On today’s edition of “Meet the Press,” during which time Colin Powell dealt a body blow to the McCain campaign by endorsing Barack Obama, Powell made a brilliant observation that, frankly, I wish had occurred to me.
He commented on how people in the GOP party (he wasn’t talking about McCain per se, but the party in general) kept accusing Obama of being a Muslim. And he said the first and obvious answer is that Obama is a Christian and always has been. But the better and more appropriate answer should be–so what if he were? Why should some seven year old American kid who aspires to be president and happens to be Muslim be receiving the message that, because of his religion, he can forget about it? And Powell went on to describe a photograph he saw of a military grave with a mourning mother, and there wasn’t a cross or a star of David on the soldier’s tombstone, but instead the crescent of the Muslim. What does it say about this country, Powell wondered, that that kind of message is being sent out? That young Muslims can fight and die for this country but never be involved in running it.
It’s even more striking when one considers that back in 1960, JFK being Catholic was a HUGE deal because people contended that a Catholic shouldn’t be president because he’d be taking marching orders from the Vatican. One only hopes that forty years from now we’ll look back on the notion that a Muslim can never be president with the same “isn’t that a silly idea” attitude that we now look back on the thought that a Catholic–or for that matter, a black man–couldn’t ever be President.
PAD
• 
I’m not sure you’re accurate in the impulse to lay the blame for this at the GOP
What do you mean, me? Powell’s the one who said it was the Republicans who insinuated that Obama was Muslim.
PAD
I’m not sure you’re accurate in the impulse to lay the blame for this at the GOP
What do you mean, me? Powell’s the one who said it was the Republicans who insinuated that Obama was Muslim.
PAD
“No, Al Smith died in 1944; they didn’t have video yet, then”
Mike Weber makes with the funny. 🙂
Bill,
Yeah, but like I said back then, Bill, you can have people say that so-and-so is behind something all you want without that being true or not. I could call into talk radio tomorrow and claim that Bill Mulligan in NC was responsible for the poor state of the American automobile industry. Even if I got a lot of people in the talk radio audience believing it and repeating the charge it wouldn’t make it true.
A lot of the really nasty attacks against Obama that came out and had Obama’s people in an uproar and pointing at Hillary’s people as the sources never got linked in fact to Hillary or her people. Moreover, some of the stuff that Obama supporters did blame Hillary’s camp for (such as a number of the videos that popped up on Youtube and elsewhere) ended up being sourced back to conservative operatives.
Obama played a great game of victim politics during the Democratic Primaries and it paid off in spades. By the end of their contest Obama’s people had most of the progressive radio hosts not connected to Air America, just about every Air America host, Countdown and various Democrats accusing Hillary of dirty tricks even when the known source was guys like Rush and Hannity. It was hilarious to see people on TV talking about the smears from the Hillary camp, having it pointed out to them that the quote or source was Fox News or Rush and then having the person speaking say that the smear was obviously fed to them by Hillary’s people without blinking an eye or providing one iota of proof.
Look, Hillary and her people are good at this kind of thing, but if they had half of the ability and power that has been credited to them since the Obama dustup in the primaries; we’d be calling her Madam President already. All of the “he said/she did” stuff in the world can’t change the doesn’t change the fact that easily 95% of the stuff Hillary was accused of and blamed for by Obama supporters was never shown to be from Hillary or her camp. Perpetuating the myth that all that stuff was is just grossly unfair to her.
Bill,
Yeah, but like I said back then, Bill, you can have people say that so-and-so is behind something all you want without that being true or not. I could call into talk radio tomorrow and claim that Bill Mulligan in NC was responsible for the poor state of the American automobile industry. Even if I got a lot of people in the talk radio audience believing it and repeating the charge it wouldn’t make it true.
A lot of the really nasty attacks against Obama that came out and had Obama’s people in an uproar and pointing at Hillary’s people as the sources never got linked in fact to Hillary or her people. Moreover, some of the stuff that Obama supporters did blame Hillary’s camp for (such as a number of the videos that popped up on Youtube and elsewhere) ended up being sourced back to conservative operatives.
Obama played a great game of victim politics during the Democratic Primaries and it paid off in spades. By the end of their contest Obama’s people had most of the progressive radio hosts not connected to Air America, just about every Air America host, Countdown and various Democrats accusing Hillary of dirty tricks even when the known source was guys like Rush and Hannity. It was hilarious to see people on TV talking about the smears from the Hillary camp, having it pointed out to them that the quote or source was Fox News or Rush and then having the person speaking say that the smear was obviously fed to them by Hillary’s people without blinking an eye or providing one iota of proof.
Look, Hillary and her people are good at this kind of thing, but if they had half of the ability and power that has been credited to them since the Obama dustup in the primaries; we’d be calling her Madam President already. All of the “he said/she did” stuff in the world can’t change the doesn’t change the fact that easily 95% of the stuff Hillary was accused of and blamed for by Obama supporters was never shown to be from Hillary or her camp. Perpetuating the myth that all that stuff was is just grossly unfair to her.
Jerry, as I said, I don’t have any reason to think most of the Obama=Muslim stuff came from the Hillary people. I just gave some sources that seemed to indicate some of it did. It’s been hard to pin down where some of the most egregious rumor mongering has originated (how exactly do you find the source of a chain email anyway). Powell says that he knows sources in the GOP that are doing it–he should name names.
I’m fully willing to believe he’s right but I don’t think some sourcing is unreasonable to ask for. I wouldn’t have just said that the Hillary campaign has some complicity if there weren’t specific sources that backed it up.
