President Obama Calls for Religious Tolerance (1 Viewer)

[calamity]

That what cracks me up too. Because whether you like him or not the reality and facts are his ability to UNITE people and bring them together is actually what got him elected, not once, but twice. Anybody honest and objective knows that fact. What has happened is the people that already had serious hyperbolic, partisan and or bigoted problems with right/left, black/white, rep/dem and or conservative/liberal lost their minds and got very loud. But now NEW nutters were created, just the same old nutters that went into panic mode. America, the NORMAL, and majority of people is actually better on race relations and religion harmony than its ever been.

Yep. Obama is not the problem. The problem is the people who oppose Obama have no boundaries, social etiquette, or concept of truth and reality. To them, Obama is a Kenyan Marxist, Muslim Fascist and racist who hates America. Nothing will change that perception.

Oh, and only the people who voted against him are "Real Americans."

 

[mak2]

Polygamy is not legal. I find it very...well amusing or something, the same group that goes on and on about the war on Christians, or Christmas etc, has no problem preaching intolerance and backing politicians calling for outright discrimination against Muslims. No, amusing is not the word...

The topic, however, of this thread was not about "legally allowed" it was about tolerance and acceptance. Whether what they are preaching "break no laws", and the notion of "freedom of religion", is not inherent reasons why it should be tolerated/accepted by society across the board.

Nothing AT ALL about "freedom of the religion" suggests that people should "tolerate" teaching that support or advocate for apostate laws, significant devaluing and demaning of women, etc that may be found within the more fundamentalist religion beliefs that trend into political ideology as well, anymore than "freedom of religion" suggest that people must "tolerate" a fundamentalist Mormon's practice of polygamy or a fundamentalist Christians belief in faith healing.

 

[AGENT J]

Yep. Obama is not the problem. The problem is the people who oppose Obama have no boundaries, social etiquette, or concept of truth and reality. To them, Obama is a Kenyan Marxist, Muslim Fascist and racist who hates America. Nothing will change that perception.

Oh, and only the people who voted against him are "Real Americans."

I dont disagree but its not just ONE side. Those nutters brought out the other nutters on the other side and they have clouded the water so SOME people cant see the truth or simply dont want to see the truth.

 

[mak2]

I think this is why Trump and political incorrectness (aka sophomoric crudity) is so poplar with them. It isn't a perception, it kinda self mind washing. If they repeat it to themselves often enough they believe it. Comeon man, does anyone really believe there is no intolerance of Muslims in this country...no one really believes that. Look at this thread, it's obvious.

Yep. Obama is not the problem. The problem is the people who oppose Obama have no boundaries, social etiquette, or concept of truth and reality. To them, Obama is a Kenyan Marxist, Muslim Fascist and racist who hates America. Nothing will change that perception.

Oh, and only the people who voted against him are "Real Americans."

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

and only the people who voted against him are "Real Americans."

And the people who voted for Obama are idiots and morons. Or so some here have wrote over and over.

But anyway it is a clever tactic the people who hate Obama use. They've hated him since day 1, even before he was president, even before he made a speech. But now they blame Obama for THEIR hate. Pretty slick.

 

[calamity]

And the people who voted for Obama are idiots and morons. Or so some here have wrote over and over.

But anyway it is a clever tactic the people who hate Obama use. They've hated him since day 1, even before he was president, even before he made a speech. But they blame Obama for THEIR hate. Pretty slick.

No doubt. They are very good. In fact, I would say when it comes to the PR game, the Right is kicking the **** out of the Left.

 

[Zyphlin]

I think this is why Trump and political incorrectness (aka sophomoric crudity) is so poplar with them. It isn't a perception, it kinda self mind washing. If they repeat it to themselves often enough they believe it. Comeon man, does anyone really believe there is no intolerance of Muslims in this country...no one really believes that. Look at this thread, it's obvious.

Oh for **** sake, give me a break. You're giving a slap and the back and a me too that just broadly and roundly insulted every single individual who disagree with Obama as lacking social ettiqute, believing that Obama is a Kenyan and a Muslim, and use no "reality". You're bleating on trying to make a few people in this thread, few of which are showing in any way outright broad intolerance to Muslims in this country, some kind of broader representation while not batting an eye at this kind of insanity.

Simply because your insane hyper partisanship doesn't come with the same level of over the top language and lack of "sophomoroic crudity" doesn't make it any less pathetic, obvious, or worthless to the debate. No, few rational people believe there is no intolerance towards Muslims in this country; there absolutely is. But few people acting rationally or fairly buy into the line of broadscale insulting bull**** you just back slapped calamity about.

 

[tres borrachos]

Funny that in 2016 the President of the United States feels that he has to speak out for religious tolerance in America. But that's what some Christian zealots (and Republican politicians who pander to them) have brought us to.



And how did Republicans respond to this high-minded message of tolerance?
Marco Rubio: "This is yet another example of Obama's "constant pitting people against each other. I can't stand that."

