He's a Muslim He's not a Muslim [Archive]

mapuc

08-30-12, 01:45 PM

When reading and posting in Yubba's thread about the coming event The Dem. convent.

It made me think. It most be some of them, who are are 110% assure that Obama is a Muslim so the opening will be as it is told in the article

So here's my question

Is it so important if he's a Muslim or not !?

as much I know about the American power, the president can't from one day to an another change America from a democracy into a Sharia state.

He can off course give the Muslim countries some benefits- that all, I presume.

But why this nervous about his believes ??

Markus

Tribesman

08-30-12, 02:24 PM

But why this nervous about his believes ??

possible answer 1, they are dumb
possible answer 2, Obama the muslim will start a muslim war on all the other muslims who are the wrong sort of muslim.

sensible money is on answer 1

mapuc

08-30-12, 03:01 PM

possible answer 1, they are dumb
possible answer 2, Obama the muslim will start a muslim war on all the other muslims who are the wrong sort of muslim.

sensible money is on answer 1

I will not say that they are dumb, but have very low knowledge on how Stuff works in USA, when it comes to

President-what he can do and not

Senate-what they can do and not

Congress- Same here

Ok I must be one of them, ´cause my knowledge about the "pyramid of power" is not that high.

Markus

mookiemookie

08-30-12, 03:03 PM

August

08-30-12, 03:07 PM

But why this nervous about his believes ??

Markus

It's not so much the religion itself but rather the lie he's told if the claim is true (I don't believe it BTW). Americans want their presidents to be seen as honest and truthful at all times.

It's why the Republicans were able to make so much political hay over Bill Clinton having sex with Monica Lewinsky. It wasn't the illicit sex itself, it wasn't even the desecration of the oval office, it was Clinton going on TV and wagging his finger in the face of the American people while telling them a bald faced lie. Had he come clean the issue would have quickly faded but his lie gave it legs far beyond it's expiration date.

That's also why the Democrats accused the Bush administration of deliberately lying about Saddams WMD instead of just being taken in by the same bad intel that they are on record as believing before he took office. Few would have cared if Bush was just wrong but when you add an element of deception and suddenly people care a great deal which was the whole point of making the accusation in the first place.

Had the parties been reversed in both situations the accusations would still have been made.

mapuc

08-30-12, 03:29 PM

^ August, that could be some of the answer to it.

But as I have asked some of my friends on Facebook, after they have posted some links about Obama's believes

I asked them this

"So what, what can he do as the president of USA, if he is a muslim-not much, he can't turn USA into a Sharia from the one day to an another"

But if he is a muslim, he should have told the american that.

If you ask me if I believe, if he's a muslim or not

I really don't care- That could be because that I know, that the president of the USA is not that powerfull as many think it is.

He have some powerfull things he can do- He can by own hand attack a country but he can't start a war(declare war on his own)

and many other things

Markus

Skybird

08-30-12, 03:56 PM

There are substantial, basic and most profound total incompatabiloties between Islamic ideology on the one hand, and Western values that are claimed by Western policies and societies on their behalf, and that both are basing on these. That is why it is not just any important but a vital question whether political actors act on the grounds of Islamic values or not.

And since you can act on behalf of Islamic values without formally claiming to be Muslim yourself, may it be for reasons of appeasement and fear, or reasons of misled tolerance and "meaning it well", the question indeed is not whether or not Obama formally cofnesses to beMuslim or not, but the quesiton is does he act in help of deceiving people over Islam, glossing over it, and helping it to spread, or does he help to spread education about Islam, containing its global claim for dominance and superiority.

Since his unbelievable propaganda stunt that now is known as his "Cairo speech", the answer to this vital question is obvious. I do not know ehther hje is a secret Muslim,a nd I do not carew. What he does, and what he aims at and indicates he wants to accomplish - this is what makes me an enemy of him.