Jerry, as I said, I don’t have any reason to think most of the Obama=Muslim stuff came from the Hillary people. I just gave some sources that seemed to indicate some of it did. It’s been hard to pin down where some of the most egregious rumor mongering has originated (how exactly do you find the source of a chain email anyway). Powell says that he knows sources in the GOP that are doing it–he should name names.
I’m fully willing to believe he’s right but I don’t think some sourcing is unreasonable to ask for. I wouldn’t have just said that the Hillary campaign has some complicity if there weren’t specific sources that backed it up.
Back in September when Palin told Gibson (in the Bush Doctrine interview) “I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism.” I likened that in my mind to a justification of genocide.
If a politician talked about “ridding this world of Judaism” or “ridding this world of Orthodox Judaism” their political career would be over. (Same goes for Catholicism or Roman Catholicism)
But it’s ok to talk about ridding the world of Muslims.
For those who insist that “extemism” makes it different…the point is that it is irrelevant what religion the terrorist is. If it matters what religion the terrorist is, then desiring to rid the world of them is genocide.
Oh, c’mon.
I hate Bush and Palin as much as the next liberal, but wanting to rid the world of Islamic extremism isn’t genocide.
I agree that it would be better and more honest to be fighting all religious extremism, regardless of the specific faith used as excuse, but it is a fact that most religiously-motivated violence today is done by Muslims.
Oh, c’mon.
I hate Bush and Palin as much as the next liberal, but wanting to rid the world of Islamic extremism isn’t genocide.
I agree that it would be better and more honest to be fighting all religious extremism, regardless of the specific faith used as excuse, but it is a fact that most religiously-motivated violence today is done by Muslims.
“It’s been hard to pin down where some of the most egregious rumor mongering has originated (how exactly do you find the source of a chain email anyway). Powell says that he knows sources in the GOP that are doing it–he should name names. “
At least one thing that he can point to is that Republican in interviews, and not just talk show hacks, but actual elected Politicians, Republican advisors and campaign spokesman, have played the game of “Barack Hussein Obama” that the talk show hacks started. They can make all the claims of other motives that they want, but the point of that game was to link Obama to Arabs, Muslims and, in the case of the fringe talkers, terrorists in the minds of the Right and, they had hoped, the undecided.
The people who did that in the beginning did so when actually talking about Obama’s “secret Muslim past” and other such garbage. Once that seed was planted some sought to keep the idea alive by constantly using, and sometimes adding extra umf to, Obama’s middle name. Yeah, they would do the straight faced statement that they were using his entire name out of respect for it and him, but come on. Obama doesn’t insist on being addressed as Barack Hussein Obama and the same dillweeds doing that never made the point of saying things like President George Walker Bush, Senator John Sidney McCain or President Ronald Wilson Reagan.
People actually in the party and not just their public supporters were playing that game for a good long while. It’s still going on. At the same rally last week where Palin talked up in a big way Obama having ties to domestic terrorists, she was introduced by a local cop who did the “Barack Hussein Obama” introduction.
If it was only the talk radio and Fox News twits doing it it might be one thing. But, after seeing them lead the way, actual party members have coyly played the game as well. They may not be doing it with the same level of usage or zeal, but then they don’t need to when all they have to do is keep the fun alive with a few mild reminders after a full day of talk radio pounding away at it. Or, if you’re Fox News, having your programs loaded with people who claim that Obama is an ideological Muslim, has no valid US birth certificate, studied at an extremist Madras, are promoting their crap as fiction like Obama Nation, etc.
Oh, I think using a person’s name in ways that they don’t is a dìçk thing to do but this is a common–very common–tradition. Actually, I recall George herbert Walker Bush being used a bit as a way of making him seem like an out of touch blue blood; Rudy Giuliani referred to as Rudolph or, in a more direct comparison, referring to Bobby Jindal by his legal but never used name Piyush.
(Actually, didn’t GHWB do the same thing to Pete du Pont by calling him by his actual first name Pierre?)
It’s a dìçk move at best. Call a person by the name they use. Of course, the person doing it can claim that they are only speaking the truth. Still a dìçk move. The truth that’s told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent, as they say.
Though hearing the outrage from people over using someone’s actual name and then having these same people use McSame, Bushitler, or any other 3rd grade name calling makes one wonder if they’ve been eating too much paste in art class but whatever.
Oh, I think using a person’s name in ways that they don’t is a dìçk thing to do but this is a common–very common–tradition. Actually, I recall George herbert Walker Bush being used a bit as a way of making him seem like an out of touch blue blood; Rudy Giuliani referred to as Rudolph or, in a more direct comparison, referring to Bobby Jindal by his legal but never used name Piyush.
(Actually, didn’t GHWB do the same thing to Pete du Pont by calling him by his actual first name Pierre?)
It’s a dìçk move at best. Call a person by the name they use. Of course, the person doing it can claim that they are only speaking the truth. Still a dìçk move. The truth that’s told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent, as they say.
Though hearing the outrage from people over using someone’s actual name and then having these same people use McSame, Bushitler, or any other 3rd grade name calling makes one wonder if they’ve been eating too much paste in art class but whatever.
“Though hearing the outrage from people over using someone’s actual name and then having these same people use McSame, Bushitler, or any other 3rd grade name calling makes one wonder if they’ve been eating too much paste in art class but whatever. “
Yeah, but I think it does enter a new territory of lowness when people are using that name in conversations with topics meant to link a person by that name to those topics when the topics are terrorists, secret Muslim upbringings and and extreme Islam. When you know that people are doing that to create a certain fear of someone and with a specific voter base in mind and you then pander to that same base and fear by throwing that name into the conversation… You may not be guilty of creating the idea or of using the specific topics in your speech/interview/monologue, but your are sure as hëll guilty of perpetuating the idea and trying to capitalize on it.