Let me get this straight. You have a Christian President, standing in a mosque, saying this:

And so if we’re serious about freedom of religion -- and I’m speaking now to my fellow Christians who remain the majority in this country -- we have to understand an attack on one faith is an attack on all our faiths. (Applause.) And when any religious group is targeted, we all have a responsibility to speak up. And we have to reject a politics that seeks to manipulate prejudice or bias, and targets people because of religion.

which is a very obvious partisan jab at Donald Trump (who by the way I can't stand), and this was somehow a positive speech? Damn, being blindly faithful to Obama without thinking about what he's saying and where he is saying it is as mind numbingly stupid as those who blindly follow Trump down the path of "let's deport Muslims". Pathetic.

 

[Eric7216]

It points out that there is division and it is not from Obama.

Fallacy in logic. Simply because Trump has been divisive in some comments does not mean that previous comments from Obama have not been divisive. Two different issues. And it is two separate issues between Obama calling for tolerance here and his previous comments that led to divisiveness and intolerance.

 

[Zyphlin]

Polygamy is not legal. I find it very...well amusing or something, the same group that goes on and on about the war on Christians, or Christmas etc, has no problem preaching intolerance and backing politicians calling for outright discrimination against Muslims. No, amusing is not the word...

Hey Mak, how about you respond to my post as opposed to this mythical group. Do I go on about the war on Christians? The war on Christmas? If so, please find me a god damn quote. If not, please explain to me how that has anything to do with what I stated. Please explain to me how that has anything to do with you being flat out wrong in trying to suggest that "tolerance" of islam is a freedom of religion issue? Please explain to me how that has any impact on your strawman in attempting to turn the discussion from a talk of social tolerance to one of legality?

 

[tres borrachos]

Yep. Obama is not the problem. The problem is the people who oppose Obama have no boundaries, social etiquette, or concept of truth and reality. To them, Obama is a Kenyan Marxist, Muslim Fascist and racist who hates America. Nothing will change that perception.

Oh, and only the people who voted against him are "Real Americans."

Actually to some of us Obama is just a very bad and very hypocritical too-hyper partisan President.

 

[mak2]

I did not say every single, but if the shoe fits. How do you know I am a insane hyperpartisan if I don't exhibit the over the top language and animal house lack of decorum?

Oh for **** sake, give me a break. You're giving a slap and the back and a me too that just broadly and roundly insulted every single individual who disagree with Obama as lacking social ettiqute, believing that Obama is a Kenyan and a Muslim, and use no "reality". You're bleating on trying to make a few people in this thread, few of which are showing in any way outright broad intolerance to Muslims in this country, some kind of broader representation while not batting an eye at this kind of insanity.

Simply because your insane hyper partisanship doesn't come with the same level of over the top language and lack of "sophomoroic crudity" doesn't make it any less pathetic, obvious, or worthless to the debate. No, few rational people believe there is no intolerance towards Muslims in this country; there absolutely is. But few people acting rationally or fairly buy into the line of broadscale insulting bull**** you just back slapped calamity about.

 

[calamity]

Actually to some of us Obama is just a very bad and very hypocritical too-hyper partisan President.

Odd statement coming from a ....what was that term again? "hard-lined Democrat."

 

[AGENT J]

Actually to some of us Obama is just a very bad and very hypocritical too-hyper partisan President.

Not liking him is just fine, there are reasons not to. the conversation you jumped in was about the false fantasy of him being divisive in any significant way thats worth mentioning, reality based and extreme when the fact is it's the opposite..

 

[tres borrachos]

Odd statement coming from a ....what was that term again? "hard-lined Democrat."

HAHA I'm still laughing about that. I've yet to respond to his latest post. I've been called a lot of things but I don't ever recall being called a "hard-lined Democrat".

 

[mak2]

This thread isn't about you, I was addressing RWers attitudes toward Muslims. So um, if you want to talk about you, carry on, but I don't.

Hey Mak, how about you respond to my post as opposed to this mythical group. Do I go on about the war on Christians? The war on Christmas? If so, please find me a god damn quote. If not, please explain to me how that has anything to do with what I stated. Please explain to me how that has anything to do with you being flat out wrong in trying to suggest that "tolerance" of islam is a freedom of religion issue? Please explain to me how that has any impact on your strawman in attempting to turn the discussion from a talk of social tolerance to one of legality?

 

[Zyphlin]

I did not say every single, but if the shoe fits. How do you know I am a insane hyperpartisan if I don't exhibit the over the top language and animal house lack of decorum?

Hyper partisanship is not define by the style in which one speaks, but rather the method and practice of ones thinking. Captain Courtesy has explained a number of times, very well, how often hyper partisanship on the left and right manifest themselves in different manners of presentation based on the general mentalities, personalities, and styles found on each side. A lack of "tact" or "decorum" is not required to be hyper partisan, just as an effort to present a façade of being above the frey or intellectualism doesn't exclude one from being it.

Now you are correct, you did not say "every single"...you just supported a post that made no distinction, uttered not a single word indicating a more nuanced approach, and just continued right on along with your attacking. And then when confronting you throw out the amazingly ignorant, "if the shoe fits", which just goes right in line with what I was saying above. How very glenn beckian of you "Oh I'm just saying, but not saying...see, ain't I so slick". No, you're not. And no, the shoe does not fit as it relates to calamities wide scale insult. But then, I wouldn't expect someone such as yourself to have the political self awareness to actually see that.

