compares to your current statement:
"Why is this significant? Well, it indicates that the president has so lost touch with the American people that they no longer even know who he is. How can he possibly convince voters to support his policy positions when he can't even accurately communicate his own identity?"
(#1)
(#1)
One of the things you do that makes it hard for you to shake the image of being just another right-wing shill peddling bullshit and hoping to profit from bigotry is that you have to be pushed back to statements like the quote at the beginning of this post. Think of it this way: When Maureen Dowd—
The country is having some weird mass nervous breakdown, with the right spreading fear and disinformation that is amplified by the poisonous echo chamber that is the modern media environment.
The dispute over the Islamic center has tripped some deep national lunacy. The unbottled anger and suspicion concerning ground zero show that many Americans haven't flushed the trauma of 9/11 out of their systems — making them easy prey for fearmongers.
Many people still have a confused view of Muslims, and the president seems unable to help navigate the country through its Islamophobia.
It is a prejudice stoked by Rush Limbaugh, who mocks "Imam Obama" as "America's first Muslim president," and by the evangelist Franklin Graham, who bizarrely told CNN's John King: "I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim. His father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father, like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother."
Graham added: "The teaching of Islam is to hate the Jew, to hate the Christian, to kill them. Their goal is world domination."
A poll last week by the Pew Research Center tracked a strange spike in the number of Americans who believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Obama is a Muslim. And even the ones who don't think he's a Muslim don't necessarily believe he's a Christian.
The percentage of Americans who now believe that our Christian president is a Muslim has risen to 18 percent. It was 12 percent when Obama ran for president and 11 percent after his inauguration.
Just as some Americans once feared that John Fitzgerald Kennedy (who was a Catholic) would build a tunnel to Rome, now some fear that Barack Hussein Obama (whose name sounds scary) will build a tunnel to Mecca.
In "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," a history of such national follies as England's South Sea Bubble and Holland's Tulip Frenzy, the Scottish historian Charles Mackay observed: "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one."
He also concluded that people are more prone to believe the "Wondrously False" than the "Wondrously True."
"Of all the offspring of time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder's welcome," Mackay wrote, adding that "a misdirected zeal in matters of religion" befogs the truth most grievously.
You can have an opinion on the New York mosque, for or against. But there aren't two sides to the question of whether Obama is a Muslim.
The dispute over the Islamic center has tripped some deep national lunacy. The unbottled anger and suspicion concerning ground zero show that many Americans haven't flushed the trauma of 9/11 out of their systems — making them easy prey for fearmongers.
Many people still have a confused view of Muslims, and the president seems unable to help navigate the country through its Islamophobia.
It is a prejudice stoked by Rush Limbaugh, who mocks "Imam Obama" as "America's first Muslim president," and by the evangelist Franklin Graham, who bizarrely told CNN's John King: "I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim. His father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father, like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother."
Graham added: "The teaching of Islam is to hate the Jew, to hate the Christian, to kill them. Their goal is world domination."
A poll last week by the Pew Research Center tracked a strange spike in the number of Americans who believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Obama is a Muslim. And even the ones who don't think he's a Muslim don't necessarily believe he's a Christian.
The percentage of Americans who now believe that our Christian president is a Muslim has risen to 18 percent. It was 12 percent when Obama ran for president and 11 percent after his inauguration.
Just as some Americans once feared that John Fitzgerald Kennedy (who was a Catholic) would build a tunnel to Rome, now some fear that Barack Hussein Obama (whose name sounds scary) will build a tunnel to Mecca.
In "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," a history of such national follies as England's South Sea Bubble and Holland's Tulip Frenzy, the Scottish historian Charles Mackay observed: "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one."
He also concluded that people are more prone to believe the "Wondrously False" than the "Wondrously True."
"Of all the offspring of time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder's welcome," Mackay wrote, adding that "a misdirected zeal in matters of religion" befogs the truth most grievously.
You can have an opinion on the New York mosque, for or against. But there aren't two sides to the question of whether Obama is a Muslim.
—is closer to reality than you are, you ought to be able to figure out you've taken a wrong turn somewhere.