Other than that I agree on stupid crap like McSame and I’ve voiced my dislike at lowbrow garbage like Bushitler, Hitlerburton and others enough times that you must know that I find the dumb as hëll.
But Incurious George will probably always make me snicker at least a little bit…
“Though hearing the outrage from people over using someone’s actual name and then having these same people use McSame, Bushitler, or any other 3rd grade name calling makes one wonder if they’ve been eating too much paste in art class but whatever. “
Yeah, but I think it does enter a new territory of lowness when people are using that name in conversations with topics meant to link a person by that name to those topics when the topics are terrorists, secret Muslim upbringings and and extreme Islam. When you know that people are doing that to create a certain fear of someone and with a specific voter base in mind and you then pander to that same base and fear by throwing that name into the conversation… You may not be guilty of creating the idea or of using the specific topics in your speech/interview/monologue, but your are sure as hëll guilty of perpetuating the idea and trying to capitalize on it.
Other than that I agree on stupid crap like McSame and I’ve voiced my dislike at lowbrow garbage like Bushitler, Hitlerburton and others enough times that you must know that I find the dumb as hëll.
But Incurious George will probably always make me snicker at least a little bit…
I fear Rene was right when observing “It’s hard to say which the Religious Right hates more: muslims, gays, or atheists?” This reminds me when I was going to a college with a large fraternity system in place. EVERYONE who ran for student government joined a frat because they were guaranteed all the votes of the frat’s members (I can’t tell you how many times I had someone endorsing their frat brother, then always ending with “…and I’m not just saying that because they’re in my fraternity”) and also had a large network of brothers out campaigning for them. It’s similar with politics in America: If you’re Christian, you’ll get a very large percentage of Christians stumping for you (why do you think McCain did a 180 with fundamentalist evangelicals?) and if you’re not Christian you will have a large percentage of them opposed to you. (If Obama wins, will the next barrier to be broken be a Jewish president?)
And there is the unfortunate association of Islam with terrorism in the minds of many Americans. My brother, a party-line Republican, describes Obama as “a secret Muslim sympathiser.” He doesn’t mean that Obama is open to the thoughts of many religions (which is a good thing, unless you’re a fundamentalist) but that he’s secretely on the terrorist’s side. Sadly, my brother doesn’t consider that the vetting process might pick up on that, or that Democrats actually don’t want to destroy this country. Feh.
Off Topic I know, but I wonder if the McCain campaign shift to ACORN and Voter fraud is feeling a little tight after this
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10762949?source=most_emailed
“Earlier this year, dozens of voters accused YPM, which had been hired by the California Republican Party, of tricking them into registering as Republicans. The voters said they thought they were signing a petition calling for stiffer penalties for child molesters. “
I have all the sympathy in the world for the crap Muslims must deal with being called a terrorist just because they follow the Muslim religion. But one thing that has always bothered me about the Muslim groups is the way many of them (and many other religions in fact) treat women as second class citizens.
Get rid of the veil and other degrading things that many Muslims do towards woman (i was biking once and I saw a muslim man forcing his wife to walk behind him) and I will be very happy to see a Muslim elected president until then I have to say I’m not really rooting for a Muslim president…
I have all the sympathy in the world for the crap Muslims must deal with being called a terrorist just because they follow the Muslim religion. But one thing that has always bothered me about the Muslim groups is the way many of them (and many other religions in fact) treat women as second class citizens.
Get rid of the veil and other degrading things that many Muslims do towards woman (i was biking once and I saw a muslim man forcing his wife to walk behind him) and I will be very happy to see a Muslim elected president until then I have to say I’m not really rooting for a Muslim president…
I’m surprised to read that you hadn’t thought of this, Peter. When that idiot at the McCain rally told him that she didn’t trust Obama because he was Arab, my first thought was to correct her by pointing out that he’s not, and my second was to ask what the difference would be if he were?
Other than that I agree on stupid crap like McSame and I’ve voiced my dislike at lowbrow garbage like Bushitler, Hitlerburton and others enough times that you must know that I find the dumb as hëll.
As do I. When joking around with friends, I’ll occasionally use the ones that I think showed some nice wit in the creation (Incurious George and Caribou Barbie being the only two that come to mind), but that’s as far as I go — and I certainly don’t use anything like that when I’m trying to make a serious point.
Other than that I agree on stupid crap like McSame and I’ve voiced my dislike at lowbrow garbage like Bushitler, Hitlerburton and others enough times that you must know that I find the dumb as hëll.
As do I. When joking around with friends, I’ll occasionally use the ones that I think showed some nice wit in the creation (Incurious George and Caribou Barbie being the only two that come to mind), but that’s as far as I go — and I certainly don’t use anything like that when I’m trying to make a serious point.
Well, I’ve always said this is a (largely) way above average crowd.
I have to say, I never thought the “Obama is a secret Muslim” thing was supposed to make us think he was a secret terrorist, though I can see where some might make that connection. I think I have too many people in my extended family that are Muslim to see it that way. I thought the key word was “secret”–that they were trying to paint him as an inauthentic man who would lie about anything, even his religion, to get ahead.
The obvious problem with that logic is A- it isn’t true, B- he would have picked a far more mainstream church if fitting in was his main goal and C- see A.
Let me add another point–a lot of the problems people have with Islam is not the religion it’s the fact that it is the only religion that has leaders in countries willing and eager (and able) to enforce their interpretation on the citizens of other countries by injury and death. That is not a problem with Islam so much as a problem with Iran, Pakistan, etc. People who get angry with Islam over things like the death threats against cartoonists should aim their ire at the right targets.
I want to add something to the point Dan Lorenzen made. I am a woman and I admit, I don`t like the Muslim religion one bit. Nevertheless, there are many shades of Muslims and should there be a Muslim candidate one day who treats his wife and daughters as equals and who has moderate views it might do a lot of good for Muslims all over the world.
