Obama's apologies to the muslim community

[HappyTikiman]

In light of Obama's speech to the Muslim community I think we should have a little debate.

Intro
I live in middle Tennessee and the only talk show radio stations we have is a heavy republican oriented talk radio, and national public radio. NPR was playing the usual classical music, but its not very good while doing hard labour. On the other station. Phil Valentine, local republican talk show hero, had managed to get pretty heated about Obama's recent speech. He did mention some points that I would like to present to this forum.

Questions

1. Is the United States going to become a Muslim dominated country?

2. Will Obama's apologies be accepted by the Muslim community?

3. Should the nation worry about its president's new apologetic direction?

4. Would this help or hender the United States relations with the world community?

Debate Material

Obama's speech, scroll down on the webpage

[East of Eden]

The question wasn't about suicide bombing, the question was about violence against civilian targets. And since the war in Iraq depended so heavily upon the opinions of those who call themselves 'Christian', again I'd say it would be interesting to see how they would respond to the question of the permissibility of violence against civilian targets.

WWII had many civilian targets of the allies, Iraq did not. It is difficult to avoid them when the terrorists scum deliberately position themselves among civilians.

Indeed. It's not our place to force an ideology upon the world.

Were we wrong for speaking out against apartheid in South Africa? There is institutionalized oppression in the Islamic world that surpasses the South African abuses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas

You're really reaching now. I doubt if many of the Spanish expedition members ever heard of this treaty.

You go after the terrorists by winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim moderates. Framing it as a 'clash of civilisations' and the Islamic religion as inherently violent is self-defeating.

Good luck with that when facing the Taliban or the kook that runs Iran.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas

In fairness, the Treat of Tordesillas was a diplomatic move to try to ease tensions between Portugal and Spain. Both countries were fiercely Catholic at the time, so it is only logical that the Papacy would be used as an intermediary.

That is not to say your point does not have some validity to it. The Spanish justified their enslavement of the the native population by claiming that they intended to "convert the heathens", when in fact they just wanted a cheap source of labor (the natives who actually survived enslavement were often converted, however). In spite of this, however, the promise of gold and glory were the primary motivations behind Spain's conquest of much of the New World. As much as many would have liked to use religion as a pretext for what they did, they were in it for greed.

I doubt if many of the Spanish expedition members ever heard of this treaty.

When the Pope grants a country half of the world, it's tough not to hear about it.

[MagusYanam]

That is not to say your point does not have some validity to it. The Spanish justified their enslavement of the the native population by claiming that they intended to "convert the heathens", when in fact they just wanted a cheap source of labor (the natives who actually survived enslavement were often converted, however). In spite of this, however, the promise of gold and glory were the primary motivations behind Spain's conquest of much of the New World. As much as many would have liked to use religion as a pretext for what they did, they were in it for greed.

I don't deny that at all. Of course they were in it for the 'gold and glory' - but, as you note, they justified it all using Catholicism as cover. It was an abuse of religion - and abuses of religion ought to be decried louder from within those religions than from without, the way the Muslim community roundly decried 9/11 and the Mumbai bombings.

Were we wrong for speaking out against apartheid in South Africa? There is institutionalized oppression in the Islamic world that surpasses the South African abuses.

Interesting you should bring that up. Jimmy Carter may have spoken out against it, but the Republican Party under Reagan supported the apartheid regime in South Africa as an ally against the Communists.

There is institutionalised oppression in a number of these countries, but it has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis; it is not inherent to Islam, any more than apartheid is inherent to Reformed Protestantism. In Iran the people - Shia Muslims - are actively tearing down such oppression from within, and I say we let them.

Good luck with that when facing the Taliban or the kook that runs Iran.

They don't represent Islam as a whole.

[Ms_Maryam]

Apologetic? No.

Even though I disagreed with the President on some of the statements/issues in his speech, I applaud him for this speech, because it was very good.

He didn't seem too apologetic. We shouldn't think that owning up to one's mistakes if "bad," that's a bit arrogant. He acknowledged the mistakes on both sides, and pressed the issue that me must not go back in history, but we have to look back in history to move forward.

I am Muslim and of all the Muslims that I've spoken with, they were pleased with his speech.

I have a few questions for you.

What country are you from?? I would like to know the background of the political situation there (or if you are American).

If you are not American, how do you feel the attitude towards the U.S. changed with the changing of the administration? Has it changed much, and if so, what do you think are the key points to how it has changed?

I'm American.
Therefore, I don't think those other question apply to me. However, I could be mistaken.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I don't deny that at all. Of course they were in it for the 'gold and glory' - but, as you note, they justified it all using Catholicism as cover. It was an abuse of religion - and abuses of religion ought to be decried louder from within those religions than from without, the way the Muslim community roundly decried 9/11 and the Mumbai bombings.

Oh, I guess I misunderstood though. In any case, I agree wholeheartedly with what you said above.

[East of Eden]

Interesting you should bring that up. Jimmy Carter may have spoken out against it, but the Republican Party under Reagan supported the apartheid regime in South Africa as an ally against the Communists.

So you would have opposed Jimmy Carter for speaking out against apartheid since you believe we shouldn't force our ideology on the world, right?

There is institutionalised oppression in a number of these countries, but it has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis; it is not inherent to Islam, any more than apartheid is inherent to Reformed Protestantism.