Or Frank Rich, for heaven's sake:
Here's what's been lost in all the screaming. The prime movers in the campaign against the "ground zero mosque" just happen to be among the last cheerleaders for America's nine-year war in Afghanistan. The wrecking ball they're wielding is not merely pounding Park51, as the project is known, but is demolishing America's already frail support for that war, which is dedicated to nation-building in a nation whose most conspicuous asset besides opium is actual mosques.
So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right — abetted by the useful idiocy of the Anti-Defamation League, Harry Reid and other cowed Democrats — that it has also rendered Gen. David Petraeus's last-ditch counterinsurgency strategy for fighting the war inoperative. How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar when you are calling Muslims every filthy name in the book in New York?
You'd think that American hawks invested in the Afghanistan "surge" would not act against their own professed interests. But they couldn't stop themselves from placing cynical domestic politics over country. The ginned-up rage over the "ground zero mosque" was not motivated by a serious desire to protect America from the real threat of terrorists lurking at home and abroad — a threat this furor has in all likelihood exacerbated — but by the potential short-term rewards of winning votes by pandering to fear during an election season.
So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right — abetted by the useful idiocy of the Anti-Defamation League, Harry Reid and other cowed Democrats — that it has also rendered Gen. David Petraeus's last-ditch counterinsurgency strategy for fighting the war inoperative. How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar when you are calling Muslims every filthy name in the book in New York?
You'd think that American hawks invested in the Afghanistan "surge" would not act against their own professed interests. But they couldn't stop themselves from placing cynical domestic politics over country. The ginned-up rage over the "ground zero mosque" was not motivated by a serious desire to protect America from the real threat of terrorists lurking at home and abroad — a threat this furor has in all likelihood exacerbated — but by the potential short-term rewards of winning votes by pandering to fear during an election season.
And let's be clear about this: Frank Rich is one who annoys me to no end. That is, if I feel the need to go Ren Høek all over the world, all I need to do is read Frank Rich. I mean, yes, I have, in the past, found a Rich column that I both appreciated and enjoyed, but it reaches back twenty-three years, and is a review of a Broadway play I saw the following spring.
But, yes, the guy occasionally has a point, and sometimes those are even worth considering.
Ask around. A lot of people have trouble figuring out how Dowd and Rich even warrant regular circulation. I actually don't know anyone who likes their columns. Indeed, I might speak poorly of them, but it turns out I have the best view of them among pretty much anyone I know. And, no, that's not a very good image. They're the type of writers who will, fifty years from now, provide an amusing insight into the mentality of the times, though in truth it won't speak well of where this nation is at.
Still, though, they have a more useful point than you opened with in this thread. And when Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd are closer to the mark than you are, yes, you have taken a wrong turn somewhere.
Look, I know the amount of shit you've been getting lately frustrates you, but it is very hard to take your rhetorical abortions seriously. It isn't just that you scale back from some outlandish position; hell, that would be just fine and dandy. But you also try to pretend that was what you were after the whole time. And from one occasion to the next, the difference between what you say and what you apparently meant is striking.
"The issue was simply the relevance of Obama's religion. How it might impact his re-elect-ability is one aspect of the answer. The other is simply the curious fact of the American people seeming to know the president less well as his time in office increases."
There are three sentences there. The first is flat out untrue. The second is a compelling issue. The third is a point even Maureen freakin' Dowd can get closer to.
Compare your statements:
• "Why is this significant? Well, it indicates that the president has so lost touch with the American people that they no longer even know who he is. How can he possibly convince voters to support his policy positions when he can't even accurately communicate his own identity?"
• "The issue was simply the relevance of Obama's religion."
• "The issue was simply the relevance of Obama's religion."
This was another one of your attempts to blame Obama for the dedicated, hard work of Republicans. And once again you got caught advocating bigotry. And once again you started tracking back toward something more useful. Well and fine, except once again you tried to pretend your later statement, which stands so clearly at odds with the earlier, was the issue from the outset.
Repeating the FOX News line at a time like this doesn't help. Yes, those were times of great national distress, and so it seems today. But, then, these hideous and bigoted accusations were just that: hideous and bigoted.