I want to add something to the point Dan Lorenzen made. I am a woman and I admit, I don`t like the Muslim religion one bit. Nevertheless, there are many shades of Muslims and should there be a Muslim candidate one day who treats his wife and daughters as equals and who has moderate views it might do a lot of good for Muslims all over the world.
“As for Jews, remember that Joe Lieberman is a very devout Jew, at least in terms of the rules he was reported back in 2000 to follow about the Sabbath and the like”
This was always a wonder on how he would resolve that, if, as a VP, he was forced to travel on the Sabbath. Knowing how he can compromise on his politics, I have no doubt he would have found a way.
I’ve always thought highly of Colin Powell, and he continues to be a beacon of sensibility and class in the snakepit of DC. Would that more were like him.
The Pilgrims, having faced religious persecution themselves, made tolerance of all religions one of the first tenents of their government, made sure religion was separate from their government, and while they gritted their teeth, they held true. It would take 2 generations for that to fall apart. It’s sad to think that, by today’s standards, these ‘ignorant’ religious fanatics were more gracious and tolerant than we are in our “enlightened” times, with government trying to ram “correct” religious views down a very diverse throat. It’s a shame that the first thing we worry about in a national leader is not whether s/he is a good person, a person of integrity and strength, even a pious person – but what religion is s/he.
How much does religion bear on politics? Outside of Quaker, because it’s not “mainstream”, and JFK’s Catholicism, does anyone actually remember the religion of any other President, and did it really impact their policy?
It’s curious how in other countries overtly religious politicians are the ones having a hard time getting elected. Even in countries with relatively little religious diversity like mine (90% of catholics if you believe the church), public display of religious feelings (even in the conservative party) is usually seen with mistrust.
Regarding Lorenzen mention of the veil:
The veil, or the hiyab (wich covers the hair and not the face) or even the burka are not religious in nature, but cultural and pre-islamic. They are not a sign of religious observance but of modesty, and a common one, shared until recently with many european/christian cultures. Too restrictive for our taste? hëll, yes… but then in the USA hëll went loose when Janet Jackson showed a breast, And most white women dont go around naked when they visit areas of the world where that is the norm.
It should be a non-issue. In most muslim countries there is no regulation regarding female head covers, even in some that have other regulations religious in nature. Only theocracies like Iran or Saudi Arabia enforce such measures, but then in Chile, ultra-catholic military leaders tried to force women not to wear trousers. And the fact is neither muslim or catholic law says anything about it… its just that some religious figures used what most people perceived as “decency” as a stick with wich they could beat their opponents.
The sad fact is that muslim women in developing countries where abandoning the veil and the hiyab, in a natural process much like the one that shortened the skirts in western culture (a process that also found religious opposition). Economic independence made them free to explore the boundaries of their culture and their body. You can see manes of hair (and knees, and cleavages) in cities all over the muslim world like Morocco, Egypt or Syria, while in rural areas a more traditional dresscode is the norm. Muslim inmigrants usually come from rural (poorer) areas and that reflect on the way they dress, but usually the second generation adapted to the new country modesty levels.
That is, of course, until some people started to insist they adapted right away. Until it stopped beign a fashion/modesty issue to become just another issue against difference. Now you can see many free thinking, independent muslim women, some even third generation inmigrants, going back to the hiyab as an identity symbol, as a rebelion against forceful assimilation.
Western societies have come to value freedom a lot. Ive grown seeing breasts every summer in the beach, TV and movies… but how would most women feel if they were forced to bare their breasts? Beign able to challenge decency standarts is great, but only if personal freedom is not attacked.
John McCain and Sarah Palin. They’re allowing people to walk out of their rallies saying Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist without correcting them, and as of the last debate their ads are 100% attack ads.
Hillary lost and the Clinton’s left the White House 8 years ago. JHC, let it go.
But one thing that has always bothered me about the Muslim groups is the way many of them (and many other religions in fact) treat women as second class citizens.
Yeah, well I have trouble pointing the finger at the Muslims in that regard considering there are some sects of Judaism that aren’t much better. As a matter of fact, the reason we switched from a Conservative to Reform synagogue was because our local Conservative synagogue started skewing more and more toward Orthodoxy. The kind of Orthodoxy that dictated, for instance, that females under no circumstance would be allowed to read Torah. Not only did I have a major problem with that on a moral basis, but I had no desire to have my daughters be Bat Mitzvahed there and be told that the Bar Mitzvah boys could read Torah as part of their Bar Mitzvah, but my girls would be prohibited from doing so. What sort of formal introduction to being a Jewish adult is that? “Welcome aboard, and by the way, your presence won’t be counted as part of a minyan and you can’t read Torah during services.”
I remember reading an interesting book ages ago–can’t recall the title–that said centuries ago Orthodox Jews had zero problem with women being equal with men in all respects. And somewhere around the second or third century, that all changed. The theory was that local Arab tribes treated their women as second class citizens (as many still do) and some Jews of the time began doing the same with their women in order to blend in better with their neighbors’ practices rather than risk offending them.
PAD
But one thing that has always bothered me about the Muslim groups is the way many of them (and many other religions in fact) treat women as second class citizens.
Yeah, well I have trouble pointing the finger at the Muslims in that regard considering there are some sects of Judaism that aren’t much better. As a matter of fact, the reason we switched from a Conservative to Reform synagogue was because our local Conservative synagogue started skewing more and more toward Orthodoxy. The kind of Orthodoxy that dictated, for instance, that females under no circumstance would be allowed to read Torah. Not only did I have a major problem with that on a moral basis, but I had no desire to have my daughters be Bat Mitzvahed there and be told that the Bar Mitzvah boys could read Torah as part of their Bar Mitzvah, but my girls would be prohibited from doing so. What sort of formal introduction to being a Jewish adult is that? “Welcome aboard, and by the way, your presence won’t be counted as part of a minyan and you can’t read Torah during services.”
