Sucks that people choose to believe in the violent side of religions.
Typical republican hypocrisy. No problem with republicans (bar Cruz) lying, but if a democrat supposedly lies based on a shady politician's accusation, you point it out. You have no right or authority to complain about anyone lying, to be honest, especially when said politician isn't even lying.
Who is demonizing religion? The issues with them are self-evident, especially if you live in the western world and not a theocracy. He didn't have to accuse any of them of being violent, but he doesn't need to pander the left to the point of saying Islam is a religion of peace. But hey, maybe he really thinks that. There are tons of nominal Muslims, especially in this country, who don't commit the acts of violence that Muslims in some other countries do, I don't see why they need to be reassured by him. Him saying such a thing isn't going to prevent heinous hatecrimes from going on.
There's no reason to be politically correct really. Well you bring up homosexuality and religion despite them being different. No one should be persecuted for either, but one is obviously a choice and the other isn't.
But if it's not a problem with the government then there really isn't an issue at all, at least when it comes to free speech in general. I think I am missing your point.
That's not true at all. Nevermind that some leftist would prefer making it a government issue, the media has huge influence as well. Some would say censorship there is just as harmful to free discourse.
You really see that as being all that separate? Especially when a group like ISIS wants to make that sort of thing worldwide? i understand that they're a fraction of the Muslim population, but in many cases they hold the same sort of beliefs on many issues as a decent amount to a majority of the population of many countries in the MENA and Southern Asia. Them not being inclined to be violent is obviously good, but that doesn't mean they don't support some of the ideals that extremist groups have.
For me, there's a difference between being careful and pandering. There's a difference between saying Islam is a religion of peace and saying the majority of Muslims are peaceful people, especially when he's speaking to Muslims in the US, or actually speaking at a Mosque here in DC. Muslims shouldn't be treated as outsiders (and I would say from my own experience that they aren't where I live) and need to be supported in order to help weed out extremism in their own communities, but the regressive left needs to stop holding their hands and stop being apologists for the theocratic views and oppressive behaviors many Muslims in the world have.
That gets us to the whole free speech not actually being blocked by the government though. No one is being forced to say or think anything. I am not 100% sure of the leftists you mention though, maybe it is something I am not familiar with. As far as I can tell here what is going on here is that people are saying stuff and people react to it in different forms. Being concerned of the reaction your audience might have does not specifically imply a problem. Unless I am missing something (which I might, I go by the information I find) this sounds like "war on christmass" territory.
I'm sort of confused why you keep bringing up free speech being blocked by the government. When did I say the government was actively doing this? Political correctness as an idea isn't necessarily something that has to be supported by laws or anything. Anyways, this is a critique on the media as much as it's on anything Obama has said on the matter.
Like you said earlier, Islamic terrorism is responsible for the deaths of Muslims more than anyone else. So while I'm not condoning whatever you mean by grouping everyone together, it's a problem that these kind of communities help create and sometimes tacitly support. Free speech and ideas aren't tolerated in most theocracies, dissent and/or secularism aren't welcome and those that do it openly are usually silenced in some way or another.
That might be Obama's intention in saying something like that, but I still don't see how any logical person could say that it's factually correct. Was Christianity a religion of peace during the crusades or the inquisition? What about the contribution the Catholic Church made to empowering fascism in post-WWI Europe? Or Christianity's role in the genocide in Rwanda? What about the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini calling for the assassination of Salman Rushdie for writing a work of fiction? Or the numerous edicts issued against cartoonists in Europe? Like I said, religiously-inspired violence isn't something unique to Islam, but it's obviously more relevant in a contemporary sense, especially in the western world. Little to no religion exists which has peace as a core tenant and doesn't repeatedly debase itself in this regard both in their own scripture and by the actions of it's leaders. Heck, even Buddhists in Myanmar have committed acts of of terrorism against Muslim...freaking Buddhists! I don't see how there is such a thing as a "religion" of peace period...unless you're Jain or something.
Not enough to speak on specifics. Plus, I can't read Arabic, which is said by many to be the only way to actually read it. But I put faith in the words and works of apostates like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or reformists like Maajid Nawaz. I've read the Bible and the Pentateuch plenty though. I was confirmed Catholic and attended catechism.
I dont have a problem with candidates receiving money from fossil fuel industries as it would help them be able to have some chips on the table to get more fossil fuel beneficial legislation made.
Rights, Islamaphobes, and racists are demonizing Muslims. I don't think Obama is panderin to the left as much as he is tryin to be politically correct to avoid pissing people off, like Trump. I don't know if Obama truly believes Islam is a religion of peace, but I'd rather he say that than say Islam causes terrorism. A Muslim group even donated money to the church that was affected by Dylann Roof, but I don't see that being brought up much, if at al.
Hypocritical conscience and moral beliefs. You're against abortion yet you don't want the country to accept refugee children who're fleeing wars and death.
How is being a murderer of helpless babies the same as letting security liabilities into the country. You do see the problems in Europe don't you? America does not need to become another France or Brussels. We dont need thousands of covert operatives on our shores.
...
Didn't you say that such things should be left up to the states?
Provide proof or stats that refugee children are security liabilities, which I know you have none. It's still the same because if you're truly pro-life, then you would let refugee children into the country without caring about whether they MIGHT be security liability or not. Unwanted babies are far more of security liabilities than refugee children who want to live in peace. Pretty sure these unwanted babies grow up in a bad household or have bad childhood and become criminals as result.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Isn't it established by now that Shark is all about double standards? Support same sex marriage, but get mad when the government legalizes it everywhere. Say government should intrude less, but support government banning what he's against or allowing what he believes in/wants.
But that's the problem with political correctness for me...
Obama didn't have to say they're a horrible group. There's nothing to back that up in any objective way and I don't think that serves his message in any way either.
Why would he even need to give commentary on Italians or Canadians?...
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Yeah but fetuses aren't citizens. Abortion is protected under the 14th amendment, it isn't a states-rights issue anymore. You can implore anyone in your family or anyone you know not to have one if you feel that strongly about it, but it's still not going to be illegal.
Someone would eventually be there so your eliminating the chance that something would have at life. So its a murder of a potential normal human which is very wrong to do. Worst youre assuming that people arent having abortions just because. You also assume only the poor are willing to take stranger's kids. The kids could be smart or very hands on later in life and do great things even if they were in an unpleasant environment its up the kid to do good in life and succeed. Just because a child is born in a situation in which bad life decisions were made doesnt mean their life will be bad.