Apparently now you can toss freedom of religion under the bus while wearing a cloak of patriotism. The Republican Party has sunk to its lowest common denominator.
Filed under The Public Square
Tagged as blogging, common man, communicate, discuss, free thinking, Populists, Progressives
We already learned this lesson —
I saw this on Kansas Free Press this morning and thought it might be of particular interest to folks in the Wichita area. Please pass this along to those that you think would be interested. It seems as though a political candidate running for Kansas House of Representatives has received a death threat.
As time is passing and the full statements made by the Imam comes out I am finding a more in dept understanding of the cause and effect.
How is it that one side is seeing this guy as a hero in the battle for an understanding between the Islamic world and the rest of the world. While the other side is seeing him as a terrorist supporter?
A good deal of it is the mindset of “us against them” you either are totally with me and if not you are with them. The Imam is said to have refused to condemn Hammas as a terrorist organization.
That came from when the interviewer tried to push him into either saying that Hammas was or was not a terrorist organization.
His answer was that he is a bridge builder between two different people not to point to one or the other as the “bad guys”. He has to remain a bridge builder in order to do that and not place blame.
It should not be a surprise it is the Conservatives that see this as supporting the terrorists.
We often see the same thought when it comes to the Moderates within the Republican party.
You either totally damn the other side or you are not with us!
You have a hard and set response to the issue or you are with the other side.
Anyone who looks into the factors involved and the reasons for the issues is seen as a traitor to the cause.
In the case of the refusal, he took a stance of being non committal as to defining the bad guy so he could have the ability to have the credentials of being the bridge between the Islamic world and the rest of the world.
Stating that in a sense the United States own action contributed to the atmosphere where it was allowed for the growth and development of Al-Qaeda and the raise of Bin Laden was simply admitting that un-wittingly
the United States through its policies was assisting the extremists in their cause.
The same thing that the CIA said about “Blow-back” and much like it is said that by leaving the door unlock you are aiding the burglar. Of course your intent was not to help the burglar break into your house.
But the fact is by your actions you help the criminal commit his crime.
It does not mean you meant to help them with committing their crime nor is it an excuse for them to have violated your home. They have no right to do it, or justification for having done it. simply by your actions.
But that is being used to say he blamed the United States.
I realize that my situation is more the average, for the most part it is the mother who comes to live with their children rather then the father.
But I wonder if there is the same dynamics when it comes to the daughter’s father come to live with the husband and wife?
The same sex spouse and the parent become to be at odds with each other.
To the point is seem silly or unreasonable putting the other spouse in the middle.
where you end up being expected to side with one or the other and support their opinion over either the spouse or parent.
I don’t know how anyone can accept everything either party is selling. In fact, I don’t think the majority do. It’s the extremes we hear from and who are the loudest, the rest of us are questioning, watching…
Even when we hope we’re choosing the least of the bad, we don’t know enough. We can only go on the information available. Sometimes we depend on what they allow us to see and hear and that consists of untruths they presented because they didn’t want us to know the truth.
Here is the end-result of the corporatization of Christianity for money and political motives–Sowing hate. Yeah, I think Jesus would be down with that, don’t you??
Ironic statement of the day:
But in a statement sent to CNN by the Dove World Outreach Center, Right Wing Extreme founder Shannon Carson said: “…Islam is a violent cult with the goal of world domination.”
See, History of Christianity, esp. Catholicism
Wait! There’s more:
Separately, Jones has proposed a meeting with Abdul Rauf, the imam at the center of the controversial proposal to build a mosque and Islamic center near New York’s ground zero.
The meeting would be meant to negotiate a “peaceful resolution,” said a statement from Dove World Outreach Center on Tuesday.
Yes, we’re going to make a big bonfire and ritual out of burning your sacred book, and then we would like to get together and see if we can negotiate a peaceful settlement to the war of words and actions that we started. No irony there.
Yep; and, since the Reformation, all others, recalling the domination of the Church in all things during the Middle Ages, have been trying to figure out how to accomplish world domination (with their peculiar version of the religion, of course).
A personal opinion note: there can be no “freedom of religion” without “freedom from religion”.
The mosque/community center controversy is another illustration of this, at least in part.
But I still don’t think this mosque controvery is about the sensitivity of 9/11 victims.
This is a Republican-generated hate fest for everything Obama and Democrats.
This is just yet another shiny object Republicans have manufactured for Americans to get on the bandwagon and become a mob mentality – and all in the name of so-called patriotism.
I heard yesterday that this proposed mosque has been in the planning stage for a long time and the board is comprised of not just Muslims but other religious clerics and community leaders.
So where was the outrage during the planning stage?
Don’t you find it just a bit curious that NOW we are hearing how terrible and awful this mosque is and how insensitive Muslims are?
Unfortunately, we have the Religious Right leaders (Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham) giving their 2 cents worth and they are only stoking the hatred even more with their ridiculous statements.
I also suspect that this is just another plank in the Republicans’ campaign strategy to get Americans whipped up into a frenzy to go to war with Iran and North Korea – to finish what George W. Bush started – the Holy War of the Axis of Evil.
I have said this before – when Republicans regain power and they do take us into their desired Holy War – who is going to pay for it?
Don’t fret; the “Holy War” will be the answer to all our troubles, be they international, economic, or generic. /sarcasm
Not to worry, indy. It isn’t deficit-spending if you are spending money you don’t have on a war.
