The other day at work, ((Disclaimer: I work for Walmart, and the views expressed in this post may or may not reflect those of Walmart or anyone else but me.)) a fairly long political discussion broke out, largely centered around Barack Obama.
What I found most interesting was the bit about one of my coworker’s family members having had read Dreams from My Father
I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift.
Short and to the point, no?
And if an American politician is saying something like that, that is cause to be concerned. I know I’m grossly simplifying things here, but it’s not terribly difficult to see fundamental differences between so-called “Muslim nations” and “Christian nations.”
Today, I tried to find more information about the quote. Well, turns out that not only was that quote a far-too-paraphrased excerpt of a larger quote, but it also came from an entirely different book!
In actuality, the quote in question comes from The Audacity of Hope, and it goes a little something like this:
Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese interments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
Bottom line? If American politics got ugly and hatred for Arab or Pakistani (read: not necessarily Muslim!) Americans started to grow, would you want a leader who would stand up for them or who would allow them to suffer the same fates as Japanese Americans did decades ago?
I don’t necessarily support Barack Obama — indeed, I disagree with him strongly on certain issues — but if you’re not going to vote for him, at least vote against him because of truth. ((If truth is not on your side, you’re just wasting your time. Period.))
Enhance Your Blog with Thesis
What do you look for in a WordPress theme? Loads of options? Unsurpassed support? A thriving community?
Look no further than Thesis, the premier WordPress theme framework from DIYthemes.
Rock solid semantics. Bulletproof search engine optimization. Crystal clear typography. And more options than you can shake a stick at. What are you waiting for? Get Thesis today!
{ 11 responses to this entry. Add yours! }
Well done!!
Yes, I agree, well done! Wish you had know all this at the time of the actual discussion :) Now, where is my Devil answer?
Sandi: You could’ve asked Nicole today where she came from. ;)
Sorry I didn’t know all this at the time of the discussion… but… you’re the Obama-fan, what’s your excuse? :D
Senior: Heh, thanks!
I may be lost or confused as my knowledge of the Japanese in America is limited but Rick are you saying that you would not vote for Obama simply because he would support a minority?
Donace: Nope, I have plenty of other reasons not to vote for Obama. Perhaps my post was unclear, but I tried to indicate that I was glad Obama felt the way he does about the Irani & Pakistani Americans.
ah I see, well Obama is IMO better then Macain; then again not being in the US I haven’t been listening much to their speeches just the gossip.
Donace: I’m not entirely pleased with any of the candidates we’ve been given this election season. I supported Ron Paul when he was vying for the candidacy earlier this year, but I couldn’t even do that today after having given it more thought.
As a Christian, I’m inclined to oppose leadership which refuses to stand against something like abortion using the full extent of their position to do so. As I understand it, Obama is one of the most pro-choice elected officials in America, and I simply cannot vote for him in good conscience.
I realize being a “single-issue” voter is often derided — at least here in America — and that there are certainly other issues to consider when voting for President. Maybe Barack Obama’s economic plans will help my family financially; maybe John McCain’s plans will financially hurt my family. I don’t know. That’s where faith comes in, I suppose.
Jesus encouraged His disciples to seek the Kingdom of Heaven first, paying no mind to temporal matters (Matthew 6:25–34).
Not voting for Obama is a gambit I must take to be true to my conscience and my faith.
I’m also not a fan of Obama’s desire to “redistribute the wealth”; I’m all for people voluntarily giving out of their abundance to those who have need (indeed, that’s part of Christianity which far too many ignore and which I definitely fall short on myself), but should such redistribution be something enforced by the government? I say no — the Constitution doesn’t prescribe such a function to the American government, nor do the Scriptures prescribe such an activity to any civil body.
Thanks for at least using pro-choice instead of pro-abortion. We’ll have to address the term redistriibution of wealth later. One step at a time :)
Sandi: Redistribution of wealth is anything which takes more from those with more — the “rich” who have $250,000, $200,000, or $150,000 — in order to provide extra benefits or what-have-you to those who are less fortunate.
I disagree with arbitrarily taxing certain people more than others and am personally for the Fair Tax.
I also wholly disagree with placing economy before morality; the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, and God hates those who shed innocent blood.
It can be argued that the government has no place in outlawing abortion, but if the basis of that argument is that religious or personal values cannot be legislated, then it makes no sense to believe that the government would then be capable of doing anything at all about the abortion epidemic — to say that premarital sex (protection or not), abortion, or even rape is wrong is to require some sort of system of absolutes… absolutes which can only exist if there is a God to define them.
(It can further be argued that things like rape or murder are wrong because they have victims, but that in and of itself doesn’t ascribe a moral judgment of good or bad to the acts. Separate from God, it makes no sense to say that it’s wrong for a human to hurt another human when nature is inhabited by thousands of species which attack, kill, and even eat their own. Separate from belief, going only by natural observation, there can be no right or wrong… at least none that aren’t completely and utterly arbitrary.)
I’m getting off my soapbox now.
Rick!
This is a nice post. It reminds me of an article I read here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/30/greene-if-you-can%E2%80%99t-or-can-say-anything-nice/
I think it’s great that you clarified that gross misunderstanding about Obama that people are quoting everywhere! I am really tired of people quoting things like that without first doing a little research.
Take care,
Hilary
Hilary: Hey, long time no talk!
You’re right, it is tiresome that the same tired things are repeated. Still, everyone does it. Atheists have their canned arguments against Christians. Christians against atheists. Evolutionists against Creationists. Pirates against ninjas. A little truth never hurt anyone.
And besides, there are far better reasons not to have voted for Obama.