Who is Barack Obama?

[Gish08]

People who fall for this shit don't vote for Democrats anyway.

So what if his dad was a muslim and his mom an atheist. He's neither.

[Future Boy]

...or is he?

[mccririck]

Originally Posted by Gish08

People who fall for this shit don't vote for Democrats anyway.

So what if his dad was a muslim and his mom an atheist. He's neither.

He's not an atheist? I'm disappointed.

[zbeast78]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

My girlfriend's mother is absolutely convinced that Obama is Muslim. She made some comment about it and I said, "Obama is not a Muslim, he's a Christian". "Well he was influenced by Islamic beliefs and they are the people blowing us up in Iraq!" I kind of just stared at her and I said, "But every religion has extremists, its no different than a Christian blowing up an abortion clinic. It's not fair to discriminate against an entire religious group because of its extremists." She got really frustrated then and kept insisting that I "just did not understand".

I'd have to agree with your girlfriend's mother; you do seem kinda ignorant. There has not been a single death in an abortion clinic-related attack since 1998. How many suicide bomb-related deaths have there been since 1998? C'mon, I understand that you want to paint the "all religions have their extremists. they're all exactly the same. let's all hold hands" picture, and I applaud you for it. But the fact of the matter is that the comparison between the two is way off.

I work in a company that is owned by a man of Iranian descent, and there is a very large percentage of Muslim employees working here (who are all, from what i've seen, perfectly reasonable and peace-loving people). But until a Christian wacko flies a plane into a building, or you see a failed assassination attempt on a CARTOONIST because he had the audacity to make a comic depicting their prophet with a bomb strapped to him; there will be people who lump all muslims together in the same group as the extremists. Fundamentalist Islam is a scary thing because their are actual Governments in this world built around it principles.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

i'm ok if a state wants to ban same sex marriages though. i wouldn't vote for it, and it's not a Constitutional issue though

see i think this is interesting. why would it be ok? because the citizens of that state think that's how it should be? if they are given the opportunity in that arena, then where does the line get drawn? you know what i'm sayin' here?

[Nate the Grate]

Ahhh, states' rights...first slavery, then segregation, then abortion, now gay marriage? What a sparkling record.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

see i think this is interesting. why would it be ok? because the citizens of that state think that's how it should be? if they are given the opportunity in that arena, then where does the line get drawn? you know what i'm sayin' here?

Because states also have constitutions, and the US Constitution specifically gives those powers not listed in it to the states. The feds like to continue to forget about that part, but yes, states should have more autonomy and you would be able to move to a state whose ideals are more like yours in that you'll see more diverse governments.

[commando]

Hate to break it to everyone, but marriage is one of the fundamental rights heavily protected by the iron clad Constitutional(article IV) principle of substantive Due Process (under Privacy), which is subject only to the "strict scrutiny" standard-- the government cannot mess with it under any circumstances unless there is a very very specific Gov't interest in doing so (which essentially can never happen). This can't be thrown to the states to interpret the definition of marriage-- the supreme court or congress needs to set forth guidelines regarding this issue not contemplated at the Constitution's creation before we have a jurisprudential quagmire on our hands.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by commando

Hate to break it to everyone, but marriage is one of the fundamental rights heavily protected by the iron clad Constitutional(article IV) principle of substantive Due Process (under Privacy), which is subject only to the "strict scrutiny" standard-- the government cannot mess with it under any circumstances unless there is a very very specific Gov't interest in doing so (which essentially can never happen).

While it's true that the Supreme Court has at times said that marriage is a "fundamental right," it doesn't seem like courts always treat it as such. I'm not sure many courts have employed strict scrutiny in marriage cases all that often. And when they have employed it (or something similar), it's usually because of the existence of a "suspect classification" (the racial issue in Loving vs. Virginia, for example) as opposed to the mere implication of the fundamental right of marriage. It seems that most gay marriage cases I've read over the years have used the rational basis test.

But it's been a couple years now since I've even given much thought to Constitutional Law, so I could be wrong on all that.

This can't be thrown to the states to interpret the definition of marriage-- the supreme court or congress needs to set forth guidelines regarding this issue not contemplated at the Constitution's creation before we have a jurisprudential quagmire on our hands.