WillRomney be b etter? I absolutely doubt it. Business is business. Dependency is dependency. And as a M ormon Romney cannot claim to be free of believing in - in Mormons' case especially hilarious - hallucinations. Only the stories told by Ron Hubbard tops the Mormon genesis. Mormons or scientologists, Obama or Romney - its the choice between plague and cholera. They all four get my middle finger.

I recommend - once again, I linked it several times now - to compare the UN declaration of human rights , and the Islamic human rights declaration. Both are lightyears apart and in several most important issues they are antagonistic and mutually exlcusive. You can have the one only at the price of rejecting the other - YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH.

Regarding Yubba'S thread on the democrats concention, these American conventions are freak shows anyway, Micky Mouse parades and a monumental display or stellar narcism and blown up egos. Seen that way, religious pharisees who take it upon them to give this madness their ver own, very precious, very personal blessing - , perfectly matches the gneral lunacy on display. On the other hand, one must ask what business religious imposters have to do in politics, why they get invited to political conventions, and why religion and politics get mixed when the the founding documents of the US clearly indicate that there shall be a strict separation between religions and pltics. As I see it, religion shall have no seat at the table of politics.

But is it really about politics anyway?

Ducimus

08-30-12, 04:09 PM

Because fear is used to control people, and making a large swath of the population fear Muslims is a good way to get people to embrace your ideas. Paint boogeymen in every corner and tell people you can protect them from the monsters and you've got it made.

Well, be fair now. Islam has done a good job all of it's own accord to instill fear. September 11th hijacking, beheadings, honor killings, rioting over political cartoons, etc. The US is predominately jedochristian. Evangelicalism has a strong footing in much of the US these days. Evangelicals have zero tolerance to anyone who believes differently then they do. Combine that intolerance with the fear of Islam/Muslims, and to say Obama is Muslim is to say he's the anti-christ. A belief that many biblethumpers feel is true.

In other words, the word Muslim used in context with Obama is much like the hardline rightwingers rhetorical catcall of socalism or socalist used in other contexts.

yubba

08-30-12, 04:26 PM

mapuc

08-30-12, 04:37 PM

If he's a Muslim and have lied to the American people, then they should cast they vote on the candidate and not on the president and after the election, some kind of commission shall investigate if he can be taken to a court
(if it's possible)

But the main question is what can he do as president of USA if he's a Muslim

It's not much

Skybird mentioned free speeches and that's one these rights that's in their amendent and can not be changed by the president him self.

He can refuse to sign some new laws- He can't make his own laws and sign them-Yes he can, but what I know, his law have to be approved by the Senate or Congress

He can't single handed say that, e.g Saudi-Arabia shall have XXX-billion in support and lots of military stuff. That have to be approved by Senate or the Congress.

And that's the main issue- What can he do and not do as the president of USA

If I'm wrong on every statement I have made about Obama, then please enlighten me.

Yes these convents are sometimes like a Circus and that's their way to elect their candidate- Have been searching the INTERNET about this- I wonder if it always have been so.

Markus

mapuc

08-30-12, 04:50 PM

The first amendent gives him the right to practice any religion he wants, as long as he does not go against the constitution because of his beleifs, but so far there seems to be a problem with seperation of state and the koran. And if he is a koran thumping, prayer rug toatin muslim, he can lie to get his agenda, because the koran says it's ok. The choice is yours who you want to vote for just be careful what you wish for. You need to see the movie 2016.

I haven't got the time right now, but I going to see this 2016.

I have though been seeking the 2016 movie on youtube to see what it's all about

It looks like one of those conspiracy videos-Nothing wrong with that-Just remember to have your brain engaged and use your common sense, when watching that type of videos

Markus

CaptainHaplo

08-30-12, 05:40 PM

But the main question is what can he do as president of USA if he's a Muslim

It's not much
Markus

Sadly, you are incorrect. While I do NOT believe Obama is a Muslim (if anything he is an athiest), he has proven to be very machiavellian and he does see modern Judea-Xtianity as a threat to the power of his party and of government, as well as a threat to his (stated) goals to make the US "just another country".

