President Obama.

Please limit the offsite links. You may use them only to support a point, not instead of a response of your own.

 

Cogito -- I'd delete my post, but I'm not sure how to do that. Instead I just editted out the links. I'm sorry; I didnt realize that was against WF policy, but I'll refresh myself with the FAQ and general rules, etc.

I'd still like my question answered though. Certainly the ".org" link was false? I'm just wondering because if it's a mistaken Web address, I'm curious to see if the facts are also true? It would be very interesting if we could have an effect in such a great way, but I've not heard anything about it from anyone else. --I even asked around today!

 

Sorry, Cogito, I didn't realize.

 

I went to google and typed in: obama "non-emergency legislation". The first link it gave me was this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/change_has_come_to_whitehouse-gov/

See that it's whitehouse.gov instead of .org. It says it's the official website for the White House and the President.

Scroll down on that link and it says this:

 

Thank you, Marina! I suppose I should have thought of that... :redface: Nope -- I went around asking people all day when all I had to do was use my homepage, Google.
I'm excited about this; being able to review and comment on these non-emergency bills sounds really exciting, and I'm going to definitely check back frequently...

 

I really wish we could get past race. They tell me he symbolizes just that and in the same breath tell me it's because he is black, isn't that contradictory? I really do not care what color someones skin is and yet everyone seems to be making such a big deal of his.

 

I have to agree with you Emm. I hate the fact that everyone makes a big deal about the fact that he's black. I agree that it shows we deal with race better when someone that is half-white and half-black has the ability to be whatever he wants, but I really wish they would just putting any emphasis on his skin color.

 

No. Because the problem we have isn't race, it's racism. To a lot of people Obama represents the beginning of the end of racism.

 

I have commented on that to my local news station's facebook page:

 

Good show. And agreed in full.

 

My worry (and I know I'm gonna get flack for this) is that his skin colour means that for the sake of political correctness and not wanting to seem racist, he won't be held to account in the same way as a white president would.

As big a step towards racial equality as his election is, I can't help but feel the reaction to that election shows that there's still a long way to go until race means as much as (stealing Cogito's example) height.

 

I look forward to that day. Someday, race will be as incidental as height. We aren't there yet. But, I do see this election as a step towards that. I love progress.

 

Not like Bush was held accountable until he started being less popular anyway. I don't think it matters about race, it's just that no one wants to disapprove of a popular figure.

Anyway, as nice as it would be for race not to matter at all, it does matter. And for that reason this is at least a step forward. A huge step forward. Because, honestly, we are a lot closer to the world where race doesn't matter than you think. Obama wasn't elected because of his race. He was elected because of his message, his charisma, and a billion other factors before it. And so people are celebrating that incredible fact. As they should celebrate. It's a big deal.

 

It certainly is, and I'm with all of you on this. It is a good step because it shows that you can do anything regardless of skin colour and people are less likely to hate because of it etc, but we're not as far as some seem to think we are if people are making that big of a deal out of it. At the same time, I couldn't help but wonder, "So when are we going to have a Jewish president/prime minister?" If you consider historical factors that are comparible to this situation, America is more likely to. They took in 200,000 Jewish refugees during WW2, while Canada took in less than 5000 and politicians pretty much ignored the issue all together. Then again, how many Sikh/Muslim politicians are there in America? I know of none, but I do know of Canadian ones.

 

Hehe. I guess good old Britain is ahead of you lot there. Benjamin Disraeli, one of the most awesome British PMs ever!

 

I think that we will be cool with racial differences in politics before we are cool with religious ones. I would have no qualms voting for a Jewish candidate or a Muslim one if I liked what he/she had to say about the policies and issues I cared about. With the fear of terrorists such as it is...we won't have a Muslim president any time soon.

 

You forget, there is a religious group equally hated as Muslims in a lot of circles. It's probably less likely due to the current terrorist situation that we would have a Muslim, but if it weren't for that...people don't dislike Muslims inherently. If the Middle East EVER got less dangerous I could see that happening.

What I couldn't see happening is an atheist president. We're so discriminated against it isn't even funny. At least Obama is hopefully less biased towards non-believers, as perhaps is seen from his inaugural speech...

On the other hand, I'll never forget Bush's comments that atheists can never be patriots or americans, or O'Reilly's comments that atheists are whiners and un-american...and his countless other deragatory comments towards people with no rleigious belief. Imagine if they had said "Catholics" can never be patriots or americans. Would that have gone over? No. Yet there was barely any outcry at all at his comment...

