One Question You Need To Ask

For months now we've heard all kinds of guilt by association attacks on Obama. Now the old ones are back along with some new ones from .

Rather than , I'm going to ask a simple question of anyone who is concerned about Obama's associations (real or imagined):

Can you name ONE policy position or proposal from Obama that is or has been in any way negatively influenced by people like Reverend Wright or William Ayers?

Go ahead, we're waiting. For example, please explain how a specific sermon from Jeremiah Wright influenced Obama's energy policy, or how William Ayers effected Obama's proposed tax plan (|a plan that will allow the 90% of Americans who make less than 112k per year individually to pay LESS taxes]).

You'll be lucky to get , but it's more likely that

I encourage everyone to present this question (through email, in person or by using a couple of tin cans with a string if you have to) to any and all detractors of Obama who insist on using guilt by association attacks, and better yet, to anyone who might be swayed by them (i.e. low-info voters who can and will be moved if you try).

PS---I think it's time we start asking how John McCain's policies and stances are . Maybe that explains why he wants to cut taxes for the richest Americans, even though .

"just wait until he's President."

1. Yes, I realize that this question won't magically turn die-heard Obama haters into Obama lovers (or likers). But in some cases it just might get them to quiet down on some of the guilt by association attacks. Granted, they'll just go with some other form of attack, but the guilt by association has been sadly effective.

2. I can say from personal experience that there are A LOT of low-info voters out there who respond to this line of thinking. I convinced someone myself a few weeks ago! A friend of my girlfriend, she had been getting Obama smear emails and was seriously scared about Obama becoming president.

Now? Now she's 100% voting for Obama. Someone at TYT (who I don't know BTW) just posted today about how she used a few simple facts to convince her father that McCain was the wrong person for the job and that he has to vote for Obama.

I understand the pessimism but we've gotta try, if not with the wingnuts with those easily swayed low-info voters.

You're absolutely right, we gotta try.

The pessimism is borne out frustration and a feeling of helplessness.

:toast:

I can be incredibly pessimistic and frustrated at times, believe me.

But like Thom Hartmann says, despair is not an option.

something that's not part of the reflexive anti-Obama mindset. These people don't like him mostly because he scares them - he's part black, you know - but they have to dress up their racism in clothes that look like Jeremiah Wright, being a Muslim, "I don't know what his agenda is," and raising taxes on the rich to give to the poor.

These people are, in the words of John Dean, "immunized from reality," so there's absolutely nothing you can say to them that would ever get through to them. They're incapable of thinking on their own.

That's how Fuckface keeps coming up with that magnificent 23% approval rating. They are the 23%.

:applause:

K & R!!!

is the "Obama is a Muslim so you have to be afraid" garbage. My comment is why? How many Muslims were assumed to be responsible for 9/11? How many Muslims live in this country, contributing positively to our society? I like to give specific examples, such as the heart surgeon who saved my stepfather's life.

for sake of argument, let's say he is.

Ask these people to explain what that means. Would Obama hand the country over to Pakistan? Would he make Islam the national religion? That's an insane and absurd idea.

Nobody other than DIE-HARD CRAZY right wingers would ever believe that (I've pressed low info voters on this and they always buckle and at worst get quiet because they have nothing to say).

Force them to follow their (il)logic to its (il)logical conclusion. Make them explain exactly which policies and proposals are effected by Obama's background. If nothing else this will back them into a corner and they might have to admit they really don't know anything about Obama's policies and positions, especially if you press them for details.

I would say most who are prejudiced against Obama don't have any clue as to his positions or his background. It is just easier for them to believe the lies and to continue living in their own little world of prejudice and hate, especially right wing so-called "Christians". They are the ones who wish to establish a Christian theocracy here in the US, so of course they believe that the "Muslim" Obama would wish to establish an Islamic state here.

Someone who was Muslim in the sense that John Kerry is Catholic - self-identifying, but not actually following the more wicked or irrational parts of the teachings -could make an excellent president; but no-one who actually believed what Mohammed said in the Qu'ran could be.

that you are prejudiced against Islam--but I have to ask you which of these teachings you feel one should not believe in:

Be kind and fair to orphans
Give to those less fortunate
Be fair to women, and do not lead them on so as to get their money
Support your children even if you are divorced
Forgive your enemies
Live modestly and without pretense
Be fair with your employees
Treat others as your brothers and sisters


Just out of curiosity, how many Muslims do you know?

As I've said, I would have no problem voting for someone who called themselves a Muslim, and tried to follow the good bits of the Quran and ignore or deliberately misinterpret the rest, as you appear to be doing.

There are many elements of the Qu'ran I don't disagree with; I would have no problem with voting for someone who followed the list of elements you quote (although "be fair to women" is a direct contradiction of Mohammed's teachings; "be unfair to women and treat them as inherently inferior on account of their gender" is what he actually taught).

But genuine, actually-trying-to-follow-the-whole-Quran,-not-just-the-sane-bits Islam would make someone a catastrophically awful president.

I don't know anyone I know to be a Muslim personally, not that that's in any way relevant - I don't know any members of the American Republican party personally either. What is relevant to my judgement of Islamic teachings and thought is the amount of Islamic teaching/thought I have read/heard, which, while not vast, is more than sufficient.

