Text of the Speech at the DNC]
You won’t hear this said at any GOP raliies:
And upon this faithful foundation we built a great nation, and today, no matter who you are – rich or poor, Asian or white, man or woman, gay or straight, any religion or none at all – you are entitled to the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
Glad that “none at all” thing is getting to be standard. Didn’t Thomas Paine, in Common Sense, say something about “all the Protestant religions”, intending to be inclusive?
Cory’s was one of the more poetic speeches. I think I’ll remember his introduction even longer, Eva Longoria said something like, “isn’t it great that a Latino woman is introducing the first black Senator in a week where we will nominate the first woman candidate?”
Text of the Speech at the DNC] You won't hear this said at any GOP raliies: And upon this faithful foundation we built a great nation, and today, no matter who you are – rich or poor, Asian or white, man or woman, gay or straight, any religion or none at all – you are entitled to the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship.Thanks for posting the link to the text of Cory Booker's speech at the DNC here. I watched this speech live and liked it. It was indeed a great and inspiring speech. However, he was wrong when he said, "In a nation founded on religious freedom, he (Trump) says ban all Muslims, don't let certain people in because of how they pray." The "how they pray" part was wrong. That is not the reason behind Trump's suggestion of banning all Muslims; nor is that the reason behind Muslims being scrutinized a lot more than people of any other religion even now while they try to enter the USA. The common reason behind Trump's suggestion and the current administration's actions that can be called unfair is terrorism committed by people who are Muslims.
The common reason behind Trump's suggestion and the current administration's actions that can be called unfair is terrorism committed by people who are Muslims.I actually think you know this, but I'm going to spell it out anyway and see what you say. Sure, we don't want terrorists in our country. One thing we know about some terrorists is they pray a certain way, i.e. like Muslims. But that's not how you identify a terrorist. There are many other characteristics you need to know. If that is the only thing you look at, you're going to keep out doctors, soldiers and hard working people, people we need. Comprende?
However, he was wrong when he said, "In a nation founded on religious freedom, he (Trump) says ban all Muslims, don't let certain people in because of how they pray." The "how they pray" part was wrong. That is not the reason behind Trump's suggestion of banning all Muslims; ...Fair enough but I imagine Cory was thinking about how incredibly flippant and thoughtless Trump is about everything he's said regarding banning Muslims. He talks to and for an audience, there is no depth to his understanding of the issue or it's resolution. Trump is Dr. Feelgood's bromide. Sure to leave one hell of a hangover. Here's the bigger point worth focusing on
Text of the Speech at the DNC] You won't hear this said at any GOP raliies: And upon this faithful foundation we built a great nation, and today, no matter who you are – rich or poor, Asian or white, man or woman, gay or straight, any religion or none at all – you are entitled to the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship.{Also worth noting is that Bain has no problem labeling people muslim terrorists even if when they are not. }
I actually think you know this, but I'm going to spell it out anyway and see what you say. Sure, we don't want terrorists in our country. One thing we know about some terrorists is they pray a certain way, i.e. like Muslims. But that's not how you identify a terrorist. There are many other characteristics you need to know. If that is the only thing you look at, you're going to keep out doctors, soldiers and hard working people, people we need. Comprende?Your last word with a question mark was unnecessary and arrogant, and I was thinking of ignoring you for that. But I have changed my mind, and am addressing your query. How one prays is not what I would look at to determine if one is a potential terrorist. Praying is probably the most innocent aspect of following religions. Willing to kill oneself and others in order to follow, defend, protect, promote and empower the almighty is probably the most serious indicator for a potential terrorist. (What can be more stupid than the idea of adding human might to the 'almighty's' might?) In between these two ends are factors like being unjust, hateful and non-fatally barbaric to people who belong to other religions and no religion. And depending on where in this middle ground one is would be an indicator for how likely that person would be to give breeding ground to religious terrorists. (Note that I did not use the words "Muslim" and Islam here.) As for not keeping out needed professionals, hey, I do not want to be unfair even to unskilled family members of US citizens. But, again, my first and second priorities would be 1) the safety and security of the USA and 2) maintaining and improving the liberty that people enjoy in this country.
... my first and second priorities would be 1) the safety and security of the USA and 2) maintaining and improving the liberty that people enjoy in this country.That's easy to say, but empty of content. How would you balance those two objectives?