Thus, he has islamic sympathies simply because the more success islam has in the world, the weaker the US and Judeao-Xtianity appears to be. He isn't muslim - but radical islam presents itself as a tool which he has used. Take the overthrow of Mubarek and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This stripped the US of a reliable ally in the region, weakening the US globally. Libyan power is more and more being controlled by Islamic hardliners like Abdel Hakim Belhaj. When radical islamists were poised to take control, the US decided to "help" them - and the governments (however horrible they were) toppled. Yet when a radical islamic government was threatened - the US stood idly by while they slaughtered their own people - in Iran.

The President has direct control over the majority of international relations. He decides where, how and when the US becomes involved in any situation - whether a crisis or a natural disaster, whether a good or bad situation. The State Department falls directly under the Executive.

Thus - the person (or people) in the office of the President can - and in the last decade and a half - have done significant harm to the long term prospects of the country in the global arena.

The question of Obama's "religiousity" (or lack thereof) can - as the last few years have shown - have a significant impact on how they handle global issues.

Then you have the internal issues....
The President sets the scene for internal change. Look at Obamacar, his push for green energy, or Tarp (which his predecessor is just as guilty of). There are so many ways the President can - either through ineptitude or intent - screw the nation.

Tchocky

08-30-12, 05:56 PM

Sadly, you are incorrect. While I do NOT believe Obama is a Muslim (if anything he is an athiest), he has proven to be very machiavellian and he does see modern Judea-Xtianity as a threat to the power of his party and of government, as well as a threat to his (stated) goals to make the US "just another country".

Stated? Really? Strange that you think he's an atheist, given the almost (to me) nauseating level of God-grovelling US politics seems to require these days, and of which we have plenty of proof in Obama's case.

Thus, he has islamic sympathies simply because the more success islam has in the world, the weaker the US and Judeao-Xtianity appears to be. He isn't muslim - but radical islam presents itself as a tool which he has used. Take the overthrow of Mubarek and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This stripped the US of a reliable ally in the region, weakening the US globally. So Obama has used the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow Mubarak in order to further reduce US and "judeo-Xtian" (whatever that is) power? I'm reminded of that old canard about extraordinary claims.

Libyan power is more and more being controlled by Islamic hardliners like Abdel Hakim Belhaj. When radical islamists were poised to take control, the US decided to "help" them - and the governments (however horrible they were) toppled. Yet when a radical islamic government was threatened - the US stood idly by while they slaughtered their own people - in Iran. I think there's a definite difference to be drawn between the Libyan situation and the one in Iran. The Iranian government was never severely threatened by the Green movement.

August

08-30-12, 06:05 PM

If he's a Muslim and have lied to the American people, then they should cast they vote on the candidate and not on the president and after the election, some kind of commission shall investigate if he can be taken to a court
(if it's possible)

But the main question is what can he do as president of USA if he's a Muslim

It's not much

Skybird mentioned free speeches and that's one these rights that's in their amendent and can not be changed by the president him self.

He can refuse to sign some new laws- He can't make his own laws and sign them-Yes he can, but what I know, his law have to be approved by the Senate or Congress

He can't single handed say that, e.g Saudi-Arabia shall have XXX-billion in support and lots of military stuff. That have to be approved by Senate or the Congress.

And that's the main issue- What can he do and not do as the president of USA

If I'm wrong on every statement I have made about Obama, then please enlighten me.

No, you're right and you bring up a good point too. Whoever takes over from Obama ought to pursue investigations against both him, his attorney general and any other members of his administration who they think have lied or broken the law. I hope they won't wimp out like the Bush administration did with the Clintons in the foolish idea of mending fences.

Yes these convents are sometimes like a Circus and that's their way to elect their candidate- Have been searching the INTERNET about this- I wonder if it always have been so.