See; Reagan Administration, GHW Bush Administration; GW Bush Administration
An opinion with which I deeply disagree. The dissent has the better of it, to me. 9th Circuit; that surprises me a bit.
It’s the wave of the future. I hereby declare myself a religious entity with religious purposes. I hereby hold myself out as a religious entity. Now I can dodge all kinds of laws and make up my own as I go along!!
According to the Bible, God is anywhere where there are two more believers. Since my husband and I are both believers, does this mean I get create my own church and become tax free?
Hey – sweet deal!
We can always do charity work but pay ourselves handsomely – isn’t that the way the big guys do it?
“We can always do charity work but pay ourselves handsomely – isn’t that the way the big guys do it?”
You betcha! And you only have to give a portion of your earnings to your stated mission. I think it is as little as 10% of gross earnings. The rest can go to administrative costs and salaries. And you can write off pretty much everything you use, including a good portion of your home if you work from there. Frankly, if we all kept better track of our giving, we would probably find that we already closely fit the guideline of 10%.
I have had time to read the decision, and it seems to me that the majority decision was the more correct.
It seems the only questionis whether or not World Vision was exempt as a religious organization. The majority made a strong case that it was , it would seem to me. The dissenting opinion, less so. Also, the ‘effects” of the decision
discussion by the dissent, seem to me to be without standing.
As I see it, the only question, which I understand that the dissenting opinion disagreed with, was whether or not World Vision qualified.
Did I miss something?
I think I was imparting a bit of my own thinking on the decision. World Vision seems to me to be a two-headed organization; part religious, part secular fund raiser. The “public” side of WV is raising money for (apparently) secular aims. There is little mention of the religious connection in the fund raising materials which I have seen.
Given that, I struggle a bit to fit World Vision within the exemption.
BTW, I hope this does not come to pass, but the effects (potential, to be sure) of the decision, should it stand, will be, again imho, at least that envisioned by the dissent.
Disclosure: I personally do not believe that there should be an exemption under said act for religious organizations which employ folks for purely secular functions.
I apologize, all, for hitting the submit comment button too soon.
Something the dissent argues, with which I agree, is the (I would call it) cavalier way the majority disregards the Ninth Circuit precedent. Under that precedent, I am of the opinion the case may well have been decided differently, as the majority went looking for other precedent and found the Third Circuit case the first Judge especially relied upon heavily.
Be that as it may, there will likely be an appeal either to SCOTUS directly, or in the form of a petition for a hearing en banc, which loosely translated, means before the entire circuit, not a 3 judge panel.
I will wait until I can read the whole thing to throw my two cents in, but …
Is this another questionable decision from the ninth?
By the article, it seems like a poor decision
Unfortunately, It doesn’t link to the actual cite.
Great article, itolduso. THAT is really scary.
But, did you see the part at the end of the article where the writer states that liberals and conservatives are of like mind on this issue?
Another area that we can work to bridge the gap that divides the nation?
Indeed, there are many, if we would just quit the namecalling, the assumptions because we are _____, that we are of a particular belief about a particular issue, and that ____ is always to blame for the problem at hand.
Based upon the article, and who dissented, it is an extremely poor and dangerous decision. I’ll need to find the cite, and read it, but facially, very bad law.
“There is little mention of the religious connection in the fund raising materials which I have seen.
Given that, I struggle a bit to fit World Vision within the exemption”
So, you would discount the majority’s opinion that taking such notion into account would not be in compliance with the Larson decision?
I am out of here soon, but will look forward to reading your answer. Thanks for your insight
Given Larson was not Ninth Circuit precedent, as I recall, that reliance was unfounded in my opinion.
Larson was a scotus decision
Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982)
LeBoon was the third circuit decision of which they partially used, although I don’t necessarily see the conflict between the decision made in this case, and, at least their explanations of the usage of 9th circuit precedents Townley or Kamehameha.
However, I must admit that I have not read the listed case cites.
As an admission to bias, however, I am generally in favor of Free Association, without governmental interference, which includes hiring practices, within the boundaries of established law. Seems like this case fits.
But, I am not an attorney, so my opinion is only worth what was paid for it. HA!
Oops; that will teach me to rely on memory without rechecking.
My problem remains the following: the use of the Third Circuit case when (it appears to me) there were two prior decisions of the Ninth Circuit which were controlling. They may well not have liked the precedent, but it was there.
Free Association; not going to disagree so long as one is speaking of truly private relationships, political parties, personal religious beliefs and practices. When the subject turns to public affairs, such as employment, then except for being a minister, pastor, rabbi, clergyman of any kind, the personal religious beliefs of any person otherwise qualified to perform the position which is purely secular in nature should not be considered as a reason to hire or a reason to terminate. Just how I am.
My opinion is that it should be allowed as a right, however, it should be used sparingly, and only when necessary. Excercising the rights one has also carries responsibilities For instance, pedestrians may have the right of way in a crosswalk, but if a 2 ton humvee is going to occupy the same space at the same time, it’s not going to help you to have the right of way. You may have been right, but you would be dead.
However, Berzon did not seem to rely on this, but whether or not World Vision was a religious organizationl I think he was wrong on that. He did make reference, if I remember correctly that World Vision might have made us of some sort of “necessary exemption ” claim.
I dunno. I think World Vision overstepped where it shouldn’t. However, it seems to me it was within it’s rights to do so.
Anyway, have a great day. Thanks for the discussion
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Sign me up!