Sunday, October 19, 2008

What If He Is?

As I wrote earlier on this blog, I believe a desensitization of American society has occurred because of 9-11. And I blamed "...those who claim to be right-wingers, conservatives, Republican and many so-called Christians. That includes not only those who have been the most forward about spreading vicious lies and slanders about Muslims, helping to whip ignorant Americans into a fever-pitch frenzy toward anyone who looks or sounds different -- Muslim."

Yesterday (Ret.) General Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama for president. He had kind words to say for Obama's opponent, too, but he also said this:

I'm also troubled by, not what Sen. 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 is: No, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she can be President?

Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion: he's a Muslim, and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

Powell is absolutely correct. As I reiterated previously, those on the right who have contributed to the anger, mistrust and lies, should be ashamed of themselves. And the next time someone finds it convenient to belittle Muslims, remember this picture of the gravestone of a brave American who gave his life for this country.

h/t Glenn Greenwald


capper said...

Well said.

Thurmlee said...

As a wing nut, I can honestly say that there would be nothing wrong if Obama (or anyone running for Presdient) were Muslim. Anyone who wants to make that an issue is missing the bigger point. Which is that Obama, among others, does not recognize the intrinsic value of human life. Even though he stated that making such a decision is above his pay grade, he clearly behaves in a way that he made the decision anyway. And incorrectly. Until we can put an end to the intrinsic evil of abortion from our country, everyone - Muslim, Jew, Christian, athiest - is at risk from the desensitization to murder and violence that has flowed from the Roe v Wade decision.

Other Side said...

Hi, Tony -- so, those on the right who make it an issue (quite a few) are also missing the point about abortion? Who knew?

Nonetheless, I suspect you're just trying to egg me on because, again, abortion was not the point of this post. Still, I will reiterate -- it is not anyones business to tell any woman how she should make decisions about her own body. Period.

As a moonbat, the only violence I know of has been that perpetrated by fanatics against law-abiding citizens.

Thurmlee said...


First, yes, many wing nuts miss the point as well. I knew it.

Second, while abortion was not the point of the post, your assertion that the unhinged on the right have somehow encouraged violence against others was. I was merely trying to point out that I belive that assumtion to be false, or at the very least that there is a bigger, underlying reason for the desensitization effect you talk of.

And third, I understand that you don't believe that an unborn child has any rights as defined in the Constitution. The only way that makes sense is if you don't belive that an unborn child is a human life. Medical science has clearly determined that prior to birth, the child is both living and human. What part of that you you disagree with?

Other Side said...

Hi Tony: Are you claiming abortion is the reason for the actions of those unhinged righties? Oh hell -- it's all my fault for supporting a woman's right to choose. I should have known.

Medical science has clearly determined that prior to birth, the child is both living and human.

So? It remains the individual woman's decision. You see, the thing that distresses me is that other liberals fall for this sucker argument and hem and haw and wind up sounding silly. I don't and won't do that. It is a woman's right to choose. Period!

Thurmlee said...

The reason you refuse to argue the point is that you cannot. You cannot argue that the child is not human, and cannot argue that he/she is not alive. All you have is to throw up this 'right to choose'. You show me in the Constitution where it grants someone the right to choose to terminate the life of another.

And in throwing out this nebulous 'right', you have affirmed my point exactly. Whenever you rationalize away the rights of a group of individuals (unborn children), for whatever reason (right to choose), it becomes that much easier to infringe or curtail on the rights of others (Muslims for example). This is not a justification of bad behavior, whoever it comes from, but merely points out that the next time you want to ponder why one group is suggesting/encouraging/causing violence against another group, you need to look no further than this issue.

If we were having this discussion 150 years ago regardng slavery, I suppose you would argue that it is the plantation owners right to choose, and that the government has no right to interfere in how they run their plantations. Thankfully we as a country saw through such patently incorrect arguements back then, even if it took a civil war to do it.

Finally (and I will leave it at this), with a few notable exceptions, women do have a right to choose to engage in behavior that will potentially generate another life. Once that life has been created, no one has the right to choose to terminate it. No such right can ever exist if we are truely a free country.

Sorry if I have overstayed my welcome here at the other side.

Other Side said...

That's all wistful thinking on your part, Tony, because those who are finding it easy to curtail Muslim rights are those from your side of the aisle -- those who ostensibly support your view on abortion. Quite a conundrum you've developed there.

In any case, the right we're talking about is the one allowed in Roe v Wade in which the wiser members of the Supreme Court did allow that a right to privacy did exist though it was not mentioned explicity in the Constitution. And this right to privacy included, they wrote, a woman's right to proceed in a manner she sees fit when it comes to her body. I'm not avoiding argumentation, I just haven't seen a reason. The woman's rights supersede unequivocably.

Your plantation allegory is false. There was no right of privacy involved -- the right was whether another person can be property. Quite different.

You're always welcome, Tony. Though we disagree sharply, I appreciate your arguments and the civil tone you maintain -- one moonbat to one wingnut.

Thurmlee said...

Thanks for the welcome. It is refreshing to be able to debate differences with respect.

And the plantation allegory is not false. Back then the SCOTUS ruled in the Dred Scott case that a class of humans (those of African ancestry) did not have equal protection under the law (rights of the slave owner were superior to the rights of the slave). In Roe v Wade, the SCOTUS ruled that a class of humans (unborn children) do not have equal protection under the law (rights of the mother are superior to the rights of the child). Both decisions were incorrect because in the Constitution it says that everyone has equal protection under the law. In the Dred Scott case it was because the slave was property and therefore did not have rights. In Roe v Wade, the SCOTUS denied the rights to the unborn without explanation. The only reasonable explanation is that they are not human, something that science has proven otherwise. It is not a 'sucker arguement' as you claim, but the very basis for denying rights to a class of people who have no rights based on SCOTUS decision.