Perpetuating Lies

Lots of that going on these days.

The one that irritates my political bones the most is the, "Obama is a Muslim.". The convoluted logic that backs up this assertion is ridiculous. Blogs like this one proliferate the myth as well. I won't bother refuting many of the points in that one. A serious, objective reader with even the smallest ability to reason will see the lack of basis there is in the 'proof'.

Obama has repeatedly said that he is a Christian. In an interview with Christianity Today Obama said, "I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. " One would be hard pressed to get a clearer declaration of salvation than that.

Now on to Franklin Graham's comments about Obama's faith. Graham clearly says the Obama professed to be a Christian and that we must take Obama's word on that (which we really must do with anyone professing Christianity because we cannot see into another man's heart). So that part is cool.

The part that bugs me is the, "Obama was born a Muslim." No. Obama was born to a father who was a Muslim, and not even a practicing Muslim. Graham asserts that one can be 'born a Jew or born a Muslim' but not a Christian. Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity. Obama's father was from Kenya (Brief Kenyan history). If, Islam is to be considered an ethnicity it would be Arabs that fit the bill since Muhammad claimed to be descended from Abraham and Ishmael. There is a difference also in being born an Hebrew and being born into a Jewish family. The same principle applies to Obama. His father was a Muslim, but his father was not an Ishmaelite. See the difference? I hope so.

I beg of all the Republicans out there that don't like Obama that you quit using the argument that Obama is a Muslim as a campaign issue and wedge to further divide America. According to our Constitution there is no religious test for those who would hold public office in this country. Constitutionally Obama's faith is completely irrelevant. Get over it and quit chasing red herrings and beating straw men to death. Can't you see that this is a distraction? There are so many issues that need our attention and propagating this falsehood does nothing but divide and distract.

The FED has devalued our money, we are waging unconstitutional wars that are draining our treasury and robbing from our children, our liberties are being trampled upon by the government behemoth, we have politicians that are owned by big business and big pharma, we are being taxed out of our livelihood all while the politicians and pundits distract us with non-issues. Concentrate. Focus. And fight for true liberty before it is gone forever.

U.S. Funding Foreign Mosques (or "I Knew Obama Was A Muslim!!")

This article being bandied about by every conservative blogger and news outlet is getting very tiresome. And, unfortunately, it seems to be gaining steam. The senseless proliferation of the overstated implications of the funding of mosques is astounding to me. So, to bring some balance to the discussion...

First, the AFCP (Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation) was founded in 2001 under our glorious, godly President George W. Bush. And under Bush there was a lot of money donated to restore/preserve mosques and Islamic texts. Below is a link to the AFCP so that you can verify what will follow.

Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation

2001~ $14,942 for the preservation of Islamic texts; $14,500 to restore a mosque. For a total of: $29,442. Total AFCP payout for the year $2,858,662.

2002/2003~ $25,345 for mosque renovations; $24,475 repair for a Muslim mausoleum; $24,945 for restoration of a mosque/madrassa; $14,446 for mosque preservation. For a total of: $89,211. Total AFCP payout for the year $3,454,710.

2003/2004~$16,650 to preserve Islamic manuscripts; $33,310 to preserve a mosque. For a total of $49,960. Total AFCP payout for the year $2,344,815.

2004/2005~ $23,375 for exhibition of Islamic manuscripts; $9,345 to document Islamic heritage; $31,931 to restore a mosque; $16,100 to preserve Islamic culture; $31,015 for restoration of a mosque. For a total of $111766. Total AFCP payout for the year $3,261,251.

2005/2006~ $25,000 for preservation of Islamic texts; $24,000 to restore a mosque; $24,125 to restore a mosque; $24,700 to restore yet another mosque; $22,500 for a survey of Islamic architecture. For a total of $120,325. Total AFCP payout for the year $4,464,113.

2006/2007~ $25,589 to restore mosques; $60,600 to restore a mosque; $106,110 to restore a mosque; $37,676 to restore a madrassa. For a total of $229,975. Total AFCP payout for the year $5,026,328.

