• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Obama Calls for Religious Tolerance

The speech wasn't about Trump. There is no intolerance of Islam in America that needed to be addressed by the president. He was pandering. He just knows he can get away with it because liberals aren't bright enough to call him on it.

You won't be honest. People like you never are. But when Bush 2 spoke about tolerance towards Muslims a few days after 9/11 did you spew the same amount of hate at him?

Look up Bush's speech. Read it. Learn something.
 
You won't be honest. People like you never are. But when Bush 2 spoke about tolerance towards Muslims a few days after 9/11 did you spew the same amount of hate at him?

Look up Bush's speech. Read it. Learn something.

Im not spewing hate. Read your posts--you are. Liberals--er--moderates (lol) are the most hateful, intolerant people around. Here is the difference between Bush and Obamas speeches. Bush spoke to head off religious intolerance towards Muslims. Obama pretends it is already so bad in America that he needs to get off he golf course and address it. There is no religious intolerance towards muslims in America. In fact, there is more anti-Semitism. He is manufacturing an issue
 
Im not spewing hate. Read your posts--you are. Liberals--er--moderates (lol) are the most hateful, intolerant people around. Here is the difference between Bush and Obamas speeches. Bush spoke to head off religious intolerance towards Muslims. Obama pretends it is already so bad in America that he needs to get off he golf curse and address it. There is no religious intolerance towards muslims in America. In fact, there is more anti-Semitism. He is manufacturing an issue

If there is no religious intolerance in America why is one of the rwo major political parties talking about limiting their access to the country?
 
If there is no religious intolerance in America why is one of the rwo major political parties talking about limiting their access to the country?

Again, Trump said something dumb that was denounced universally by everyone. There is no religious intolerance toward muslims in this country. Period. That Obama feels the need to pretend that such intolerance exists just further exposes him for the divider that he is.
 
Im not spewing hate. Read your posts--you are. Liberals--er--moderates (lol) are the most hateful, intolerant people around. Here is the difference between Bush and Obamas speeches. Bush spoke to head off religious intolerance towards Muslims. Obama pretends it is already so bad in America that he needs to get off he golf course and address it. There is no religious intolerance towards muslims in America. In fact, there is more anti-Semitism. He is manufacturing an issue

In 15 years after 9/11 all is forgotten and forgiving? With all that's going on now in the Middle east all is forgiven? Trumps words bringing cheers and applauds mean tolerance? Of course not. Bush's job in 2001 was to calm the people and talk about tolerance. Obama job now is the same. It works with some people. They get comfort hearing speeches like that.

But people like you who are so full of hate, it won't do any good. You live on hate, you breathe hate. It keeps you going. Bush or Obama weren't addressing people like you. It's pointless. So just ignore what Obama said and move on with your pitiful, hate filled life.

Night.
 
If there is no religious intolerance in America why is one of the rwo major political parties talking about limiting their access to the country?

There will always be a small amount of people who are intolerant about something , and that is never going to change. but as a whole the country isn't.
 
The last one to do so was someone I think many of you will be familiar with... George W. Bush.

I wonder if Rubio had the same reaction to Bush as he did to Obama? No? What changed?
 
But people like you who are so full of hate, it won't do any good. You live on hate, you breathe hate. It keeps you going. Bush or Obama weren't addressing people like you. It's pointless. So just ignore what Obama said and move on with your pitiful, hate filled life.

Night.
Before mommy tucks you in, would you mind pointing out what I said that was 'hateful' This is such a typical liberal tactic--label anyone who disagrees with you as hateful, a racist, a homophobe, or a hater of women or the poor. And there is a reason liberals, almost to a man, do this; its because they cant win an honest discussion on any level. Like I said, hate is all over this thread. And it has come almost exclusively from your posts. Stop projecting your hatred onto others. Solve your own issues.
 
The religious tolerance of Republicans, per a September, 2015 PPP poll:
Trump's recent comments about President Obama waging a war on Christianity don't hurt him much with the GOP base. 69% agree with the sentiment that the President has waged a war on Christianity, with only 17% disagreeing. Trump's probably not hurting himself too much with his negativity toward Muslims either- only 49% of Republicans think the religion of Islam should even be legal in the United States with 30% saying it shouldn't be and 21% not sure. Among Trump voters there is almost even division with 38% thinking Islam should be allowed and 36% that it should not.