Bruce Feiler, who you quoted, can even get reasonably close to the point:
The entire debate about the "Ground Zero mosque" and the even-wider campaign against Islam in general that's been waged across the United States this summer misses a larger point: These kinds of campaigns have been waged in the United States since our founding. It's the nature of how we conflate political frustration, economic anxiety, and concern about the changing fabric of our identity. In a country where our national character has been tied up with God since our founding, it's hardly surprising that we tar our political opponents with worshiping a different god than we do. After all, a politician who subscribes to our religious values would never have gotten us into this mess, now would he?
Except, of course, that a politician who did subscribe to "our" values happens to be the one who got us into this mess. Feiler, however, chooses a more dismissive route:
But as reliably as Americans have adopted these views, they've also moved past them. In every case of religious discrimination in the United States, whether it was Methodists in the 18th century, Catholics in the 19th century, or Jews in the 20th century, the once reviled and ostracized "outsider" religion in America eventually makes it into the inner circle.
I would contest his argument here. Quite clearly, Americans have not moved past these views, else we would not give them such credibility today. The fact that ludicrous, illogical, counterfactual, and, ultimately, stupid bigotry keeps resurfacing every time Americans get scared should make clear that we have not, in fact, moved past these views. They subside, and fester among the intellectually stunted, and at the first opportunity they rise up, and—surprise!—in the confusion and distraction they create, some frightened or angry people lose sight of what's important.
But it would be unfair, wouldn't it, to ignore the purveyors of such vicious falsehood? Because that's not open-minded, right? Because that's mean and rude and petty, isn't it? After all, "Race is absolutely not the motivation for opposition to Obama, but it is used by some as a tool in the fight against him." Who was it that said that? Then again, by that thesis, these hysterical people can't even formulate a coherent, halfway-useful argument, can they? So why should we give any credence to these people? Because some of them vote?
Great. Whatever racks up a GOP victory; that's the only important thing, right? How else could the nonstop efforts of a bunch of lunatics to smear the president according to xenophobia instead of actually building a coherent argument about the policies they so disdain equal "that the president has so lost touch with the American people that they no longer even know who he is"?
It's more than annoying. It's sickening. It is a process that only reminds that some people don't actually give a damn about the state of the society they're in. They want what they want, for good or ill, come hell or high water, and if they're willing to advocate racism, it doesn't mean that they're racist, but rather that Obama has lost touch with the American people.
Or, as Dowd puts it:
How can a man who has written two best-selling memoirs and been on TV so much that some Democrats worried he was overexposed be getting less known and more misunderstood by the day?
The president who is always talking about wanting to be perfectly clear is ever more opaque. The One, who owes his presidency to the intense feeling he stirred up, turns out to be a practical guy who can't deal with intense feeling.
The president who is always talking about wanting to be perfectly clear is ever more opaque. The One, who owes his presidency to the intense feeling he stirred up, turns out to be a practical guy who can't deal with intense feeling.
And more directly:
If we're not the ones we've been waiting for, who are we?
(ibid)
(ibid)
God help us if the answer is, "We're a bunch of frothing lunatics who can't cope with rational thought."
And, frankly, if Obama is out of touch with the frothing lunatics, that's probably a good thing. The only question is whether enough people will remain sane when they mark their ballots. And if the GOP and its advocates have their way, the answer to that question will be, "Hell no!"
Once upon a time we even went so far as to exchange remarks about how each of us hoped the best for America, but simply had different views of how to get there. I'm sorry, sir, but in light of the facts, I can't believe that anymore.
If the more moderate, halfway rational points you try to make after being called out are what you intended the whole time, why don't you start with them?
____________________
Notes:
Dowd, Maureen. "Going Mad in Herds". The New York Times. August 22, 2010; page WK9. NYTimes.com. August 22, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22dowd.html
Rich, Frank. "How Fox Betrayed Petraeus". The New York Times. August 22, 2010; page WK8. NYTimes.com. August 22, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22rich.html
—————. "Jim Dale in 'Me and My Girl'". The New York Times. September 29, 1987. NYTimes.com. August 22, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/29/theater/stage-jim-dale-in-me-and-my-girl.html
Feiler, Bruce. "Obama a Muslim! Lincoln a Catholic! FDR a Jew! Why Americans Don't Like Their President's God". FOX News. August 20, 2010. FOXNews.com. August 22, 2010. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...-ground-zero-mosque-lincoln-catholic-fdr-jew/
The quote at the begining of your post was in response to the question by Bells regarding why Obama's religion was significant, it was not meant as a reiteration of the OP, but as a direct answer to Bell's inquiry. However, I will admit that the second statement is the better one and that's simply the result of my considering the issue in more depth as the discusion continues.