There was no information for 2007/2008 or 2008/2009.

Please bear in mind that these projects for mosques and Islamic texts and cultural preservation are only a small fraction of the overall money being spent.

Now I will agree that the government should not have been spending this money when we are having to borrow money from China, but to use this as an argument against Obama or to prove that Obama has Muslim sympathies is ridiculous; unless one is willing to admit that Bush also was a Muslim/Muslim sympathizer.

To my patriotic friends I say, Do not become sidetracked with this non-issue! That is exactly the kind of thing the government is hoping for so that we won't be watching what is really going on.

The Cordoba Initiative

The Cordoba Initiative got the go ahead to build the community center and mosque a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. And, not surprisingly, the Right is in uproar. The amount of vitriol coming from opponents of the mosque is really disturbing. I saw a comment on an article where the author called for all mosques to be blown up. Hateful people.

One of the arguments I hear most often is about the name of the mosque, Cordoba House. Cordoba was built, as the critics of the mosque say, as a sign of the triumph of the Muslims and that the use of that name means that the Muslims in NYC that are building this mosque are doing it as a celebration of the Islamic victory on 9/11. Maybe so, and?
History of Cordoba

I found this tidbit interesting. Quote from this article, "Ironically, Islam's roots in New York City are in the area around the site of the World Trade Center, and they predate the Twin Towers: in the late 19th century, a portion of lower Manhattan was known as Little Syria and was inhabited by Arab immigrants — Muslims and Christians — from the Ottoman Empire"

I like this video, the guy is a little annoying but makes a good point.



Jon Stewart had a great segment about this called "Municipal Land-Use Hearing Update". If you want to watch it you'll have to go look it up. He says one bad word that wasn't bleeped so I won't post it here.

If this were just about a mosque at Ground Zero I might sympathize. But there have been several instances when residents of cities all over the country have protested mosques being built, even before 9/11. And usually those protesting say they are christians and patriotic americans. Nevermind that the freedom of religion is in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

I had a lot more to say, but can't at the moment. Kids need tending to.

Elena Kagan and Prop 8

I must admit that I have not followed the confirmation proceedings for the newest Supreme Court Justice well. If I had wanted to be informed I am quite certain that I would not go to One News Now or any other Right-wing source for my information. This article illustrates my concern well. The 'experts' say that Kagan will be a solid vote for "homosexual 'marriage'" without bothering to give any real reason for that opinion. I have a feeling that what they mean is that she will not cast a vote to infringe upon the liberties of a segment of the population that the Christian Right disagrees with.

The whole Christian Right is in uproar over the CA judge that overturned the Prop 8 amendment. So was Judge Vaughn Walker correct? I am inclined to think that he was. And if the case does make it to the Supreme Court I hope that they will uphold his decision.

I read some of the text of the judgement, it is long, over 130 pages, so I didn't read every word. I am going to touch on some of the things I did read.

First for the conclusion drawn by Judge Walker.

"Conclusion
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

The portion of the US Constitution he refers to is the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If the law of CA recognizes marriage for heterosexuals it must also grant the same priviledge to homosexuals. The belief that homosexuality is sinful is a religious one. I agree with those on the right that homosexuality is wrong, but I don't want the government making moral judgements.

Part of the text in the judgement is:

"A state's interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose."

That is true.

The notion that homosexual marriage will degrade or in any other way affect heterosexual marriage is ridiculous. How can it affect my marriage? Homosexuals marrying will not change the commitment my husband and I have made. Homosexuals being allowed to have a marriage license and all of the rights, responsibilites, and privileges that go with it, "will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages".

There was one part of the argument against Prop 8 that I disagree with. "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful harm gays and lesbians." How is that? I've never harmed anyone who is homosexual. How can my belief that they are wrong for their sexual proclivity harm them unless they allow it to affect them? I know people who believe that somethings I do are 'sinful'. It does not harm me for them to hold that view.

So, to end. If Kagan would vote that a 'ban' on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional I believe that would be a good thing. If that is the only argument the Right has against her, it isn't much.