I remember reading an interesting book ages ago–can’t recall the title–that said centuries ago Orthodox Jews had zero problem with women being equal with men in all respects. And somewhere around the second or third century, that all changed. The theory was that local Arab tribes treated their women as second class citizens (as many still do) and some Jews of the time began doing the same with their women in order to blend in better with their neighbors’ practices rather than risk offending them.
PAD
Hombre Malo, Brazil is 70% Catholic, 15% Protestant, and most people here also would be unnerved by an overtly religious Presidential candidate. I would hesitate to say it’s something about Protestantism, because there are European countries that are mostly Protestant that are even more secular than Brazil or Spain.
The percentages are ultimately irrelevant. Brazil is very religious, but religion mostly knows its private place. We’ve acknowledge the contradictions between the Bible and modern life, nodded, and moved on. The US is probably the only Western country where the battle between Theocracy and Secularism is still raging on.
Hombre Malo, Brazil is 70% Catholic, 15% Protestant, and most people here also would be unnerved by an overtly religious Presidential candidate. I would hesitate to say it’s something about Protestantism, because there are European countries that are mostly Protestant that are even more secular than Brazil or Spain.
The percentages are ultimately irrelevant. Brazil is very religious, but religion mostly knows its private place. We’ve acknowledge the contradictions between the Bible and modern life, nodded, and moved on. The US is probably the only Western country where the battle between Theocracy and Secularism is still raging on.
I learned that out upstairs neighbors think that Obama is secretly muslim, and list that as one of the reason they’re voting for McCain. My immediate response was “so what if he is?” We haven’t had a chance to discuss it, but my guess is that in his mind, muslim = terrorist. Which is about the same as saying catholic = IRA militant/terrorist.
Obama’s been campaigning for nearly 2 years now, and if you look, you’ll see signs of the racist hatred that we’re supposed to have gotten past all along the way. But now, with just weeks to go, and Obama apparantly in the lead, you’re starting to see the people that were only whispering before come of out the shadows and openly display their hatred, which is based on little more than prejudice and bigotry.
Rene, I would like to agree but unfortunately the battle still rages on in Spain (and many other countries). Overt religiousness by “mainstream” political figures is frowned upon by most people, but the catholic hierarchy is still able to extert a lot of influence. We’ve managed to change a lot of things here but allways after a dogface struggle with huge demostrations and a lot of alarmist messages on the radio. And we havent been able to shake off certain church privileges that come from Franco’s time.
Still, most people (even many church attending catholics) dislike “meapilas”, and none but the most fringe politicians would dare to mention “our lord jesus christ” in any public statement.
Jose Bono, a very popular politician from the socialist party who has been president of one of our regions, defense minister and now holds the position of president of the parlament, had some though times because he is a practicing catholic. He never publicy mentioned this, but still some considered “un-savy” for him to openly attend mass every sunday, even if he did it at a “red” church. At times like that I had to agree some atheist/agnostics sometimes behave like religious bigots.
I have to say, I never thought the “Obama is a secret Muslim” thing was supposed to make us think he was a secret terrorist, though I can see where some might make that connection.
It’s all about the insinuation, and it’s certainly by design.
Just as Bush (at least for awhile) never directly said Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, he kept using the two in the same sentence. That creates a link in peoples minds, and leads them to create lines between dots where no such lines actually exist.
And then when people jump to such a conclusion on their own, it gives those making the insinuation an excuse to deny ever making such a claim.
I have to say, I never thought the “Obama is a secret Muslim” thing was supposed to make us think he was a secret terrorist, though I can see where some might make that connection.
It’s all about the insinuation, and it’s certainly by design.
Just as Bush (at least for awhile) never directly said Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, he kept using the two in the same sentence. That creates a link in peoples minds, and leads them to create lines between dots where no such lines actually exist.
And then when people jump to such a conclusion on their own, it gives those making the insinuation an excuse to deny ever making such a claim.
“It’s curious how in other countries overtly religious politicians are the ones having a hard time getting elected. Even in countries with relatively little religious diversity like mine (90% of catholics if you believe the church), public display of religious feelings (even in the conservative party) is usually seen with mistrust.”
Have you considered the possibility that the fact that the US is more religiously diverse, that it never had one dominant government controlled, oppressive religious establishment, is the reason why the US there is less of an anti-clerical tradition, and religious identity is more important?
“That is, of course, until some people started to insist they adapted right away. Until it stopped beign a fashion/modesty issue to become just another issue against difference. Now you can see many free thinking, independent muslim women, some even third generation inmigrants, going back to the hiyab as an identity symbol, as a rebelion against forceful assimilation. “
Exactly. Which shows how rerligious identity or national identity matters more to people the more they feel it is threatened, whereas so long as it is taken for granted, people can ignore it and even consider it superfluus.
It should also pointed out that the rise of Islamic identity i the Muslim world is not just a reaction to current events or attitudes in the west.
—————–
“”As for Jews, remember that Joe Lieberman is a very devout Jew, at least in terms of the rules he was reported back in 2000 to follow about the Sabbath and the like”
“This was always a wonder on how he would resolve that, if, as a VP, he was forced to travel on the Sabbath. Knowing how he can compromise on his politics, I have no doubt he would have found a way.”
According to Orthodox Judaism one should break the Sabbath in order to save lives. Moreover, religious Jews serve in the Israeli military and break the Sabbath even if there is no lives that need to immediately be saved, but simply as part of the running of the military.
