GOP Debate- June 2011

June 13 Republican debate:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1106/13/se.02.html

One thing that caught my attention was how the subject of sharia law came up in a GOP debate. It's quite obvious they don't really know what sharia law even is. And that, I suppose, is what makes it such a great point to bring up to rally the base.

MCELVEEN: Thank you.

While we're on the topic of faith and religion, the next question goes to Mr. Cain. You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and you kind of back off that a little bit and said you would first want to know if they're committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, "a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country."

Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christian or Jews?

CAIN: First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn't appoint one. That's the exact transcript.

And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.

And so, when I said I wouldn't be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.

Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances -

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey -- there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.

KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.

What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have -- my term, not his -- a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn't ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.

CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?

KING: Please let's make it clear.

CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their -- you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization --

KING: When I asked -- I asked this question the other night, though, you said you want to ask a Muslim those questions but you didn't you have to ask them to a Christian or a Jew? CAIN: I would ask certain questions, John. And it's not a litmus test. It is simply trying to make sure that we have people committed to the Constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration.

Just after this portion, Romney chimes in with a very reasonable response. I guess there is at least one serious candidate, here. I wasn't at all sure.

He only looked stronger when Pawlenty refused to discuss his references to Obamneycare (the other interesting point of the debate) as it directly relates to the candidate. It was a prime opportunity and he missed it. Hmmm...I wonder if this is indicative of his style? This was handed to him on a silver platter; nothing in the election race or Presidency will be that easy... The image that came to mind was of a perfect baseball pitch where the batter hits the deck and covers his head with his arms instead of going for the home run...  :)

***

So what is sharia law anyway?  Well, you might start thinking about Muslims chopping off Westerners' heads. This is one of the things I think of (besides the actual definition, which is also far from chopping off limbs):

I read a book, I believe (not sure though, as I read a few around that time) it was Kai Bird's Crossing Mandelbaum Gate in which the author gives an example of sharia law being implemented:

A guy is in a car crash and causes the death of another man. In the West, he'd be in jail for manslaughter. It was described in the book that sharia actually caused less suffering and more healing in that the decision was to have the survivor take care of the man's parents and siblings because a big part of their income was lost with the other man's death. I don't know if the following was part of the official decision or it's just what happened, but the dead man's family ended up treating him like a son.

This could help explain (also has a definition of sorts):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-12-Sharia-law-in-the-USA_n.htm

 

***

One other GOP item of note:

Michele Bachmann just announced her candidacy. She was one of those I thought would be a Palin or Trump. Too sensational; not much substance. I have gotten a few of her emails. This was a FB post of mine:

Not sure why I'm getting emails from Michele Bachmann, but this is going to be a fun election season. Funniest parts: the words "money bomb" (as in donate to it), "betrayal of Israel" (??), and reference to diplomacy as "gallivanting". Socialism, Obamacare and prayer (as in this is a difference between conservatives and liberals, we good-you baaad) were also in there, but those made me yawn instead of giggle.

Welcome Republicans

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/3/incoming_gop_house_chairs_plan_to

I'm all for some of the changes like eliminating votes on national pi day and silly things like this that apparently make up a large chunk of Congressional business. I'm for eliminating some pork. I don't think you can get rid of it all since it might be used in bargaining and the Congressmen have to represent their constituents as well as do what's best for the nation.

What I don't get is the investigation of climate scientists. It is a waste of time. On one hand, even if climate change is bogus, there is an attitude of science vs religion in this country that the evolution debate should tell you what the result of this will be and hence how much time and money will be wasted trying to prove only that you are right.

Even if climate change is bogus, the Christians above all people should understand that we were given all of this by God and we are to be good stewards of everything whether it is nature or money! That would translate into supporting climate change legislation, limits on carbon emission and pollution, and encouraging people to reduce reuse an recycle. Yes, you'd be on the same side as liberals, but I think it's more important to be on the right side. Comfort yourself by realizing you may have different reasons for the position. Whether you want to save the planet or use and preserve what God gave you in a respectful and wise way, we should all be on the same page!