They've pretty much done that already. The Defense of Marriage Act basically lays out that states can do what they want, but they don't have to recognize each other's same sex marriages if they don't want to, and neither does the federal government. Not that it's a great solution that makes everyone happy...but no matter what the states or the federal government do on this issue, people are going to be unhappy. I don't think the issue is as simple as simply having Washington DC come up with a edict to be enforced on everyone (because Lord knows that strategy certainly didn't settle the abortion debate).

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by commando

Hate to break it to everyone, but marriage is one of the fundamental rights heavily protected by the iron clad Constitutional(article IV) principle of substantive Due Process (under Privacy), which is subject only to the "strict scrutiny" standard-- the government cannot mess with it under any circumstances unless there is a very very specific Gov't interest in doing so (which essentially can never happen). This can't be thrown to the states to interpret the definition of marriage-- the supreme court or congress needs to set forth guidelines regarding this issue not contemplated at the Constitution's creation before we have a jurisprudential quagmire on our hands.

Ok except that Article IV (even with your crazed interpretation of it) applies restrictions on the FEDERAL government.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Ok except that Article IV (even with your crazed interpretation of it) applies restrictions on the FEDERAL government.

Yeah, that confused me too. Perhaps he meant the 14th Amendment.

[dudehitscar]

Originally Posted by zbeast78

I'd have to agree with your girlfriend's mother; you do seem kinda ignorant. There has not been a single death in an abortion clinic-related attack since 1998. How many suicide bomb-related deaths have there been since 1998? C'mon, I understand that you want to paint the "all religions have their extremists. they're all exactly the same. let's all hold hands" picture, and I applaud you for it. But the fact of the matter is that the comparison between the two is way off.

I work in a company that is owned by a man of Iranian descent, and there is a very large percentage of Muslim employees working here (who are all, from what i've seen, perfectly reasonable and peace-loving people). But until a Christian wacko flies a plane into a building, or you see a failed assassination attempt on a CARTOONIST because he had the audacity to make a comic depicting their prophet with a bomb strapped to him; there will be people who lump all muslims together in the same group as the extremists. Fundamentalist Islam is a scary thing because their are actual Governments in this world built around it principles.

Take a look into the history of Christian violence and you shall see the point the man was trying to make. The difference is what time frames you are looking at. The ignorance you spoke of should of been your own.

He was making a statement against broad generalizations and I think that statement holds up very well.

[talk show host]

Originally Posted by zbeast78

I'd have to agree with your girlfriend's mother; you do seem kinda ignorant. There has not been a single death in an abortion clinic-related attack since 1998. How many suicide bomb-related deaths have there been since 1998? C'mon, I understand that you want to paint the "all religions have their extremists. they're all exactly the same. let's all hold hands" picture, and I applaud you for it. But the fact of the matter is that the comparison between the two is way off.

I work in a company that is owned by a man of Iranian descent, and there is a very large percentage of Muslim employees working here (who are all, from what i've seen, perfectly reasonable and peace-loving people). But until a Christian wacko flies a plane into a building, or you see a failed assassination attempt on a CARTOONIST because he had the audacity to make a comic depicting their prophet with a bomb strapped to him; there will be people who lump all muslims together in the same group as the extremists. Fundamentalist Islam is a scary thing because their are actual Governments in this world built around it principles.

I don't really want to wade into this late in the game but this is a bit of a poor call. dudehitsscar sort of summed it up but you can't really discount the history of Christian violence just because in recent times there's been supposedly more shit caused by Muslim extremists. That history is also pretty important in putting the current climate of violence in some sort of understandable context as well.

[commando]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Ok except that Article IV (even with your crazed interpretation of it) applies restrictions on the FEDERAL government.

.. I just mixed up interstate privileges and immunities of article IV with the P & A of the 14th A. and consequently rights to privacy partially created by the 14th A. My Bad.

My point is that I don't like having states be able to determine which fundamental private rights are legal. You'll see things like we saw where people briefly went apeshit and planned these massive pilgrimages into San Francisco and Massachusetts to get married, then Rosie O'Donnel and Richard Simmons are getting hitched while sweatin' to the oldies, and then Congress will step in via Interstate Commerce, accompanied by more judicial activism, cats humping dogs, etc.

If we're going to do this thing, do it all the way or not at all. It's all too shrill for my taste.