Markus

Yes it has but the internet gives them much wider reaching voice than these types ever had in the past.

mapuc

08-30-12, 06:05 PM

^I stand corrected, if I was wrong on some of my statements

So he can make a real mess of USA if he wants to

Obamacare is one of his own "child" so to say, but didn't it need some kind of approval from the Senate?

I know that he can without approval give an order to send some cruisemissile(Tomahawk) against some terroristcamp or facility in a country

But what I have learned about this, is that he can't declare war on his own
(If he order an attack on Russia, then it would be the same as he have declared war)A long story I once heard many years ago on a swedish news program)

Markus

Tribesman

08-30-12, 06:17 PM

Stated? Really? Strange that you think he's an atheist
I thought the real rightwingers were complaining about his christianity and how his former pastor at his christian church was holding views that were too christian.

CaptainHaplo

08-30-12, 06:25 PM

Stated? Really? Strange that you think he's an atheist, given the almost (to me) nauseating level of God-grovelling US politics seems to require these days, and of which we have plenty of proof in Obama's case.

Read his books - he makes it clear he has an anti-colonial view - so yes - stated. As for "plenty of proof" regarding God and Obama - where do you find that? He showed up to Rev. Wright's church? Sorry - that simply continues to prove his anti-colonial views since the good "rev" doesn't preach about the love of the Almighty, but instead preaches hate for the greatness of America. The only time he says "God" is when its expected protocol.

So Obama has used the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow Mubarak in order to further reduce US and "judeo-Xtian" (whatever that is) power? I'm reminded of that old canard about extraordinary claims.

Judea-Xtianity is the modern form of Protestanism (in its many flavors) that is most prevalent in the US. It is not an extraordinary claim - the outcome of his actions and inactions globally show either a total ineptitude to understand geopolitics in relation to US interests, or they indicate an agenda that is not in keeping with protecting US interests. Given that the majority of the "religious right" is strongly supportive of Israel - his actions allowed him to "tweak" his political "enemies" while weakening the US globally. Proof? Its merely circumstantial evidence - unless you buy that he is totally inept.

I think there's a definite difference to be drawn between the Libyan situation and the one in Iran. The Iranian government was never severely threatened by the Green movement.

Had the US acted - the regime would have been severly threatened at the least. But does an anti-colonial view support a major power supporting regime change to a more pro-western power with the support of others in the region? Of course not.

JU_88

08-30-12, 07:28 PM

Remember some of the 2008 hysteria, "Obamas a muslim communist terrorist" etc, all the past 4 years really prove is that hes just abit of a lousy president like Bush was.

Takeda Shingen

08-30-12, 09:16 PM

anti-colonial

A few years back I wrote that the Right, particlarly the Republican Right, attempst to define and redefine language in their political efforts. I was ridiculed by a few members, of which Haplo was not one, for this assertion. I think that we can see the latest in the efforts of wordsmithing by the GOP thinkers here. This is a term that was reintroduced (and redefined) by Dinesh D'Souza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza) in an effort to negatively categorize Barack Obama. What is most interesting about this term is the implication that the United States is an imperial power, or neo-imperial to be precise. Prior to this, Republican mantra held that this was never the case. Is this to be the latest philisophical concession?

Tribesman

08-30-12, 09:36 PM

Read his books - he makes it clear he has an anti-colonial view - so yes - stated
Errrrr America is anti colonial:doh:

He showed up to Rev. Wright's church? Sorry - that simply continues to prove his anti-colonial views since the good "rev" doesn't preach about the love of the Almighty, but instead preaches hate for the greatness of America.
So the church isn't christian and when the preacher says politicians lie he means they tell the truth like good christians, and when he says they discriminate against people for the colour of their skin or their gender he means they treat all people equally as gods children and when he says America has screwed up a hell of a lot he really means god made the US superfantasticly the bestest bestest set of lines ever on a map which never did nothing wrong nosirree.