Those Bible quotes various Republicans like to quote in Congress miss the point! So lets say they are using the scriptures correctly and let's say hypothetically that Gen 8:21 proves climate change wrong (I don't really think that). Should we then go on to waste resources, use more oil, scrap electric and hybrid cars, windmill projects, hydroelectric power, nuclear power, solar technology, stop recycling, stop reusing because buying new will help the economy, and all of these things just because they won't cause the earth to be destroyed before Jesus comes back and the final judgment occurs (after which the earth will in fact be burned up- but let's leave 2 Peter 3:10 out of it- bet they won't quote that one on the floor!) ? Anyway, NO! And even if the Bible didn't have a lot to say about wisdom and being a good steward, one would think you'd be so grateful (Christians especially) for what God gave you that you'd want to take care of it rather than waste, pollute and destroy. One would think.


On another item, there is talk of impeachment if Obama makes it to a second term. And I thought we were looking to cut waste? Impeach Obama? Really? This is as stupid as the Congressmen who have made it known they will oppose Obama and want him to fail from the beginning. They are probably the same people. Bush actually did a ton of things that would have made a really good case, so if that didn't happen, Obama has no worries.


Republicans also plan to investigate Muslim "radicalization". I wonder what's in store for Muslims, Arabs, people with Arab names and of Arab heritage, and people who generally look Arab, like Pacific Islanders and Indians? I feel like we're going to be turning back the clock on understanding. Will the net be wide again? Will the junk paranoid racist email start flying? I hope it isn't so, like the feeling in the back of my mind after 9/11 that said internment happened once, it could happen again. Maybe Republicans will be able to reign in their own radicals so that freedom and civil liberties will be preserved.

Prayers for Obama

I have a bit of a rant today, I guess. It's a politics and religion one, so it may rub some people the wrong way. I've been noticing this inconsistency since, oh... around January 20.

James's thoughts on what exactly is pro-life could have inspired this, but since I find myself in the minority among another minority here, I suppose it is always on my mind.

Let me just say first that I am all for praying for the President, the country, the world, etc. Thank God for our freedoms every day. These are all good things and I am all for it. There just seems to be some differences in how this is applied while Democrats vs Republicans are in office and I think that shouldn't be the case. The other problem is when some folks say we should pray for the President, you can read from context and tone of voice that what they mean is- pray that that heathen Democrat you people elected to kill babies and glorify homosexuality doesn't do too much damage before we get another righteous Republican in office. Ok, that's a bit extreme, but you know what I'm saying. We've all heard it. No party has a monopoly on Godliness; all are made up of individuals who will fail from time to time and both parties deal with corruption and the like. Not one of our Presidents was sent from God... any more than any other world leader, that is. And if that is scripturally false, someone please correct me.

These groups were formed on Facebook (some just after the election, it seems):


Millions of Christ Followers Praying for the United States

Stop the Silencing of God-
This country was founded on Christian values
Separation of church and state means the government doesn't restrict my rights as a Christian
If we don't get God back in our country we will collapse


I keep hearing very frequently now about how we need to pray for the President, they're taking God out of schools, things aren't as good as they used to be, pray for the direction of our nation, etc. People seem to be giving the impression that now that Obama's president, the burden of sin is pressing so hard, it will soon envelop and suffocate us all. There wasn't nearly the urgency and frequency of calls to pray for our nation and President. When GWB was President, I occasionally would hear a reminder to pray for our leader and the troops, but other than that, it seemed people thought he didn't need prayers or he was from God so people didn't feel they had to pray the nation back on track (???).

And people, you really need to stop and think what the implication of more church in the state ("going back to our religious roots") means in this country before you ask God for it continually. Do we really want to go back to a time when one denomination ruled and if you weren't a part of that, then you couldn't hold public office or other things and probably would get thrown in prison for preaching anything else?? Or would we like such laws as:

"Settlers who failed to observe the Sabbath lost provisions for a week (first offense), received a whipping (second offense), or were executed (third offense). "

(From Steven Waldman's book, Founding Faith)

You have to remember that putting church in the state will also put state in the church.