I certainly do not claim that my initial statement on an issue is exactly the same as what I might say after many pages of discussion. It's a learning process. Isn't that, after all, the point of a discussion? That each party might learn from the other? Or that they might even learn in the process of doing research to prove the other wrong?
Now, on the other hand, while my viewpoint may evolve in the course of a discussion of an issue (as any reasonable person's should); you sometimes completely distort and misrepresent what I wrote and see a meaning there that I never intended. Now this may be an honest mistake on your part due to differences in the basic assumptions we each make; or it might be a rhetorical technique you use to silence the opposition. I really don't know.
But either way, when I try to set the record straight by some rephrasing of the statement you've mis-interpreted, you then accuse me of misrepresenting my position. For instance, the example in which you claimed that the difference between the phrases "might be perceived as" and "had the appearence of" were so significant as to constitue a misrepresentation of the facts.
Again, Bell's had asked about the relevance of Obama's religion, so that was the issue.
So Obama has absolutely nothing to do with the way he is perceived by the public? That's all on the Republicans? Not everyone agrees:
Obama has himself to blame for Muslim problem
Certainly the Right bears some of the responsibility for this mis perception (maybe even most of it); but a politician simply can not cede control of his image to the opposition. If he does, he'll not be around long.
Once again you exaggerate my position and ascribe sinister motives to me that are simply not there.
We are human, Tiassa. Suspicion of the unknown and even hatred are buried deep in the foundations of our nature. When we're scared, our more primitive instincts come to the fore. This will always be the case so long as humans walk the earth, barring the alteration of our genome via evolution or genetic engineering, that is.
Name calling and the demonazation of your opposition is counter-productive. It convinces no one and, if anything, causes people to become even more entrenched in their positions.
That's because your perception of the facts is in error.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
From the Treaty of Tripoli
The treaty was in effect for only four years, and replaced, after another war with Tripoli, with another treaty, that does not have your famous words included.
Now spidergoat, explain exactly how this has any thing to do with the Founding principles of our Nation?
Bells
Staff member
Ah. Of course.
Not exactly?
His religion has zero relevance to his position as President.
Now, you have stated that you do not believe that Obama is a Muslim and that this is apparently a crisis that you hope the country recovers from and moves on from. But amongst all this supposed rhetoric and care about whether this should or would impact on his "re-elect-ability" you do not even once attempt to correct those incorrectly accusing him of being a Muslim. Emphasis on 'accuse' because it is not a crime to be a Muslim and there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim. But then we have you laughing about anti-Islam comments from good old Gert.
So you will excuse me if I scoff at your citing relevance in this thread.
There should be nothing wrong if he was a Muslim. There seems to be a sense of glee at the prospect that he won't be re-elected because people think he is a Muslim and instead of working to correct that misconception and correct members here that there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim, you come out and basically say that no he is not a Muslim and then weave in a few pot shots at Islam itself and its ideology.
This is a conservative problem. Do we have to relive the moments prior to the election when the conservatives remained silent for weeks on end when people accused him of being a Muslim and a terrorist at McCain and Palin rallies... It was only when there was a risk of a backlash to McCain and Palin that McCain actually then said those famous words amounting to 'no, he's not a Muslim but a decent American'. In fact, there were some rallies where Palin herself cast doubt on Obama's religion.. you know.. to fan the flames of doubt and fan the hatred of Muslims in general.
And thus far Conservatives have done nothing to dissuade this belief. Quite the contrary.
Really..
So pray tell, why have you not correct Buffalo for his spreading of the false rumours?
It would probably be even more beneficial if the right stopped demonising Muslims and then implying that he is a Muslim..