Sorry you deluded individual but loving some lines on a map and having red white and blue blindness while denying reality doesn't by magic make you a christian, in fact it would make you most certainly un christian and guilty of a cardinal sin young man. What would jesus say of your hubris?
the little son of a carpenter would put you on the naughty step to reflect on your views young man.

Judea-Xtianity is the modern form of Protestanism (in its many flavors) that is most prevalent in the US.
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
So its actually a nothing, a self contradicting neologism

CaptainHaplo

08-31-12, 12:11 AM

A few years back I wrote that the Right, particlarly the Republican Right, attempst to define and redefine language in their political efforts. I was ridiculed by a few members, of which Haplo was not one, for this assertion.

I am glad I was not one of them - because I agree with you - poltiicians of both sides often redefine words to suite their need.

Prior to this, Republican mantra held that this was never the case. Is this to be the latest philisophical concession?

In this case - I am refering to the "new" meaning of the word - not its classical meaning. The "current" meaning of anti-colonial refers to the prevalent third world view that countries that are successful are so at the expense of the countries that struggle. Obviously - the tie in is that the old "imperial" powers are those that are successful by exploiting others. So the "new" definitiion is simply a step away from the "old" one - it is not a total redefinition.

Tribesman

08-31-12, 01:55 AM

In this case - I am refering to the "new" meaning of the word - not its classical meaning.
yet you have a problem with the meaning of the word marriage and only will accept one fairly new meaning, which of course just recently provided a great example of why the "rev" Wright and any proper Christian can stand up and say "God damn America" and have it carry the authenticity which is unquestionable in those circumstances.

he "current" meaning of anti-colonial refers to the prevalent third world view that countries that are successful are so at the expense of the countries that struggle.
That is about the wierdest definition of colonialism I have ever heard. is it a new made up nonsense version?

Kongo Otto

09-03-12, 02:00 AM

Evangelicals have zero tolerance to anyone who believes differently then they do.

Islam has zero tolerance to anyone who believes differently then they do.
So where is the difference?
:hmmm:

Tribesman

09-03-12, 02:34 AM

Islam has zero tolerance to anyone who believes differently then they do.
So where is the difference?

No, but it is easily fixed. that is the modern version of fundamentalism in Islam which came about in just about the same time as the Christian evangelicals were moving eastward beyond europe.
So fairly recent fundamentalist christians and fairly recent fundamentalist muslims... where is the difference?

Bubblehead1980

09-03-12, 03:20 AM

The OP asked why does it matter? Hmm perhaps because Islam is in direct contradiction of the US Constitution and our basic cultural beliefs.The global interests of the US are not always(if ever) in line with the interests of the Islamic world, thus the clash of civilizations.Having the most powerful person in the world following a faith that is in direct contradiction of our countries history, law, culture, and interests is a threat to our country.

I do not believe Obama is a muslim(believe he is an atheist myself but uses religion as a tool) but he does have "muslim sympathies" due to his father being a muslim as well as spending some of his formative years in Indonesia, a muslim country.These sympathies apparently come to light in his behavior and attitude towards Israel as well as other remarks he has made, such as apology tour after his inauguration.

Penguin

09-03-12, 03:31 AM

Having the most powerful person in the world following a faith that is in direct contradiction of our countries history, law, culture, and interests is a threat to our country.

So I presume you won't vote for Romney?

Bubblehead1980

09-03-12, 03:54 AM

So I presume you won't vote for Romney?

No, I will.I believe Romney is more a cultural mormon than anything.I find all religions to be silly but some are certainly more of a threat than others, islam is one of them.I would not vote for Romney if I thought he was a real, hardcore Mormon but his life shows, from what I can tell, he is a reasonable man.I did not support him in the primary but I am okay with him as president, at least he understands basic, real world economics, unlike the current occupant of the white house or his cronies.

Penguin

09-03-12, 08:58 AM

I believe Romney is more a cultural moron than anything.