I think rather than pushing for public communal prayers in schools, events, etc, we should embrace our freedom of speech and assembly. Perhaps we should think of it another way. If God isn't mentioned much anymore, maybe it's our fault. Maybe we don't use our freedoms to the extent we could. Do we really need the state to "bring God back" ?

Another thing I don't get is that many a Republican will say how they are against government hand outs in monetary form and yet they are up in arms that government isn't handing out religion. They want all these obstacles in the way of government aid to individuals, they are against welfare, and government programs to help the poor which I would think Christians would be in favor of. To be fair, they do often say that the individual Christian should be giving to the church and community instead of the government (which doesn't distribute wisely, etc?). I can understand that to some extent. But, that being said, why criticize Democrats for "taking God out of schools" and public life? In the same vein, shouldn't the individual rather than government be the one to put God in various places (free speech)? If you think the government can't distribute the money to the poor properly, what is it going to do to the Bible and God???

Just seems kind of odd to be ok with the individual tending to the poor (rather than the government) but to turn around and call the other party Godless for applying the same principle to religion.

It also seems that if you value your freedom of religion (freedom to practice as you see fit) that you'd want the church and state separate... maybe that's just me.

And after 4 sessions, I think that's all I've got for now...

Election

I have been holding onto this post, so I'll just go ahead and post it. I guess it kinda defeats the purpose of a blog, huh?

Well, this post comes from a discussion at work about why people support one candidate versus another- I thought I should justify to myself my choice for Obama. Is he just more charismatic or do I like his policies? Another issue that plagues every election is Roe v. Wade. Should I vote on this issue alone? Some hard core Republicans I know and love would say yes. While I do think it is a life and death issue as well as a moral issue, there are other moral issues. Actually, a lot of Democrats I know are voting solely to uphold this court decision as well (the next president will have to appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices most likely). They see it as too much church in the state.

The only quotes about what all the fuss is about with Jeremiah Wright is something about the US policies being partially responsible for 9/11 (which I agree with) and the US lying about HIV not being invented for genocide of black people (kind of crazy IMO). Maybe the fuss is about Obama’s reaction. I think a general distancing was bad, especially if he agrees with some of Wright’s ideas, as do I. He should have come forward to tell which things that were said that he does and doesn’t agree with to clarify, rather than clarifying that he renounces the statements, but not the man. I think and even hope that was the wrong distinction, but would be disappointed to find that he didn’t stand up for hard, yet truthful, statements. Overall, this "issue" is silly. As Bill Moyers has said, how would you like your long career of speaking to be summed up in 16-20 seconds of soundbytes from your work? Maybe we aren't getting the whole picture...

Clinton, on the other hand, is talking about attacking Iran if Israel is threatened. That should be more worrisome to people (especially people who opposed our action in Iraq at any point) that the Obama-Wright “controversy”. We should be worried that Hilary is showing the same tendencies as Bush, though she will not admit it. I do hope this won’t turn into a fight about who loves Israel more, though. Reading Congressional transcripts about the Middle East peace issue, even when criticizing Israel, the session turns into an Israel love fest or contest, with each comment being preceded by how much they love Israel or what their state does for Israel/Israelis.

Another silly thing Obama is being criticized for is not wearing a flag pin. I read some articles about that while I was Googling for something else. I heard a snippet on the radio last week about what I think was this very “issue”. They lady said something like “Why can’t he just say he loves the flag?”. She quoted him as saying he revered it, which I think is more descriptive and correct to say. Why is this even an issue. He’s had to refute the false accusations that he doesn’t say the Pledge and other assorted things as well as the fact that he’s Christian rather than Muslim. I think there was a recent Jerusalem Post article proving (or trying to prove) that he is Muslim. Silly. If the man says he’s Christian, he’s Christian. If he was Muslim, why not say it? What would that matter? It wouldn’t to me, but I guess there are those ignorant folks who say all Muslims and Arabs are terrorists (such as those at JPost…)… The facts on the ground just don’t support him being Muslim or lying about being Christian. Sorry, JPost. They’ll have to find a new way to slander the guy who’d rather use diplomacy first and who doesn’t want to automatically bomb Iran and Israel’s neighbors into oblivion if he becomes President.