Don't forget the Mormons either. Bigotry towards them is also perfectly acceptable, stupidly enough. Because people are incredibly ignorant is why.

As far as religious tolerance goes, we've got a long way to go.

 

Unfortunately that is probably because people make the mistake of assuming that the actions of one group of people within that religion (or a nation that has a majority belonging to that religion) represent all members of it. Same mistake people made when looking at Muslims and many other cultural/religious groups. If you were referring to Jews, while I am with Isreal for their ultimate goals and their motives, I can't stand how they have chosen to go about achieving them.

 

What about a pagan president? I have to agree with Noodleguy, we're closer to getting over race than we are religious differences. As sad as it is, in polotics it's very important that you pray to the "right" god to get elected.

 

I would have to problem voting for an atheist either. But, you are right, atheists don't get much respect. My husband was very excited that Obama gave a "shout out" to the non-believers.

 

I'd say it's less a guilt by association thing a more a do we want a president who might be sympathetic to their cause and thus might not make decisions in our best interests thing. That's why I wouldn't vote for one at this time. If we were at war with crazed Hindu fanatics or something I wouldn't vote for a Hindu the same way. I know not all muslims are terrorists. Most of the ones I've met were very decent folk. But I still wouldn't put a muslim in a position of power when we're fighting a specific group of muslims. It would be like electing a Japanese-American to run the country in 1944. It's just something people don't want to do.

Religious bigotry isn't just for atheists and mormons and muslims though. I can't go anywhere public say I'm christian and not get a few looks of something negative. It's a two way street I say. The christians rant on the mormons and the atheists, and they rant on us in return and so on and so forth. I'm also pretty sure Bill O'Reilly did take some heat for the comment but well, it's Fox. I can't think of too many people who actually take them seriously anymore... Sort of like Jack Thompson and video games. He's still raving about how their the source of all evil but no one really pays much attention to the guy anymore. He can say all the craziness he wants but people have already made the determination he's off his rock and ignore him (I kind of feel sorry for him after all these years).

PS: I can't really think I'd have a problem with voting an atheist into office if I liked his platform over the other guys.

Humans always show a bit of intolerance towards people with different world views. My personal favorite is when some group goes off and says something that might as well read: "I'm intolerant of your intolerance." That always cracks me up . Intolerance is solved with patience and tolerance in return. Too bad most people don't seem to care *goes out for smoothies*

 

We discount overly much our biologic inheritance. Sameness in the wild equals comfort, equals not dangerous. Different, either by appearance or by behavior, is biologically suspect in us as much as in any other animal. Different has a higher probability of wanting to hurt you on the savanna than does same.

We, in my opinion, are doomed to repeat these cycles of racism, sexism, ageism, and cultural intolerance because we have made the most fundamental and basic mistakes in our self perception. We have decided that we are different from the other creatures which share our planet in kind, not in degree. It is a fundamentally flawed premise which makes nonsense out of all subsequent questions.

I don't think we will truly tackle these issues with any kind of efficacy until we accept their root cause, whence they come, in order to then ask the correct questions about how to resolve them.

But, hey, that's just me.

 

He actually got debarred in the state of florida recently, if I remember correctly. At this point I feel bad for the guy more than anything else.

And the reason we're fighting them is because of a series of presidents that knew nothing at all about the Middle East. Honestly, I would find myself more likely to elect a Muslim president, on the basis that maybe he has a better idea of what the heck is going on over there. Thn again, being Muslim isn't a qualification for foreign affairs anyway so it probably wouldn't affect my decision.

The Christians do get some flak, it's true. No offense but really the overwhelming majority of the criticism is towards atheists. The overwhelming amount of public criticism too. Prime example? Every single political figure except one I can think of, in the history of the US, has been atheist. The one I'm thinking of is a congressperson from California or something...I don't recall his name. He's the only atheist ever in high office though. Not to mention that on average Congresspeople and Senators are more religious than the average American. Meaning hat I would guess a lot of them are hiding their actual faith, and for good reason. People in the crowds were literally booing as soon as Obama said "and non-believers," and there was nothing but cheers when he mentioned the G-word. It really just boils down to numbers, there are more Christians and Christians are more powerful, so they get to pick on everyone else. If the minority was Christian probably they'd be the ones getting picked on. But overall the atheist community, I've found, is far more friendly and less hostile than the Christians towards people who disagree. Unfortunately, there is a small group of us that are basically huge jerks that give all atheists bad names.