——————-
“(If Obama wins, will the next barrier to be broken be a Jewish president?)”
The last thing Jews need is a Jewish president.
—————–
Bill, who are you kidding. References to Obama’s middle name are not the same as references to just a strange name, and references to his supposedly being Muslim are not the same as refering to any other religion.
—————
Posted by: John at October 19, 2008 10:12 PM
Back in September when Palin told Gibson (in the Bush Doctrine interview) “I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism.” I likened that in my mind to a justification of genocide.
If a politician talked about “ridding this world of Judaism” or “ridding this world of Orthodox Judaism” their political career would be over. (Same goes for Catholicism or Roman Catholicism)
But it’s ok to talk about ridding the world of Muslims.
For those who insist that “extemism” makes it different…the point is that it is irrelevant what religion the terrorist is. If it matters what religion the terrorist is, then desiring to rid the world of them is genocide.”
Posted by: Rene at October 19, 2008 10:29 PM
Oh, c’mon.
I hate Bush and Palin as much as the next liberal, but wanting to rid the world of Islamic extremism isn’t genocide.
I agree that it would be better and more honest to be fighting all religious extremism, regardless of the specific faith used as excuse, but it is a fact that most religiously-motivated violence today is done by Muslims.”
Look, Islamic radicalism is a bad phenomenon that is happening in Islam. That doesn’t mean that Islam is bad or will always be bad, or that you should fight all Muslims. But in the here and now it is something that is happening in Islam. Pretending that there is no connection or that fighting this phenomenon is somehow a genocide against Islam is absurd.
“If a politician talked about “ridding this world of Judaism” or “ridding this world of Orthodox Judaism” their political career would be over.”
People say something like that all the time, but the word they (falsly) use to make the distinction is Zionism rather than Orthodox Judaism.
The Catholic Church still has some influence here, Hombre Malo. They’ve been active in the fight against stem-cell research or the depiction of gay kisses in primetime TV, for instance. They didn’t totally give up. But their actual influence is a tiny fraction of the power the Religious Right has in the US. They’ve seem to have lost the battle and are in retreat.
What Micha says makes sense. Catholic identity is widespread here, so it’s taken for granted. The “Catholic bible-thumper” here is likely to be that weird, old aunt that the rest of the family considers a little unstable. In the US, whole families are bible-thumpers.
The Catholic Church still has some influence here, Hombre Malo. They’ve been active in the fight against stem-cell research or the depiction of gay kisses in primetime TV, for instance. They didn’t totally give up. But their actual influence is a tiny fraction of the power the Religious Right has in the US. They’ve seem to have lost the battle and are in retreat.
What Micha says makes sense. Catholic identity is widespread here, so it’s taken for granted. The “Catholic bible-thumper” here is likely to be that weird, old aunt that the rest of the family considers a little unstable. In the US, whole families are bible-thumpers.
“That is, of course, until some people started to insist they adapted right away. Until it stopped beign a fashion/modesty issue to become just another issue against difference. Now you can see many free thinking, independent muslim women, some even third generation inmigrants, going back to the hiyab as an identity symbol, as a rebelion against forceful assimilation. “
And I have no problem with that at all–dress as a knight in shining armor or a foam rubber Gamera suit for all I care. Though…given the fact that it’s still a symbol of subjugation in some countries I might have a hard time enjoying it. Just more evidence that the best thing that could happen to Islam would be the collapse of the Saudi and Iranian regimes.
“That is, of course, until some people started to insist they adapted right away. Until it stopped beign a fashion/modesty issue to become just another issue against difference. Now you can see many free thinking, independent muslim women, some even third generation inmigrants, going back to the hiyab as an identity symbol, as a rebelion against forceful assimilation. “
And I have no problem with that at all–dress as a knight in shining armor or a foam rubber Gamera suit for all I care. Though…given the fact that it’s still a symbol of subjugation in some countries I might have a hard time enjoying it. Just more evidence that the best thing that could happen to Islam would be the collapse of the Saudi and Iranian regimes.
If the villain was religious extremism, they’d say religious extremism. There are extremists in all religions
Though its not extremism…since many people consider certain types of religious dress extreme. It’s religous violence.
But why does it matter if its religious at all?
Wasn’t the terrorists responsible for the Oklahoma bombings in 1995 just as wrong…even though their actions weren’t religiously motivated.
By specifying “Islamic Extremism” the war is no longer a war against terrorists. It’s a war against Muslims. A group of Muslims, sure. But it is no longer a war against terrorism, because terrorism isn’t the defined target.
Note they don’t even says “Islamic Terrorists”. Terrorism is no longer the target. It’s Islam.
The Pilgrims, having faced religious persecution themselves, made tolerance of all religions one of the first tenents of their government, made sure religion was separate from their government, and while they gritted their teeth, they held true.
This is not entirely accurate – or rather, this is not accurate at all. The group we know as the Pilgrims (they called themselves Saints) were in fact evicted from first England, then Denmark, for attempting to force their own brand of Puritanical Protestantism on their neighbors. Once in the New World, they proceeded to set up their ideal theocracy – which fell apart in less than a generation, as it was a foolish way to try to govern people, as well as leaving them no real way to deal with their new neighbors (once the local tribes began to obtain the new weapons that went “boom”, and learned how to use them).
The first government set up in the United States to specifically separate church and state was the government of Virginia, under articles written by one Thomas Jefferson (who later managed to slip a lot of that into the constitution of the United States in 1787, as the famed Bill of Rights).