I like that Obama has lived in another country and has exposure to Islam. I think this will help with diplomacy and foreign policy decisions in the region that has become a focal point for us. I think the fact that he is a minority could have given him different experiences from the typical white male we’ve always had and will influence him in a positive way, even in a position of power. On the cynical side, he is male and wealthy, though, so that similarity with his predecessors could cancel out the good, there.

Freedom to Unionize, protect striking workers, raise minimum wage, open internet

I like the (somewhat unavoidable) emphasis on mortgage fraud crackdowns. I guess he has to address it. I’m not sure he’s got a good plan, though. The fund for “innocent” homeowners could become abused. I’m not sure how many are innocent. Many, many people live beyond their means on credit cards and fall to peer pressure to get more, buy big, etc. People I know tell about their friends/acquaintances who put rims on their SUV’s and buy/rent flat screen TV’s or the latest gadget, yet have trouble making the rent or mortgage. These people aren’t innocent. They are living beyond their means. It is a problem in our culture for sure, but individuals have to take responsibility and sell some stuff or do something before everything gets repo’d and they are left with nothing to show. There are tons of things I’d like to have, sure, but you have to be realistic. You have to be content with what you have. If you buy it, your income won’t magically increase to cover it. And if it goes on a credit card, on the contrary, you will have less money to work with because of those insane and often “sneaky” interest rates. And then there are those sketchy check cashing and rental places that have unbelievably high interest. These places should get some attention, but the individual should take responsibility for these decisions. I don’t know that it’s the government’s place to bail people like this out and I don’t know how to distinguish between the “innocent” and who shouldn’t be helped.

I like the fact that he wants to expand FMLA, but I think he needs to go further. Other countries have up to a year of paid leave and more weeks per year of paid vacation time as the standard. We generally get 2 weeks per year starting out, and other places get 3 or 4. Happy, rested employees make for a more productive work force. Talk about reducing the work day or week and that will be the day change is accomplished.

Some crackdown on lobbyists, but not enough to free us of AIPAC control (foreign interests ahead of ours)

More transparency.

On the hot button issues of abortion and gay marriage, which will no doubt come into play when one of them is battling McCain, I’m more conservative. I am pro-life for sure and would even say I’d like to see abortion banned. I do have reservations about a total ban when the life of the baby and mother are endangered (ectopic pregnancy). I believe homosexuality is wrong, but unlike conservatives, I don’t think the government should be involved since it is not a matter of life and death. I have heard the abortion ban being called too much church in the state, but that’s a life/death issue- one that civil societies need to legislate, much like murder or theft. Life begins at conception and I just don’t see how you can argue differently. I mean, is it suddenly life in the 2nd trimester, the 3rd, at birth, when it gets fingernails, when it first cries or takes the first breath? If it is called alive at any point other than conception, then why is infanticide wrong? Not a bit of difference really, except culturally (Americans accept aborting a fetus if it is inconvenient for the mother). Gay marriage (giving the “right” or prohibiting it) legislation is more like no separation of church and state. I don’t know that I’m against civil unions. I need to think about that more.

Since I have delayed this post so long that my state's primary has come and gone this week, I will comment on that, too. Looks like Obama is gaining ground. Can't say I hate it, given the options. Of course, I would much prefer to do away with the electoral college and these party conventions and free it up for more than 2 parties to truly, viably be involved. I'd like more of a democracy, I guess. Call me crazy.

Also, Clinton said she broke the tie with Indiana?! She's taking a page out of Bush's playbook, here. Say what you wish happened, not what actually is happening. It's over, Hillary. Give it up. You're a drain on your party, now.

The illusion of choice in US elections

While I'm not ready to go that far...this is a really good article. The destruction of the US? I don't think so. Still, it lays out some basic truths and wrongs in the system.

I agree that the results and candidates that emerge are pretty predictable. I personally would like to see more choices. Two parties aren't enough. The two democratic candidates are too polished, too superstar for lack of a better way to describe it. They are clearly pandering to special interests even if they don't take money from all or many of them. They have to do it to get elected.

The illusion of choice in US elections: Does it herald the dissolution of these United States of America?
Mazin Qumsiyeh
http://www.qumsiyeh.org/illusionofchoice/