[commando]

Actually Corganist, I take that back... I kind of like the delicate, Jenga-like balance we've got going right now. Nobody move, nobody breathe. I'd actually be scared of another Rodney King riot in the bay area or somewhere if they actually made gay marriage unconstitutional.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by zbeast78

I'd have to agree with your girlfriend's mother; you do seem kinda ignorant. There has not been a single death in an abortion clinic-related attack since 1998. How many suicide bomb-related deaths have there been since 1998? C'mon, I understand that you want to paint the "all religions have their extremists. they're all exactly the same. let's all hold hands" picture, and I applaud you for it. But the fact of the matter is that the comparison between the two is way off.

I work in a company that is owned by a man of Iranian descent, and there is a very large percentage of Muslim employees working here (who are all, from what i've seen, perfectly reasonable and peace-loving people). But until a Christian wacko flies a plane into a building, or you see a failed assassination attempt on a CARTOONIST because he had the audacity to make a comic depicting their prophet with a bomb strapped to him; there will be people who lump all muslims together in the same group as the extremists. Fundamentalist Islam is a scary thing because their are actual Governments in this world built around it principles.

Gosh, where should I even start? Ok, here: you are a fucking moron. CHRISTIANITY HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST VIOLENT RELIGIOUS FORCES IN THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH. Are you seriously this fucking stupid or are you just a bigot?

Edit: I'd also like to add the religious zeal of those in charge of our country and how it has been responsible for possibly up to 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq as a crime on the part of the Christian religion. Could you show me when the last time was Muslims killed 100,000 Christians? Thanks.

[commando]

oh, and can you change that avatar? It kind of makes me uneasy.

[zbeast78]

Originally Posted by talk show host

I don't really want to wade into this late in the game but this is a bit of a poor call. dudehitsscar sort of summed it up but you can't really discount the history of Christian violence just because in recent times there's been supposedly more shit caused by Muslim extremists. That history is also pretty important in putting the current climate of violence in some sort of understandable context as well.

dude, you seemed to miss my point completely. my post was trying to give an idea as to why people may be making these broad generalizations. i wasn't agreeing with them (see: part in post where I said that EVERY muslim person I know is hard-working, family-oriented and peaceful).

there is no reason to have such a knee-jerk reaction any time someone points out how dangerous the fundamentalist movement in the Middle East is. Yes, Christrianity has a very bloody history, no doubt about it. We all know about the Crusades several HUNDRED years ago. But whether you'd like to admit it or not, Fundamentalist Islam is the single biggest threat to peace in the world today.

[zbeast78]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

Gosh, where should I even start? Ok, here: you are a fucking moron. CHRISTIANITY HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST VIOLENT RELIGIOUS FORCES IN THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH. Are you seriously this fucking stupid or are you just a bigot?

Edit: I'd also like to add the religious zeal of those in charge of our country and how it has been responsible for possibly up to 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq as a crime on the part of the Christian religion. Could you show me when the last time was Muslims killed 100,000 Christians? Thanks.

Come on, man. Get off your soap box. Do you honestly believe that the US soldiers are the ones that killed even a significant fraction of these 100,000 people in Iraq you are referring to? That's weird, I thought it was suicide bombers and insurgents who were responsible for most of these killings.

[zbeast78]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

Gosh, where should I even start? Ok, here: you are a fucking moron. CHRISTIANITY HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST VIOLENT RELIGIOUS FORCES IN THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH. Are you seriously this fucking stupid or are you just a bigot?

Edit: I'd also like to add the religious zeal of those in charge of our country and how it has been responsible for possibly up to 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq as a crime on the part of the Christian religion. Could you show me when the last time was Muslims killed 100,000 Christians? Thanks.

Also, how does bringing up the ridiculousness of a cartoonist fearing for his life make me a bigot? Are you really that PC that you can't even point out the shortcomings of others? Is this really how far we've come? I was simply trying to explain how some people might feel weary of a religion they have no experience with besides what they're seeing going on around the world, and I get attacked and called a bigot. Bravo!

[jared]

we need some devious lee up in here

[talk show host]

Originally Posted by zbeast78

dude, you seemed to miss my point completely. my post was trying to give an idea as to why people may be making these broad generalizations. i wasn't agreeing with them (see: part in post where I said that EVERY muslim person I know is hard-working, family-oriented and peaceful).

there is no reason to have such a knee-jerk reaction any time someone points out how dangerous the fundamentalist movement in the Middle East is. Yes, Christrianity has a very bloody history, no doubt about it. We all know about the Crusades several HUNDRED years ago. But whether you'd like to admit it or not, Fundamentalist Islam is the single biggest threat to peace in the world today.