Nope. No religious bigotry among Republicans. No sir. They just want to outlaw other religions, that's all.
 
I grew up around Muslims in Chicago and have a lot of Muslim friends. They're normal people with normal beliefs, two of my best friends in fact are Muslim and both stoners.

When raised in a western secular society like America, you're likely to pick up some if not most of the culture, even while retaining your beliefs. It's not right to unfairly demonize these people who have done nothing wrong just because of a small minority of bad apples.

I have had Muslim friends and colleagues who I liked and respected. Unsurprising as I have lived in two Muslim countries. But this does not prevent me thinking Islam is a backward and dangerous World view, belief system and political programme. The enemy of tolerance, freedom and democracy.
 
I have to disagree, it says a lot about Republicans. An awful lot.

No, it's says everything about you that you would, in the midst of drooling over Obama' calling for unity, attempt to slander all Republicans based on something the Chump said.
 
Funny that in 2016 the President of the United States feels that he has to speak out for religious tolerance in America. But that's what some Christian zealots (and Republican politicians who pander to them) have brought us to.



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

Of course Rubio nor any of the other Republicans will have anything to say about this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/u...-another-anniversary-worth-honoring.html?_r=0

SEPT. 7, 2012

In the coming days, the calendar will bring the anniversaries of two signal events. One, of course, is Sept. 11, a Tuesday this year, as it was in 2001, when Al Qaeda terrorists in four hijacked planes killed more than 3,000 Americans. With public memorial services and private tears, those deaths will be recalled and mourned.

The other anniversary is of the visit President George W. Bush made to a Washington mosque just six days after the attack, where he spoke eloquently against the harassment of Arabs and Muslims living in the United States and about the need to respect Islam.

This act of leadership and statesmanship, however, has all but vanished from the national collective memory. It deserves, instead, to be noted and heeded and esteemed.
 
What many of those pointing constantly back to Bush are either missing or intentionally ignoring is the context surrounding the two individuals and why there may be a difference in reaction by some on the right...and I'm speaking more than just the obvious with regards to the (D) and (R) next to their name.

While Bush was apt to preach tolerance towards Muslims and that these Terrorists were not representative of Islam in it's totality, he was also viewed as extremely tough as it related to the War on Terror and rarely hesitated to label the terrorists as terrorists, the terrorist attacks as terrorist attacks, and to reference things like "jihad" or "Islamic terror".

While the Bush Administration made waves starting a "War on Terror", the Obama Administration made waves rebranding it as the "Overseas Contingency Operation". While the media was happy to focus on Bush talking about "Islamofacists", you have the focus instead of Obama telling us that the Islamic State isn't Islamic. With George Bush, you had someone that the Religious Right felt a kinship to and who's comments about religious tolerance did not come off as hypocritical, lecturing, or hollow as he was a staunch supporter of evangelical back views/policies. On the flip side, that segment of the base has seen Obama appoint pro-choice justices, try and force people to act against their religious beliefs, and make comments that came off as belittling to religious faith ("cling to their .... bible"). As such, the impression that his call for tolerance towards Muslims gives off is one that is more empty, more hypocritical, more hollow than Bush's for many people.

Is a large factor of it the (D) versus (R) thing? Of course; same reason why Bush was the great divider when he was in office and people would only point to things like Islamic Facism and Militant Jihadism, but suddenly now it's constantly "Look how much he preached the same thing as Obama and you all didn't care then!!!!!".

But the differences in terms of the "credibility currency" that both of these individuals had built up with the groups that are complaining HAVE to be taken into account for any kind of intellectually honest discussion. Taking ANYTHING that is being said by a politician and judging it, and it's reaction, singularly within a vacuum is a flawed method of logic.

For me personally....

I think a message of tolerance, acceptance, and unity with American's of Muslim faith, and westernized Muslims in general, is an absolute great message. We live in a society that values freedom of religion and I think that is a cornerstone of our values. So too is the belief in a secular government, of assimilation, of a respect towards the rights of women, amongst others. Those who practice Islam in a fashion that is not inherently incompatible with these type of values should be shown tolerance and acceptance.

HOWEVER....
 
