The New Yorker is irrelevant? I guess you’ve never heard of Seymour Hirsch or Malcom Gladwell, then.
Obama is taking a lot of shit from the media over this “made-up” controversy. If I wanted to satirize this with a cartoon depicting a bunch of fat guys labelled “the media” literally taking a squat and shitting on Obama, why yes it would be satire. It also would be in poor taste.
I suppose some people’s thresholds for tasteful satire are very low. I blame the internets.
He’s never been a muslim. He didn’t convert to Christianity. He started ambivilant about religion but was from a secular household, raised secular, more or less. Later in life he became more religious but no overly so. He was never a muslim.
Christ. (no pun intended)
Also, New Yorker, you are a ship of fools. What were you thinking?
I propose that the recognition of the satire on this cover be used as a criterion for voting rights.
Seriously, if they don’t get IT, they were never close to voting for him anyway.
Recognition or appreciation? I think it’s satire, I just think it’s not funny.
It’s a sad fact. I certainly could give a shit if the guys Muslim, but I know he’s not so I find it gross that people would use that against him, and even more disgusting that it works to scare people.
I’d rather not deny that that bigotry exists at the expense of the Presidency so I understand why the left is so adamant about dispelling that myth.
It’s an ugly world we live in sometimes.
I was going to wonder aloud how Muslim would compare to Catholic these days in regards to the average retard voter’s prejudices. Then I remembered there was some polling done a couple years ago. One random link. Muslim and Mormon fared the worst (54 and 35% would not vote for one, respectively) and Jewish/Catholic were way down (15 and 10). I’m actually surprised the Catholic number wasn’t higher due to abortion activists. shrug
I too think the unspoken assumption that his being called Muslim is a slur, is troubling. Of course it’s based on realism – Americans would be about as likely to elect a Muslim president in this day and age as to elect an atheist. (Okay, well, maybe slightly more likely than that, but still…) Just a sad reminder of the way things are. Still, one of the things about democracy… you can have stuff written in your constitution about No Religious Test and the like, but if one’s religion (or lack thereof) affects the impression one makes on voters, what’s to be done?
Jeez people. The objection to Obama being called a Muslim is because it’s a political slime job aimed at making him unpalatable to undecideds, not because being a Muslim is a horrible thing. We shouldn’t close our eyes to the religious bigotry that exists in this country, but that doesn’t mean we should stay silent when that bigotry is pandered to, either.
Isn’t that exactly the point we all just made?
Other than you, no, it didn’t look like that to me. Both Gordon and Ben Sones are saying that they find it troubling that being paintedas a Muslim is considered a slur. My point is no one is objecting to it as a slur, they’re objecting to it as partisan sleaze.
Maybe it’s just a semantic issue, but I got the sense they were both saying people shouldn’t object when Obama is incorrectly called or portrayed as a Muslim.
If I’m incorrect, well, no worries. The point is worth making more than once.
"You know, it’s silly, baseless, and downright incorrect to say that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that."
Religious bigotry? Really?
It’s not allowable to take what a candidate personally believes about men and women’s roles in the universe and use that as part of the process to determine if you want them making and enforcing the policies you’ll have to live by?
I’m sorry, religion isn’t something genetic that people are born with and cannot control. It is a conscious choice, and not all religions are created equal.
I would not vote for a Mormon for any sort of office. I would not vote for a Scientologist for any sort of office. I’d rather vote for an agnostic, atheist, or deist, but that’s not particularly likely to happen since such a candidate would not be palatable to our country’s tastes.
Most peoples’ objection, if they have any, to the whole Muslim thing is that they consider all Muslims automatically terrorists, which is religious bigotry and they deserve to be scorned for it.
I think that for the vast majority, religious and cultural beliefs are a function of geography. Folks born in Saudi Arabia are likely to die as sunni muslims, folks born in Ireland are likely to die as Christians, and folks born in West Virginia are likely to die as rednecks.
That’s ridiculous, untrue, and borderline retarded. It’s a smear, not because all Muslims are terrorists, which they obviously aren’t, but because small-minded jerks think that, and that’s who it’s designed to appeal to. It’s no different from Republican attack ads in the past that stop just short of calling a candidate gay or saying he likes to screw black chicks; there’s nothing wrong with either thing, but that doesn’t stop smears of that nature from appealing to close-minded morons who think there is.
This is unbelievably easy to understand.
Stop and think. Who was I replying to? What had he said? In that context, please review my post.
I’m well aware of the point you’re making. I even agree. I was making a slightly related but different point, to wit:
If people were objecting to the possibility that Obama is Muslim because they disagree with core tenets of the Muslim faith, that would be entirely different from the current situation, where people flip out about Obama because they think all Muslims are terrorists.
It would still, for the reasons you outline, be reprehensible and unacceptable attack politics.
STFU AARON YOU KNOW I CAN’T READ
<_<
>_>
<_<
>_>
Never mind.
Also, ha-ha, wow, Reldan is some kind of crazy bigot huh?