I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way.
Oh yeah, and he endorsed Barack Obama for President.
16 comments:
I saw Colin Powell's announcement yesterday and was floored. I was stunned because he put into words for me the struggle I had been feeling all along in this election. It sounded so easy for him, but I can only imagine the struggle that he has been through, internally and externally, to make this endorsement.
I can see the John McCain is a good man and has America's best interest at heart, but he has not proven his leadership in this campaign. On the contrary, he has proven that the party is in charge and his silence has allowed a lot of nastiness. Even if he was a "maverick" coming in (and that is really stretching it), he has allowed the party to do things with his campaign that are questionable and uncomfortable at best.
On the other hand, I feel that Obama has, in fact, proven to be one to unite people from all political backgrounds, as evidenced by this endorsement. Also, he has proven to be above the animosity of his own party, always immediately denouncing - and ending- attacks from the DNC campaign. I don't trust the party on either side. I want to see a president that actually doesn't care what his party thinks. Being the nominee chosen over Hillary Clinton, Obama has had to lead his campaign in spite of the party at some level, and I like that.
Oh yeah, and I'd like to get out of this war and this economic crisis.
So, not that it matters to anyone, but I can finally say that I will be voting for Barack Obama without any hesitation.
Ditto.
"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race. OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."
"I was also unaware of his dislike for John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. I guess he also regrets Reagan and Bush making him a four-star [general] and secretary of state and appointing his son to head the FCC. Yes, let's hear it for transformational figures."
Just thought I would share the idiotic and virulent comments coming from the right because of this endorsement. By the way, the above quotes are from Rush Limbaugh. I guess based on these statements, he is only supporting McCain because he is white and the conservative argument has made him a millionaire (if not billionaire).
Geesh, this right here is why Sec. Powell is correct. The GOP and "conservatives" have become the party that divides and instills fear in order to gain power. Enough!
I hereby endorse Sen. Barack Obama as President of the United States of America.
Okay. Why is it bigotry to want a President who shares your values and beliefs when you think this will effect the way he governs? And what predominately Muslim nation would elect a Christian leader? Are they bigots because they would not?
I will address the last two questions. The answer is none, and does it matter? Those countries are not founded on the existenence of the plurality. They are theocracies not democracies. Thus, religious affiliation is in fact a pre-requisite to office. In the United States, religious affiliation is not a prerequisite and we do have the concept of separation of church and state.
I had a Hindu friend in high school who came to the flag pole to pray for America with a group of students. I asked him if it bothered him that we prayed to Jesus. He replied, "Why would that bother me? This is America. You are Christians. In India we would be praying to our gods."
That is because Islam was not founded on accepting plurality. Of course Islam today is not universally the same as it was when it was founded.
Separation of church and state when the constitution was drafted meant that the u.s. congress would not make one christian denomination the official religion of the country. Many states had official Christian denominations at that time and this was not considered to be in conflict with the u.s. constitution.
I fully support religious liberty, but I don't think this means you have to completely remove all components of religion from the political process.
Christians suffering persecution by other Christians were largely the ones who began the advancement of religious liberty in Europe and America, for the "Christian, Jew, and Turk" in Europe--see Balthasar Hubmaier. Religious Liberty was part of their religious belief. How do you separate the religious belief of religious liberty from the state for instance when the state is charged to enforce this belief by protecting religious freedom?
Religious affiliation is not a prerequisite to office; therefore, if a Muslim was voted to office, I would accept him as the President, but again what is wrong with my preferring to vote for a Christian?
African Americans who prefer to vote for an African American because they feel they are best represented by an African American or they want an African American to become President are not called bigots, and I do not think they should be. Why is a Christian who feels he is best represented in government by a Christian a bigot?
After re-reading your article, I do think I see what you mean by bigotry. It would be bigotry to associate a person with terrorists because they are Muslims, and certainly I believe a Muslim has a right to run for President in America. I think I misunderstood what you meant, David.
Nothing better than a good blog discussion
Great discussion, thanks for your input Benjamin. I would not equate bias with bigotry. We're all biased in some way, probably on most topics. If we are aware of and manage our bias, we can avoid the trap of bigotry.
Bigotry, in my opinion, is when I believe my bias is unquestionably right and all opposing opinions are inherently wrong (or wicked).
Here's something from Webster's I really like: "In an extended sense, a [bigot is a] person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion."
All that just to emphasize that I am not saying someone who prefers a Christian president is a bigot. But I do believe that someone who will not vote for someone based on the sole fact that the person is a Muslim is a religious bigot.
My definition of religious bigot:
From the Wall Street Journal website.
“There are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that his [McCain’s] opponent wins, for a variety of reasons,” said Arnold Conrad, former pastor of Grave Evangelical Free Church. “And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than you if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and Election Day.”
I think I might at least in part fit your definition of a bigot. I am not sure. I am not intolerant. I believe in religious freedom, and I want to love people who disagree and understand and consider what they believe and where they are coming from, but I do believe that other religions are false when they differ from what the Bible teaches though they may contain partial truth, and I believe that Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," and that "no man comes to the Father but by Him." (John 14:6) So do I fit your definition of a bigot? If I do, that is okay. I will not be offended. I want you to know to avoid any false pretense on my part.
Benjamin Murphy asked "what predominately Muslim nation would elect a Christian leader?"
The answer is Lebanon. It is decreed by their constitution that the president be a Christian and the prime minister be Sunni Muslim.
I stand corrected. I actually have a Christian friend from Lebanon. That's interesting to know. Thanks anonymous.
I don’t know if you a bigot or not. It is not my job to call you that. I appreciate that you have strong opinions and are willing to discuss them.
The way that I see all of this is this: You are following whole heartedly something that you believe to be true. It also happens to be something that I believe to be utterly false.
But I cannot allow ignorant anti-Obama crap like the previously referenced “prayer” to go uncriticized. Can you honestly tell me that it is a good idea to ask your god to beat Hindu(not a god), Buddah(man, not a god), and Allah(which is what Arabic speaking Christians call god, It literally means “god”) in a war of words and deeds in the national election? From what he said, when Obama wins I should immediately figure out which group of people was the largest segment of Obama’s support and start following his god, because he was obviously the stronger. The problem w/ that is, that most Obama supporters are Christians. The whole point of his “prayer” was to stir up the belief that this is holy war against the vile non-believers. His words were thinly veiled attempts to cast a pall over all who disagree w/ what this person says is god’s desire. This fool who conjures up his own crusade (which is the English way of saying “jihad”) for his own personal goals is no different than any fool leading a madrasa.
I was actually referring to David's definition of a bigot that I might partly fit into. I know that no one is trying to call me a bigot and that I am not the target of any angst. So no one need answer that question any further. I don't want to force anyone to place a label on me. As for the prayer you mentioned. I don't like it either, but for a different reason. I'm not worried about a contest. Regardless of who wins, God remains in control. He appoints all rulers and authorities (Romans 13). So whoever wins will be the man that He has elected to put in office. If things go badly, there is a reason. "He's got the whole world in His hand." His plan cannot be thwarted, yet this does not negate our responsibility in voting. Furthermore, I don't know who people of other religions are praying will win. Why would they all pray for Obama to be elected? And it's really not the issue what people of other religions want--that does not necessarily make it right or wrong. I would never vote for any candidate that was pro-choice, but honestly, I'm not crazy about McCain either. I am sick and tired of the two party system and the illusion of having a real choice. It's like two varieties of apples to me. I want oranges.
Post a Comment