The reality is, not all practitioners of Islam fall into that group above. There are those that believe that Islam should not simply be a matter of personal faith, but a matter of legal rule, as evidenced by the actual Islamic Political Parties in various portions of the world. There are those that believe that many of those westernized values are anathema to their view of Islam and must be battled against. That believe their religion calls upon them to attack and kill those who disagree with them. That laws and customs such as thoughts dealing with apostasy, homosexuality, rape, and the rights of women prevalent in portions of the Islamic world are moral, just, and what should be the norm. It is true, those who seek violence as it relates to this fundamentalist form of islam is a minority, it is still a significant enough number of negatively impact this nation. Furthermore, what is often missed is that there is the grey area of those who do not wish to actively engage in the violence, but at the same time condone...either tacitly or explicitly...such things and share the same fundamentalist view.

There should be no "acceptance" or "tolerance" or "unity" to such adherants to Islam in terms of those seeking to enter this country. If you belonged to a Political Party that promotes and advocated for Political Islam, then that should reflect negatively upon your ability to enter this country just as it did for Communism.

If you are in this country, or coming to this country, and advocate or support the idea of Sharia being formalized in some fashion to the legal code, not be "accepted" or "tolerated". Especially as it relates to the portions of it that are extremely conflicting with Western Values, such a supporting making conversion to a new religion a capital offense, as 86% of sharia supporters feel should occur in Egypt. Such a view should not be tolerated or accepted from someone looking to immigrate into this country.

If you're part of the 7% of Muslims in the US that believe suicide bombing to defend Islam is justified, you should not be tolerated, just as we should not tolerate those who think it's justified to attack abortion providers in gods name.

Much as there is often derision, attacking, and shaming of Mormons due to polygamy/child abuse, and towards fundamentalist Christians for denying their children healthcare to instead hope praying will cure their kid, so to does fundamentalist Islam deserve it as well for the mentality and belief system that still leads to honor killings like the Said's and Noor Al-Maleki.

This belief that we can not properly criticize, identify, and address the real issues that fundamentalist Islam poses to the west without discriminating against all Muslims or offending all muslims, is ridiculous. It is entirely possible to be tolerant and accepting of Muslims in a general sense, while at the same time properly identifying and dealing with the problems that exist. If westernized, reformed, and/or non-fundamentalist Muslims are "offended" because an entity referring to itself as the ISLAMIC State, which rules in accordance with their interpretation of Islamic law, and who's faith is used as justification for their actions is called "Islamic Extremists"...then that's on them. No one can inherently control what does or does not offend another person, and simply because someone is offended by something doesn't mean that offense is rational nor reasonable.

If I speak out against Pedophilia within the Catholic Church, I am not speaking out against ALL Catholics, or even ALL members of the church's hierarchy, but rather I'm speaking clearly regarding those that had a role in the pedophilia, the cover up, or who knowingly looked the other way. By and large Catholics seem to understand that, and non-Catholics, when seeing that discussion, immediately seem to understand the nuance. Yet for some reason that recognition of nuance and of directed comments goes out the window when talking about Extreme Islamists, with people assuming it is a broadscale condemnation of Islam or Muslims as a whole simply by using such terms.
 
What difference does ISIS standards make to us? I cant think of anyway I want to be like them.

Good to hear you don't want to be like ISIS.

Are you ok with ISIS type slant on religion being taught in the US? Especially if you don't agree with it we are to say nothing. Remember an attack on one religion is attack on all.
 
So, the OP makes it sound like the President is lying and doesn't really feel this way but others have "forced" him to speak about it?
I would rather think the President is having one of his rare sincerity moments.

But if the OP believes the President is a lying scum who panders to others then that is a freedom allowed.
I guess the OP doesn't believe the President is a Christian either...
 
I believe if they break no laws they can preach any form of religion they want to. Funny how conservative Republicans are all for freedom of religion...well except for ones that aint like them. Constitutionalists:lamo.
Good to hear you don't want to be like ISIS.

Are you ok with ISIS type slant on religion being taught in the US? Especially if you don't agree with it we are to say nothing. Remember an attack on one religion is attack on all.
 
The president was addressing a non issue. The man is so divisive that he is now inventing division. There is no bigotry between Christians and Muslims in America. The Divider in Chief never misses an opportunity to pit one American against another.

You cannot POSSIBLY be serious..... <SMH>
 
I believe if they break no laws they can preach any form of religion they want to. Funny how conservative Republicans are all for freedom of religion...well except for ones that aint like them. Constitutionalists:lamo.