Other than that, I can’t argue with your post, Susan… 🙂
Micha: many countries with homogeneous religious landscapes have a great deal of bible-thumping in their political discourse. In many centroamerican countries political leaders abuse of that kind of retoric quite often, and Nicaragua´s Ortega regained power on a faith inspired platform heavily backed by catholic hierarchy (and thanks to that, they now have the most restrictive abortion laws on the world, not allowing it even if the mother’s life is at risk).
The first impulse is to link this phenomenon to the country development, but then you take similar countries like Italy and Spain, traditionaly catholic and homogenous, culturally similar and with close development and industrialization levels… and the level of religious influence and religious rethoric in politics vary a great deal. Moreso, scandinavian countries, with national, almost mandatory churches, are virtually devoid of religious discourse in politics, while in the laicist french republic, the political right use religious simbols often.
Bill Mulligan:
I do enjoy seeing a sexy dressed lady if I know she dressed like that willingly and for her own pleasure (one might say thats where the “sexy” is) but find depressing, sad and offensive when I know someone is forced to dress the same way. As much as I am accustomed to see a woman’s hair, to know that by showing it she feels exposed and vulnerable makes me prefer for her to have it covered if thats what she feels like. Of course there are many cases of families imposing it to the daughters but assuming all women wearing it are victims of a forceful imposition is just as paternalistic as trying to protect their modesty by imposing it.
My father’s aunt was a strong willed woman from a rural area of Spain, who ruled her house and husband with an iron fist. She lived on a street that didnt had streetlamps until the 1980s. I never saw her outside her home without her “toca”, a cloth over her head that covered most of her hair. Much like the north-african hiyab there was no religious imperative to wear it but a cultural one. Modest women were supposed to cover their heads. Young women usually didnt… except when going to church, so an uninformed witness might guess there is a religious rule about it when in fact priest who tried to make it a rule were ultimately dismissed as times changed. Ive seen women wearing similar head covers in church in most catholic countries, more often the more underdeveloped the area and the older the women were.
Were all those women coerced into covering their heads? maybe, but mostly by social modesty standarts. The moment the risk of becoming an outcast dissapeared because women gained independence, they started to dress any way they wanted…and still some wear the “toca”. Hëll, many nuns dress like its 1500 AD. But it took a couple of generations of industrial development for our societies to change, yet some demand the same changes to happen instantly in the mentality of whoever puts a foot in our countries. It offends our standarts when we see a woman in the bus with her hair covered yet no one care about theirs whenever an european woman goes to a bazaar in Morocco wearing shorts and a bikini top. On the other side, european women do not bare their breasts among amazonian tribes (some even feel the impulse to make THEM cover theirs). So lets call things by its name; We feel our standarts are superior and abhor difference, and we are ready to force anyone to be free…the exact way we are.
Micha: many countries with homogeneous religious landscapes have a great deal of bible-thumping in their political discourse. In many centroamerican countries political leaders abuse of that kind of retoric quite often, and Nicaragua´s Ortega regained power on a faith inspired platform heavily backed by catholic hierarchy (and thanks to that, they now have the most restrictive abortion laws on the world, not allowing it even if the mother’s life is at risk).
The first impulse is to link this phenomenon to the country development, but then you take similar countries like Italy and Spain, traditionaly catholic and homogenous, culturally similar and with close development and industrialization levels… and the level of religious influence and religious rethoric in politics vary a great deal. Moreso, scandinavian countries, with national, almost mandatory churches, are virtually devoid of religious discourse in politics, while in the laicist french republic, the political right use religious simbols often.
Bill Mulligan:
I do enjoy seeing a sexy dressed lady if I know she dressed like that willingly and for her own pleasure (one might say thats where the “sexy” is) but find depressing, sad and offensive when I know someone is forced to dress the same way. As much as I am accustomed to see a woman’s hair, to know that by showing it she feels exposed and vulnerable makes me prefer for her to have it covered if thats what she feels like. Of course there are many cases of families imposing it to the daughters but assuming all women wearing it are victims of a forceful imposition is just as paternalistic as trying to protect their modesty by imposing it.
My father’s aunt was a strong willed woman from a rural area of Spain, who ruled her house and husband with an iron fist. She lived on a street that didnt had streetlamps until the 1980s. I never saw her outside her home without her “toca”, a cloth over her head that covered most of her hair. Much like the north-african hiyab there was no religious imperative to wear it but a cultural one. Modest women were supposed to cover their heads. Young women usually didnt… except when going to church, so an uninformed witness might guess there is a religious rule about it when in fact priest who tried to make it a rule were ultimately dismissed as times changed. Ive seen women wearing similar head covers in church in most catholic countries, more often the more underdeveloped the area and the older the women were.
Were all those women coerced into covering their heads? maybe, but mostly by social modesty standarts. The moment the risk of becoming an outcast dissapeared because women gained independence, they started to dress any way they wanted…and still some wear the “toca”. Hëll, many nuns dress like its 1500 AD. But it took a couple of generations of industrial development for our societies to change, yet some demand the same changes to happen instantly in the mentality of whoever puts a foot in our countries. It offends our standarts when we see a woman in the bus with her hair covered yet no one care about theirs whenever an european woman goes to a bazaar in Morocco wearing shorts and a bikini top. On the other side, european women do not bare their breasts among amazonian tribes (some even feel the impulse to make THEM cover theirs). So lets call things by its name; We feel our standarts are superior and abhor difference, and we are ready to force anyone to be free…the exact way we are.
Two questions:
– If one of the 13 colonies was founded by Roman Catholics, why have the followers of that church been mistrusted so often in american politics? (Know Nothing Party and most nativist movements well into the 50s)
– When I was in NY I noticed orthodox women covering their heads with hats in a certain way. Not all and some just partially. Is this religiously motivated or modesty induced? Jews in Spain are mostly sefardi (I assumed the ones in NY to be mostly askenazi) and Ive never seen sefardi women cover their heads in any special way.