 

[Zyphlin]

This thread isn't about you, I was addressing RWers attitudes toward Muslims. So um, if you want to talk about you, carry on, but I don't.

Translation: I used ****ty debate tactics, bad information, massive fallacies, and am tucking tail when I got called on it.

Good to know. I will "carry on" pointing out your ****ty tactics and misrepresentations in this manner, thanks for the permission. "Tolerance" of something is not singularly isolated as to whether that something is legal or not. Freedom of Religion is not relevant to SOCIETIES acceptance or tolerance of any particular religious belief. You keep pushing those strawmen and I'll happily keep "carrying on".

 

[mak2]

Since you want this to be about us, or you whatever, tell me how you decided I was hyperprtisan. I mean, did you decide that from my opinion on this one topic?

Hyper partisanship is not define by the style in which one speaks, but rather the method and practice of ones thinking. Captain Courtesy has explained a number of times, very well, how often hyper partisanship on the left and right manifest themselves in different manners of presentation based on the general mentalities, personalities, and styles found on each side. A lack of "tact" or "decorum" is not required to be hyper partisan, just as an effort to present a façade of being above the frey or intellectualism doesn't exclude one from being it.

Now you are correct, you did not say "every single"...you just supported a post that made no distinction, uttered not a single word indicating a more nuanced approach, and just continued right on along with your attacking. And then when confronting you throw out the amazingly ignorant, "if the shoe fits", which just goes right in line with what I was saying above. How very glenn beckian of you "Oh I'm just saying, but not saying...see, ain't I so slick". No, you're not. And no, the shoe does not fit as it relates to calamities wide scale insult. But then, I wouldn't expect someone such as yourself to have the political self awareness to actually see that.

 

[countryboy]

Funny that in 2016 the President of the United States feels that he has to speak out for religious tolerance in America. But that's what some Christian zealots (and Republican politicians who pander to them) have brought us to.



And how did Republicans respond to this high-minded message of tolerance?
Marco Rubio: "This is yet another example of Obama's "constant pitting people against each other. I can't stand that."

I believe you meant Obama called for Islamic tolerance.

Like most leftists, he has no tolerance for Christianity.

 

[Zyphlin]

Since you want this to be about us, or you whatever, tell me how you decided I was hyperprtisan. I mean, did you decide that from my opinion on this one topic?

Your hyper partisanship and it's influence on your arguments has been on display in numerous threads where I've been interacting with you lately, and is inherently relevant to pointing out the flaws and problematic methodology that leads you to the idiocy and fallacies you've lobbed out and/or supported in this thread. I don't "want this to be about us", and if you think that you know exactly what the proper way of addressing that is. This is about your comments in this thread, the arguments you are making, and the perceived reasons about them. You keep trying to incorrectly reposition this as is I want it to be about "us"; it's not, it's about your arguments, which I responded to, and you've since continually weaseled and deflected away from rather than addressing...which you now currently are continuing to do.

 

[Zyphlin]

Not liking him is just fine, there are reasons not to. the conversation you jumped in was about the false fantasy of him being divisive in any significant way thats worth mentioning, reality based and extreme when the fact is it's the opposite..

Are you speaking that it's the exact opposite in that speech? Or the exact opposite throughout his presidency?

Both of those require a very different response. Either of which would have to point out that you're missing, as you so often do, the fact there is grey area. That one can be both divisive and inclusive at the same time. That divisiveness of one person doesn't mean there cannot be divisiveness of another.

 

[mak2]

I just went back and reread the post where you agreed with me there is Muslim intolerance in this country. Now what other point did you disagree with me about?

Your hyper partisanship and it's influence on your arguments has been on display in numerous threads where I've been interacting with you lately, and is inherently relevant to pointing out the flaws and problematic methodology that leads you to the idiocy and fallacies you've lobbed out and/or supported in this thread. I don't "want this to be about us", and if you think that you know exactly what the proper way of addressing that is. This is about your comments in this thread, the arguments you are making, and the perceived reasons about them. You keep trying to incorrectly reposition this as is I want it to be about "us"; it's not, it's about your arguments, which I responded to, and you've since continually weaseled and deflected away from rather than addressing...which you now currently are continuing to do.

 

[calamity]

I think this is why Trump and political incorrectness (aka sophomoric crudity) is so poplar with them. It isn't a perception, it kinda self mind washing. If they repeat it to themselves often enough they believe it. Comeon man, does anyone really believe there is no intolerance of Muslims in this country...no one really believes that. Look at this thread, it's obvious.

Regarding Islam, there probably should be a high degree of intolerance for some of the words attributed to Mohammed. They have no place in this country.

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him,'" (Sahih Bukhari, Book #52, Hadith #260)

The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers...

https://carm.org/interesting-quotes-hadith-jihad

 

[mak2]

I am a Christian. I think Islam is evil. But, unless they break a law they have every right to practice their religion as I do. I would not go to their Church, but as Americans they have every right I do.

Regarding Islam, there probably should be a high degree of intolerance for some of the words attributed to Mohammed. They have no place in this country.