You're right about how intolerance is solved. It's always tempting to be equally rude in return to bigots, but the best response is usually to turn the other cheeck. When someone goes off and gives me some rant about how I'm a Jew and a communist and unamerican and a nazi-lover, and hell, probably a Muslim too in addition to my atheism, (all at once. I'm not making this up either) I usually just ignore them. They expect equal hostility in return, so in general being friendly overfries their single brain cell and allows me to continue with my day to day life.

And as disreputed as Fox is, Bush is the fricking President of the United States. And if he said that about a Christian group, like Methodists or something, he'd be on a fast track to being impeached.

Now I want a smoothie.

 

You are making the exact mistake I was talking about right now. You're assuming that because the person is Jewish he will make decisions based on these things rather than be a good leader and do what is right for America and what America wants. A person being Jewish has NOTHING to do with how they support what the current decisions that the Isreali government is making. Like I said before, I would love there to be a Jewish state because we've essentially be wanderers ever since the Hebrews left Egypt, but I can't stand how the current Isreali goverment is chosing to do things.

Not to mention there are numerous people who are not Jewish or Muslim who have differing views on the subject. From listening to our previous PM, Paul Martin, talk about same-sex marriages, I could tell that he didn't like the idea because of his personal beliefs, but he accepted it anyway because he knew that his personal beliefs were irrelevant and it was what the people wanted. Can't a Jewish or a Muslim leader do the same thing?

 

He did get disbarred and I think he's disbarred in Illinois or Indiana too. What really made me feel sorry for the guy is that his family said they'd disowned him in the press. I can't think of a bigger kick to the gonads than that.

I think it was less not knowing and more general disinterest or poor management. The Middle East has been horribly mismanaged and dealt with by the western world for decades now.

That's the interesting thing. From my standpoint, I see it as the other way around. I think that we're just inclined to view our personal beliefs the more heavily criticized because we're more likely to remember being criticized than complimented or agreed with.

Did you mean to say "Every single political figure except one I can think of, in the history of the US, has been christian?" The wording is confusing here, but I think I see what you mean. Every US President has been of a Protestant denomination except for JFK, and he was a Catholic, making all US presidents Christian. I agree that I think a lot of them play Christian to get some support from a large voter base.

Don't forget though. When Obama invited an anti-gay preacher to participate in his inauguration there were lots of cries of outrage from the sam-sex community. One of the groups even pulled one of my favored "intolerant of intolerance" lines out into the mix. Even his use of the G-word got a lot of criticism in the press.

This is why I like separation of church and state more than other christians I've met. Whenever we get involved in politics we just get hammered XD.

I think this is about the same as what you said about atheists. The christians you'll hear and see the most of are the really hardcore from very outspoken churches. I don't think they represent the majority of christians either. Its just that they're the groups you see and hear the most from so they kind of spoil it for the rest of us. I've met maybe one or two really annoying christians and they were only annoying because every conversation had to be geared towards theology or they'd throw a tantrum. I like debating theology as much as the next guy but I don't want to all the time XD.

I agree. The atheists you often see in mass media are huge jerks but most of the one's I've met in real life are totally cool.

Yep. I'm a vindictive person too so it's hard not too XD.

I doubt he'd get impeached but he'd definitely take a whole lot of heat for it. Probably enough to roast a turkey on thanksgiving day. Sadly free speech means people can say as many hateful things as they want and there really isn't much we can do about it. It is not grounds for impeachment.

Mmmmmm. Smoothies *sips strawberry banana swirl*

They probably could. But if I've learned anything in life it's that the "goodness of man" is overrated. I don't trust people to do the right thing, so I get overly cautious when it comes to stuff like this. I don't have a personal problem with jews or muslims or any specific group really (except for scientology. Sad to say that group really knows how to push my buttons and I really can't stand it). I try to give people credit if they've earned it and just be indifferent with some politeness if they don't. It's just that I view it as a conflict of interest. Muslims make such a small minority in the US, that for us to be at war with even the smallest of radical groups and yet have everyone else be represented by a muslim seems a little silly to me. Call it unnecessary precaution (which it probably is. I'm like my mom. We get paranoid over little things like that). It's like Wrey said above I think.