Two questions:
– If one of the 13 colonies was founded by Roman Catholics, why have the followers of that church been mistrusted so often in american politics? (Know Nothing Party and most nativist movements well into the 50s)
– When I was in NY I noticed orthodox women covering their heads with hats in a certain way. Not all and some just partially. Is this religiously motivated or modesty induced? Jews in Spain are mostly sefardi (I assumed the ones in NY to be mostly askenazi) and Ive never seen sefardi women cover their heads in any special way.
Wasn’t the terrorists responsible for the Oklahoma bombings in 1995 just as wrong…even though their actions weren’t religiously motivated.
But there’s little chance of them doing it again since it does not seem to have been part of any larger organization. Certainly no government to my knowledge is actively encouraging and subsidizing the Timothy Mcveighs of the world.
By specifying “Islamic Extremism” the war is no longer a war against terrorists. It’s a war against Muslims. A group of Muslims, sure. But it is no longer a war against terrorism, because terrorism isn’t the defined target.
I disagree. Going after the IRA is not the same as going after the Irish. Being against basque terrorists is not the same as being against people from northern Spain. Condemning violent acts by Hindu nationalists in India is not the same as condemning Hinduism.
Why even mention Islamic terrorists? Islamic terrorists are the only ones with much pull any more. They are the only ones that have a realistic shot at serious damage to the country. They’ve been successful. People are afraid of them–with good reason. It’s been 20 years and Salman Rushdie still has a death threat on his head. People are still afraid to publish the Danish cartoons. South Park can show anything…except something that might incite Islamic radicals. Name one other group that has managed to exert such a fear and who has a realistic likelihood of doing us some serious harm.
The only reason to not use the term Islamic terrorists is out of concern for the feelings of decent Muslims. I can understand that. But if some wacko Christian group was bombing synagogues I would have no problem calling them Christian terrorists. I’m smart enough and mature enough to not take it personally. Are Muslims any less so?
Wasn’t the terrorists responsible for the Oklahoma bombings in 1995 just as wrong…even though their actions weren’t religiously motivated.
But there’s little chance of them doing it again since it does not seem to have been part of any larger organization. Certainly no government to my knowledge is actively encouraging and subsidizing the Timothy Mcveighs of the world.
By specifying “Islamic Extremism” the war is no longer a war against terrorists. It’s a war against Muslims. A group of Muslims, sure. But it is no longer a war against terrorism, because terrorism isn’t the defined target.
I disagree. Going after the IRA is not the same as going after the Irish. Being against basque terrorists is not the same as being against people from northern Spain. Condemning violent acts by Hindu nationalists in India is not the same as condemning Hinduism.
Why even mention Islamic terrorists? Islamic terrorists are the only ones with much pull any more. They are the only ones that have a realistic shot at serious damage to the country. They’ve been successful. People are afraid of them–with good reason. It’s been 20 years and Salman Rushdie still has a death threat on his head. People are still afraid to publish the Danish cartoons. South Park can show anything…except something that might incite Islamic radicals. Name one other group that has managed to exert such a fear and who has a realistic likelihood of doing us some serious harm.
The only reason to not use the term Islamic terrorists is out of concern for the feelings of decent Muslims. I can understand that. But if some wacko Christian group was bombing synagogues I would have no problem calling them Christian terrorists. I’m smart enough and mature enough to not take it personally. Are Muslims any less so?
Great discussion, and one to which I can obviously relate. 😀
First of all, to El Hombre Malo’s post discussing the issue…right on. My mom and aunts grew up in a household that, while not exactly non-religious, were more of the “bare minimum” type. They grew up in London, and while my mum moved here (North America) after she got married, my aunts stayed in the UK. My grandfather never forced any of them to wear hijab, and none of them did, for a long time. When my aunt was in high school, though, she decided to start wearing it as, EHM said, a symbol against forced assimilation (bc. they’d moved from India). Pretty soon, it was adopted by most of my mum’s extended family, on their own. The funny thing is that what had originally been a decision of independence has now been adopted by some of the chauvinistic guys as a means of subjugation against their daughters…as if they didn’t grow up in households where things were much more lax.
Personally, I’m pìššëd at the way all these personal choices, as outlined by the religion, which have always been personal choices rather than societal rules, are being mandated by law in places like Saudi. The “women can’t drive” thing, or travel alone…that’s such bs. Most of the Muslim guys I know are nothing like that, and I’m tired of them, and me and my other girl friends, being defined by the ones that are. I think part of the problem is that Islam lost a central authority with the end of the caliphate, that had the ability to speak, with one voice, what the proper interpretation of a lot of these supposed laws are supposed to entail. So we just have the wackjobs speaking for us, because they’re talking the loudest. It’s a lot harder than you’d imagine to find someone qualified who represents the entire population, because it is extremely diverse. I don’t think I have anything in common with Arab Muslims, besides religion, or Indonesian Muslims, or Iranian Muslims. So how are we going to find someone who speaks for all of us, to condemn the horrible stuff that goes on? There are a bunch of people talking about it individually, but I don’t think it has the impact that is needed to convey that to the world. I just don’t really know what the alternatives are.
Further complicating the issue, in my opinion, is, as you said Bill, the labels. I absolutely recognize that there is an extremist sect in the religion, that must be dealt with and stopped. And I think I’m aware enough to recognize that when people say “Islamic terrorist” they’re probably not referring to me. But it’s really difficult to then try and explain to Muslims in other countries that there is a nuance that they’re not picking up on. Religion *is* part of our identity, and when it is so often linked with extremism, with almost nothing to reflect and balance with the other viewpoints, it’s not an easy sell.