Oh, I believe that too! :haha:
However according to the WSJ, one in 4 Americans have concerns regarding a Mormon President. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304791704577420670022741022.html) - more than would have concerns with a black or a female President.

I find all religions to be silly but some are certainly more of a threat than others, islam is one of them.I would not vote for Romney if I thought he was a real, hardcore Mormon but his life shows, from what I can tell, he is a reasonable man.I did not support him in the primary but I am okay with him as president, at least he understands basic, real world economics, unlike the current occupant of the white house or his cronies.

What's strange is that someone can be a cultural Mormon or Christian, but apparently not a cultural Muslim, as if there are no non-fundamental interpretations. You don't expect most Christians to kill their neighbor who works on the 7th day, but expect any Muslim to take the quran literally?
Even if Obama was a Muslim, as soon as he would put his faith before the Constitution, he would have broken his oath and could be sawed off.

Maybe we could also take a look at the older Bush, who said that atheists can be neither patriots nor citizens... (http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm) Sounds like he let his faith dictate his judgements and discriminates against the free exercise of no religion.

Regarding real life economics: Well, at least Romney knows real world loopholes that allow him to dodge taxes. How Romney's Millions Went Tax-Free Overseas (http://www.creators.com/opinion/joe-conason/foreign-affairs-how-romney-s-millions-went-tax-free-overseas.html)
I see a conflict of interests here: Closing those loopholes would be in the best interest of Uncle Sam, but not in his personal interest.

Blacklight

09-03-12, 08:36 PM

Franky, it saddens me that a person can't get elected president in this country without being "religious" to a certain extent. An atheist, for instance, would NEVER be able to be elected in this country. A person's religion shouldn't even be coming into this debate. This country is built on the concept of "freedom of religion". There is also supposed to be a separation of church and state that the Religious Right seem to have forgotten.
I don't understand why it would be such a controversy and so horrible if someone who just happened to be of another religion aside from "Christian" or no religion at all were elected. To a certain HUGE demographic, it would be the end of civilization as we know it.
And what the far Right is doing to the Muslims is just plain wrong. All they're doing is adding to the fire that Joe Redneck who doesn't exist outside his own little protected world is kindling over his fear of anything not completely familiar to him in his closed little world.

eddie

09-03-12, 09:51 PM

When Rep. Keith Ellison from Minnesota was sworn in, instead of having his hand on the Bible, he used a very historic copy of the Koran. You know who it originally belonged to? It was none other then Thomas Jefferson,lol

Ellison's district is mainly made up of Christian"s too!:D That district includes Minneapolis!

Skybird

09-04-12, 05:57 AM

Bubblehead1980

09-04-12, 04:34 PM

soopaman2

09-04-12, 05:51 PM

It's not so much the religion itself but rather the lie he's told if the claim is true (I don't believe it BTW). Americans want their presidents to be seen as honest and truthful at all times.

It's why the Republicans were able to make so much political hay over Bill Clinton having sex with Monica Lewinsky. It wasn't the illicit sex itself, it wasn't even the desecration of the oval office, it was Clinton going on TV and wagging his finger in the face of the American people while telling them a bald faced lie. Had he come clean the issue would have quickly faded but his lie gave it legs far beyond it's expiration date.

That's also why the Democrats accused the Bush administration of deliberately lying about Saddams WMD instead of just being taken in by the same bad intel that they are on record as believing before he took office. Few would have cared if Bush was just wrong but when you add an element of deception and suddenly people care a great deal which was the whole point of making the accusation in the first place.

Had the parties been reversed in both situations the accusations would still have been made.

Yes, and yes.

Clinton outright lied, which peeved the hell outta people.

Bush did too. But the difference between Clintons lie and Bushes lie was 6000+ American dead, many more thousands maimed. And hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.

Who gives a crap if Obama is a Muslim?

Far right wackos do. Same far right wackos who scream second amendment after every gun rampage, then forget about the first amendment allowing you to pray to whatever invisible spook in the sky you wanted to.