What REALLY cracks me up is when THEY whine about Obama being the divisive one. Seriously, that gives me a belly chuckle.
 
Funny that in 2016 the President of the United States feels that he has to speak out for religious tolerance in America. But that's what some Christian zealots (and Republican politicians who pander to them) have brought us to.



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

I'm not a fan of Islam...in fact, I think the tenets of the religion are rather vile. Mohammed was a lot of things, peaceful would not be one of them. But, those people in that Mosque are Americans. Like it or not. So, I am glad Obama went there and said his piece.

I probably do not agree with anything he said. But, that is neither here nor there.
 
Actually surprised this is the first time Obama has visited a Mosque within the US as president.

The last one to do so was someone I think many of you will be familiar with... George W. Bush.

When?

Six days after 9/11...

What was his visit about you ask... Well I'll let him do the talking:

"Islam is Peace" Says President



Snip

Bush was over-simplistic and was only trying to control the potential outrage. The body of Islam may or may not be about peace, but the face of it isn't. Every time there's a Mohommed cartoon you see Islam's face, killing, burning flags, "Death to America", all that **** every time. Look how the refugees behave, raping Europeans. I'm not talking about ISIS, which is another aspect of Islam, but the people (including women) in the ME coming out on the streets to show us what Islam is. Just because Muslims in American don't copy them doesn't mean anything. No one ever worried about the peaceful part of any movement, but what the face of the movement is. The face of Islam kills people, destroys property and threatens more violence. The Islamic jihadists who commit terrorist acts are just an additional part of the problem (a major one).

mideast-iran-charlie-hebdo-protestjpeg-00409_c0-167-4000-2499_s885x516.jpg


imageANK10502121643.jpg


How many flags were burned, people maimed or killed, property destroyed or terrorist acts committed when the Piss Christ came out? Give me a number.

From Wikipedia (Piss Christ):
On April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France.[17][18] Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack.

Beginning September 27, 2012, Piss Christ was on display at the Edward Tyler Nahem gallery in New York, at the Andres Serrano show "Body and Spirit."[19] Religious groups and some lawmakers called for President Barack Obama to denounce the artwork, comparing it to the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims that the White House had condemned earlier that month.[20]

A print and a photo were vandalized. There is absolutely no comparison.

Bush was trying to calm the public, Obama is sympathizing with people who have done very little to change the image of their religion since 9/11. Not the same thing.
 
You cannot POSSIBLY be serious..... <SMH>

If the POTUS was worried about general religious tolerance, he'd be giving this speech at a Synagogue.

...According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which is used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to collect data about both single-bias and multiple-bias hate crimes, there were and are far more anti-Semitic crimes committed against Jews than anti-Muslim crime. In fact, the latest data from 2014 doesn’t at all reflect growing anti-Muslim sentiment spewing from white America, or any demographic group in the U.S. for that matter.

Of the 1,092 offenses reported as a hate crime motivated by religious bias, 58.2% were anti-Jewish crimes. On the other hand, 16.3% were anti-Islamic (Muslim); 6.1% were anti-Catholic; 4.7 percent were anti-multiple religions, group; 2.6% were anti-Protestant; .2% were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.; and, 11.0% were anti-other (unspecified) religion....


Of course, were the POTUS that concerned about religious liberty and tolerance, he probably wouldn't be suing the Little Sisters of the Poor, and he probably would have weighed in to tell his supporters to stop targeting Christians who didn't want to bake cakes for gay wedddings. It seems only when he can pose White Heterosexual Christian Males as the Bad Guy is the POTUS worried about "tolerance"
 
What REALLY cracks me up is when THEY whine about Obama being the divisive one. Seriously, that gives me a belly chuckle.

That what cracks me up too. Because whether you like him or not the reality and facts are his ability to UNITE people and bring them together is actually what got him elected, not once, but twice. Anybody honest and objective knows that fact. What has happened is the people that already had serious hyperbolic, partisan and or bigoted problems with right/left, black/white, rep/dem and or conservative/liberal lost their minds and got very loud. But now NEW nutters were created, just the same old nutters that went into panic mode. America, the NORMAL, and majority of people is actually better on race relations and religion harmony than its ever been.
 
I believe if they break no laws they can preach any form of religion they want to

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

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