To be honest, I did read the first half of that post of yours as being possibly more pointed then you intended it to be. It's not that I think you're trying to unfairly characterise muslims either, so please don't take that as an attack. I think the problem arises, and perhaps it is a kneejerk to some extent, when one single religion is outlined as being dangerous due to fundamentallist factions or branches or whatever. I've always viewed that situation as being connected to a much broader history of problems and I often feel that history is being ignored or over simplified (not that I'm accusing you of doing this necessarily, I just mean in a more general sense).

I guess my attitude comes down to this. I would freely admit that the global proliferation of fundamentalist Islam has become a threat to the world relations, yet in my mind, it's part of a much bigger picture which includes other factors, both religious and political, as well as economic etc, to the extent where I feel it's a bit pointless to outline 'fundamentalist Islam' as an issue in itself due to the significance of the other, often over looked factors...if that makes sense.

[mccririck]

Islam's problem is the Qu'ran, try reading it, it's full of excuses to kill.

[severin]

Originally Posted by mccririck

Islam's problem is the Qu'ran, try reading it, it's full of excuses to kill.

worse than the old testament, where all the christian right gets it's ideas from?

[mccririck]

Originally Posted by severin

worse than the old testament, where all the christian right gets it's ideas from?

In a way it is.

I think you have to treat each religion separately, I'm a great believer that some are worse than others. They're all bullshit but some are more prone to breed extremists because of the words at the very roots of the religion.

[zbeast78]

Originally Posted by talk show host

To be honest, I did read the first half of that post of yours as being possibly more pointed then you intended it to be. It's not that I think you're trying to unfairly characterise muslims either, so please don't take that as an attack. I think the problem arises, and perhaps it is a kneejerk to some extent, when one single religion is outlined as being dangerous due to fundamentallist factions or branches or whatever. I've always viewed that situation as being connected to a much broader history of problems and I often feel that history is being ignored or over simplified (not that I'm accusing you of doing this necessarily, I just mean in a more general sense).

I guess my attitude comes down to this. I would freely admit that the global proliferation of fundamentalist Islam has become a threat to the world relations, yet in my mind, it's part of a much bigger picture which includes other factors, both religious and political, as well as economic etc, to the extent where I feel it's a bit pointless to outline 'fundamentalist Islam' as an issue in itself due to the significance of the other, often over looked factors...if that makes sense.

I agree. It's just like it's ignorant of people to bring up the fact that almost all African nations continuously fail at creating a stable corruption-free government, but refuse to admit that hundreds of years of European colonialism may have a lot to do with it. Obviously, there are many events that have led to this problem (creation of state of Israel, poverty, discovery of oil, etc). That being said, I still think the comparison of the fundamentalist movement and the few bombing of abortion clinics is a lazy comparison. Just look at the numbers, they're not comparable. It'd be the same as comparing it to the environmentalists, since there have been a small number of ecoterrorist acts on Hummer dealerships.

[commando]

Originally Posted by mccririck

Islam's problem is the Qu'ran, try reading it, it's full of excuses to kill.

Wow. This is not your forte, eh?

[Cup O Mercury]

Change, hope, hope, change, hope change, change!

[KrazeeStacee]

Originally Posted by mpp

this email was forwarded to me by my conserative aunt in kentucky

she was dead serious


i sent everyone on her list a counteremail

Funny...I got the same email from a coworker and did the same thing, replying to all.

It said something in hers about checking it on snopes and "check for yourself!"

I replied with "I did check it out on snopes and it's all either completely false or exaggerated. Check for yourself (insert link)"

Then my aunt (my boss) forwarded me an email about how Barack refuses to say the pledge, showing the picture of him without his hand over his heart during the Star-Spangled Banner. I replied all to that one as well, ending my email with "People who send these things on really should be more informed." and she replied with: Well I think he's an idiot anyway. So I responded simply saying, regardless of what you think of him, the information in the email you're spreading is still false.

She shut up and hasn't tried to talk politics with me since. Thank god.

[KrazeeStacee]