If by "prejudiced against Islam", you mean "believe that many of the factual teachings of Islam are mistaken, and many of the moral teachings of Islam are wicked", then yes, I am. If you mean "believe that, without sufficient evidence, or on unfair grounds", then no, I'm not.

--after all, words like "wicked" are words used in judgement. And I respectfully question your knowledge of the faith. Mohammed, for example, didn't "write" the Qur'an, as he was illiterate. He didn't have a lot of followers at first, and he was abused both verbally and physically by the pagan Arabs of Mecca. I find it interesting that you don't know any Muslims personally, but feel that what you have read/heard "is sufficient"--again a judgement call.
I am also very amazed that you have never met a member of the Republican Party--do you live in a country other than the US? If not, I wonder what part of the US in which you reside. I have lived amongst Republicans all my life, and have personally known Muslims since I was six, and I've lived in "flyover country" all my life, not on one of the coasts.

I find it very important to meet members of a group before I fully form an opinion about that group. Reading about/hearing about dogma or teachings is not the same as meeting a person who follows them.

The difference is in the judgment - you evidently wouldn't have a problem with electing a president who wanted to give a man's word twice as much weight as a woman's in a court of law, have adulterers flogged, ban homosexuality and so forth; I would. Both of those are judgements; I think mine is the sounder.

I live in the UK, so we don't get Republicans here; I said "I don't know anyone I know to be Muslim", not "I don't know any Muslims", although to be fair there's only one guy I know who I'm not confident isn't, and I think it more likely than not he isn't either.

Why do you think details of Mohammed's personal life are relevant?

when you said Mohammed wrote the Qur'an; this was impossible as he could not write.

When a person says they know of Islam and make the statement you made a person may wonder a bit about your expertise in knowing Islam.

Like many Muslims, I view the Qur'an as a book of its time; the mere fact that a woman could testify in a court of law was rather innovative in a time where women were often looked upon as chattel. Kindly point to what sura and verse condemned homosexuality. When I did an online search, I couldn't find anything.

As for adultery,yes, the Qur'an does say to punish by flogging. But again it is put into the context of its time--flogging was punishment for all sorts of crimes during that time and later, not just in Arabia but also in the British Isles. I believe flogging was banned by the Royal Navy only in the nineteenth century; I do know that the last time drawing and quartering was used by the King was ca 1803. Moderate Muslims and modern Muslim states understand the historical nature of what is stated in the Qur'an.

To assume that all Muslims are like the most conservatives is like assuming that all Christians are like Jimmy Swaggert.

Yes, the Quran was a book written a long time ago; if you want to use that as an excuse for ignoring the parts of it you don't like then I'm all in favour of your doing that; but in so doing you're not following the teachings of Mohammed (who, I think we can be reasonably confident, intended his instructions to be universal, not just limited to the then and there).

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with that - quite the reverse, not following the teachings of Mohammed is a very praiseworthy thing to do. The point I was making was that I wouldn't support for someone who *did* follow the teachings of Mohammed (and I very much hope you wouldn't either), and who actually tried to obey the bits of the Quran you dismiss as "of its time".


Quranic condemnation of homosexuality is found in 7:80-84 and, more explicitly, 4:16.


What constitutes a "moderate" by Muslim standards? My impression is that it would be more accurate to say "liberal/ultraliberal Muslims understand the historical nature of the Quran". Are you including the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia among states that interpret it that way?


I make no claim to expertise in Islam; however, the amount one needs to know about it to know that many of the teachings of Mohammed are bad ones is not great.


I don't for one minute assume that all Muslims are conservatives; I do think that only the ones who are are following the teachings of Mohammed, which is why I wouldn't vote for someone who did.

I suspect that neither liberal nor conservative Christians are living in a way Jesus would approve of, but it's much harder to be certain because his life and views aren't nearly so well-documented. But whereas Mohammed wanted his followers to build a society, I suspect Jesus wanted his to withdraw from society until Armaggedon, which he thought was just around the corner.

Unfortunately, the die hard 23%ers will never listen to reason. But I plan to share this on some non-political forums that occasionally have political posts.

Thanks great post!:)

I'm gone for the night. Free concert! :woohoo:

ihavenobias ... you're aces. Brill' even. I visited all the links provided (thanks for those). I'll be checking back to see the responses. :popcorn:

I will admit ~ I was not happy with Obama's vote on FISA. Nor on offshore drilling.

But.

If those votes get him elected, then I'm okay with that. I think he'll do the right ... err ... correct thing when he gets into office.

let's debunk these smears.

K&R

Just don't hold your breath while you wait for an answer!! ;)

I included this line "You'll be lucky to get a John McCain style answer, but it's more likely that you'll hear this"...make sure you click those links!

:kick:

have very little to do with right wing authoritarian personalities and how they process information. I'm not saying it is impossible to make one see the light, but improbable. Still it happens, and therefore is worth making the attempt imho.

I have had mixed results, usually succeeding only when rebublican policies have affected them personally. Or at least that is how they perceive it. It never even occurs to them the hypocrisy of changing ones mind only when it your piece of the pie that is at stake.

Great post on a very difficult subject.

*K&R

I agree, the die-hards minds won't be changed, but some of them might be forced to retreat and pick some other irrational topic if we handle them right.

And it's all about those low info voters who could go either way if we get to them in time.

:)

The Repugs are sooo out of gas.

:kick:

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

:kick:

;)