There's another connection.madanth said:
The same faction of US political life is at the center of all three of those examples of inculcated belief in calculated lies, the promulgation of rank falsehood as their chosen political technique, the use of personal slander and disinformation and threat on a national scale.
We call them "conservative" now, with their Tea Party or Palin or Limbaugh's rhetoric in the hinterlands, think tanks and bankers in the tonier burbs, but these are the people of the Confederacy and the Klan in the backwaters, the Robber Barons and Big Oil in the skyscrapers.
You're being intentionally obtuse. I have never questioned the legal right of a person of any religion to serve as president. I have made note of the fact that religion does have a bearing on a person's electability, and that's a fact beyond dispute whether you like it or not.
Wow. You're way off base there. The crisis is the economy going to shit, the annual deficit at levels that surpass what our total national debt was well into the eighties, two wars, government out of touch with the public, etc. The whole Obama is a Muslim thing is a symptom of the overall crisis, not the crisis itself.
Did you see the thread title? 18 to 24% Wrongly believe Obama is Muslim? I think the fact that I give that position no credence should be perfectly clear.
Am I speaking Japanese or something? I was laughing at the absurdity of his statement. I have nothing against Muslims, I just think they're a bunch of fascists who threaten our beloved freedoms and should be deported! Now I"m paraphrasing, but that's pretty much what he said and if you can't see the comic absurdity in that, I don't know what to say.
Last edited:
Are you saying that Congress reversed its position that The United States was founded on not on religion? If so, where is your proof?
And how do you reconcile the inconsistencies in your claims with the fact the most of the founding fathers were Free Masons who do not believe in setting one religion above another. Answer the questions mr. buffalo roam.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2606852&postcount=68
Bells
Staff member
I guess I stand corrected.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
joe, you are the one with the inconsistencies, where does it follow that because you are a Free Mason that you do not believe in Christianity?
That because some of the Founding Fathers were Free Masons they did not base the founding of our Nation on Christian Principles?
Hmmmm?
Not from any of the Free Masons I know.
Now as to your claim of many?????
"Of the fifty-six signatories of the Declaration of Independence, only nine can definitely be identified as Freemasons"
William Ellery, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Joseph Hewes,
William Hooper, Robert Treat Paine, Richard Stockton, George Walton,
William Whipple.
and
Of the 39 Signers of the U.S. Constitution, only 13 are known to be Free Masons.
Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Blair, David Brearley, Jacob Broom, Daniel Carroll, Jonathan Dayton, John Dickinson, Benjamin Franklin, Nicholas Gilman, Rufus King, James McHenry, William Paterson, and of course....George Washington,
Raised in the Lodge at Fredericksburg (now Fredericksburg Lodge No. 4), named but did not actively serve as Charter Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22 in 1788-1789
So joe, what about the majority of the rest who were Christian? who espoused Christian Principle and Idea in our Founding Documents.
joe, really you should find out more about the Free Masons, and what they have participated in before you run off at the keyboard.
The point isn't whether the founders were Christians, but whether they wanted Christianity to be an official part of their government, which they most emphatically did not. It's also not appropriate to deify the founders, as if their opinions are law.
Now when did I say that some Free Masons were not Christian? You are setting up another of those famous right wing whacko strawmen used as a subsitute for fact and reason.
LOL, nice try mr. buffalo roam. You yourself note that the founding father, George Washington was a Free Mason. President Washington performed some of his civic duties dressed in the garb of a Free Mason mr. buffalo roam. Washington and several other key founding fathers were instrumental in the creation of this country. And the fact is you cannot prove that free masons did not constitute a majority of the founding fathers.
And that is why the founding founding fathers put that little clause in the Constitution seperating church and state. That is a very Free Masonic concept.
Free Masons are of many religions...not just Christian. Instead of speaking of things you know little of and trying to spew deception and lies you should ask yourself why such a high level of deception is required on your part in order to make an arguement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
Just checked. The five people most concerned with drafting the Constitution were Washington, Franklin, Randolph, Jefferson and John Adams. Of these, the first three were Freemasons. Jefferson, who also drafted the Declaration of Independence, was not. However, all five held similar views about government and separation of church and state.