Sharia law is institutionalized oppression. Women in Islamic nations especially suffer, with honor killings, forced marriages, beatings, genital mutilation, not being seen as equal in court testimony, etc.

[MagusYanam]

So you would have opposed Jimmy Carter for speaking out against apartheid since you believe we shouldn't force our ideology on the world, right?

No, because Carter didn't declare war on South Africa, nor did he advocate war against South Africa. 'Speaking out' and 'force' are two completely different things.

Sharia law is institutionalized oppression. Women in Islamic nations especially suffer, with honor killings, forced marriages, beatings, genital mutilation, not being seen as equal in court testimony, etc.

Honour killings, beatings, genital mutilation and adultery executions are barbaric. But that is not what 'sharia law' is - only one incredibly twisted and reactionary interpretation of sharia. Just as there is a difference between the vast majority of Christians and Scott Roeder, there is a difference between the vast majority of Muslims and the bastards who murder members of their own families.

[East of Eden]

No, because Carter didn't declare war on South Africa, nor did he advocate war against South Africa. 'Speaking out' and 'force' are two completely different things.

Yes, we declared war on the tryant Saddam Hussein. You really hate it when 53,000,000 people are liberated, don't you?

Honour killings, beatings, genital mutilation and adultery executions are barbaric. But that is not what 'sharia law' is - only one incredibly twisted and reactionary interpretation of sharia. Just as there is a difference between the vast majority of Christians and Scott Roeder, there is a difference between the vast majority of Muslims and the bastards who murder members of their own families.

Wife beating in Islam began with Muhammad:

The Quran says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127:

'He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.'


Here's a new story from Egypt, not an oppressive place according to you:

Village Christians in Hiding after Clash in Egypt
More persecution against Egypt's Christians:
(Compass Direct News) - Nearly 1,000 Coptic Christians are hiding in their homes after clashes erupted Sunday (June 21) between them and their village's majority-Muslim population over the use of a three-story building belonging to the Coptic Church.

When on Sunday at 11 a.m. a group of 25 Christians from Cairo stopped in Ezbet Boshra-East, a village of about 3,000 people three hours south of Cairo by car, few villagers failed to take notice. Planning to visit local Christians and the Rev. Isaac Castor, the group had gathered outside the building owned by the Coptic Church, where the priest lives with his family.

Castor said only six of them had entered the building when Muslim neighbors approached the rest of the group waiting outside and began taunting them. A Muslim woman walked up to one of the visiting women, he said, and slapped her.

Soon village youths gathered and started throwing stones at the visitors and the building, and according to Castor within minutes hundreds of villagers, Muslims against Christians, were fighting each other in the streets of Ezbet Boshra-East. Castor's car was also vandalized.

"They were all over the streets hitting each other with sticks and their fists," Castor told Compass from his home by phone. "Some people were on top of buildings throwing stones; it was like a civil war."

Sectarian tensions have previously flared in the village. Last July, when Castor first moved to Ezbet Boshra-East with his family, Muslims vandalized Christians' farmlands and poisoned their domestic animals after services took place at the building owned by the church, according to International Christian Concern.

Since last July's incidents, authorities have stipulated that only two Christians at a time can visit the building, and according to Castor this was the source of the fighting that erupted in front of the building on Sunday. The neighbors thought he was conducting a prayer meeting and not adhering to the rule set by local authorities.

In the violent clash in front of the church-owned building, 17 Christians and eight Muslims were estimated to have been injured. According to various reports, nearly 19 Coptic Christians were arrested and released the following day, along with the injured Muslims.

So far there is no concrete information on how the Christians were treated while in prison. During the arrests of the Christians, police vandalized many of their homes. Egyptian sources told Compass that police often turn the homes of those whom they arrest "upside down."

Soon after the clashes, electricity and phone services were cut. Electricity was restored after 24 hours, but at press time telephones were still not operating. All communications happen via mobile phones.

Authorities also imposed a 6 p.m. curfew on the entire village, but Castor said Christians were too afraid to come out of their homes and were living off personal food stockpiles. He also said that a number of families had left the village to stay with friends and relatives in nearby towns and villages. Eyewitnesses visiting Ezbet Boshra-East yesterday confirmed that although there were Muslim villagers outside, there were no Christians walking on the streets.

[MagusYanam]

I'm done here. You consistently try to caricature me and put words in my mouth - I never claimed that Egypt was 'not an oppressive place' (indeed, I said it was problematic), and when I oppose a pre-emptive war from Christian principles, you try to caricature me as being opposed to liberation (whatever that means).

I'm shaking the dust from under my feet with you. I see no interest in civil debate from you, only a willingness to insult and denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with you.

[East of Eden]

I'm done here. You consistently try to caricature me and put words in my mouth - I never claimed that Egypt was 'not an oppressive place' (indeed, I said it was problematic),

I think you said it wasn't that bad, and your friends were there and had no problem. For the average Eyptian Christian, they are second-class citizens, typical of may Muslim nations.

And when I oppose a pre-emptive war from Christian principles, you try to caricature me as being opposed to liberation (whatever that means).

Saddam killed more Muslims than anyone in history save the French in Algeria. There is nothing un-Christian about removing such a tyrant.

I'm shaking the dust from under my feet with you. I see no interest in civil debate from you, only a willingness to insult and denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I accept your surrender.