... my first and second priorities would be 1) the safety and security of the USA and 2) maintaining and improving the liberty that people enjoy in this country.That's easy to say, but empty of content. How would you balance those two objectives? Oh, come on Darron, Trump explained that very well ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh7XaJlvJIg Let's not forget what this is about, ... Criticizing those who dare criticize Trump's simpleton's utterances and delusions. :)
Hmmm, or perhaps criticizing those who criticize those who criticize Herrn Trump. 
... my first and second priorities would be 1) the safety and security of the USA and 2) maintaining and improving the liberty that people enjoy in this country.That's easy to say, but empty of content. How would you balance those two objectives? By liberty I meant freedom of thought and expression as well as human dignity and rights, irrespective of the family/community where one was born. In that respect, the two objectives are complementary. However, if by liberty we mean privacy or ease to move around, of course we have been forced to give up quite a bit of that for safety and security after 9/11. So, the balancing that we could think about in terms of the thoughts in my last post would be between being fair to people who seek entry to to USA and safety, security and liberty in this country. For that, the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400, is actually a good document. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/n-400.pdf In Form N-400, take a look at Part 12, questions 10, 11, 12, 14 and 30. These and other questions can be applied to other kinds of entry seekers who plan to stay in this country for any significant length of time. More questions could be added; and of course, there should be more vigorous investigations on the truthfulness of the answers before granting the entry. One question that I would add is, "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits making of any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion. Have you ever supported a government that promoted or impeded any religion?"
So you’re saying you wouldn’t change anything?
So you're saying you wouldn't change anything?Well, I have proposed at least one additional question. I emphasized investigations for truthfulness of answers. I also suggested scrutinizing other kinds of entry seekers similarly. I probably would also delete some of the questions in Form N-400.
I actually think you know this, but I'm going to spell it out anyway and see what you say. Sure, we don't want terrorists in our country. One thing we know about some terrorists is they pray a certain way, i.e. like Muslims. But that's not how you identify a terrorist. There are many other characteristics you need to know. If that is the only thing you look at, you're going to keep out doctors, soldiers and hard working people, people we need. Comprende?Your last word with a question mark was unnecessary and arrogant, and I was thinking of ignoring you for that. But I have changed my mind, and am addressing your query. I do not take kindly to prejudice, and your statement was bordering on "All Muslims are terrorists". You have backed off of that quite a bit, so hopefully that type of language won't be necessary again.
How one prays is not what I would look at to determine if one is a potential terrorist. Praying is probably the most innocent aspect of following religions. Willing to kill oneself and others in order to follow, defend, protect, promote and empower the almighty is probably the most serious indicator for a potential terrorist. (What can be more stupid than the idea of adding human might to the 'almighty's' might?) In between these two ends are factors like being unjust, hateful and non-fatally barbaric to people who belong to other religions and no religion. And depending on where in this middle ground one is would be an indicator for how likely that person would be to give breeding ground to religious terrorists. (Note that I did not use the words "Muslim" and Islam here.) As for not keeping out needed professionals, hey, I do not want to be unfair even to unskilled family members of US citizens. But, again, my first and second priorities would be 1) the safety and security of the USA and 2) maintaining and improving the liberty that people enjoy in this country.I did notice that you didn't say "Muslim", but that is still the topic, and you were defending Trump, so have you changed on that too? What you describe as "defending the almighty" could apply to many soldiers and military leaders in the US, doing their work for Jesus, for "God and country" as they say. And that you include "no religion" in there makes me wonder where you live. Are you saying you see people treating atheists as equals, as if that is no big deal? Did you hear what Kasich said this week? I don't think what you describe here is very good criteria for determining fanaticism. A fanatic is going to put human life on the same level as choice of clothes or eating the correct food. They will see everything as it is related to their deity. If they are trying to get into this country to do harm, they would have this worldview and be aware that it being screened for and be working to lie to cover it up. That's what vetting is designed to uncover.
So you're saying you wouldn't change anything?Good point. Perhaps you can ask him: what this has to do with anything Trump has been proclaiming?
So, the balancing that we could think about in terms of the thoughts in my last post would be between being fair to people who seek entry to to USA and safety, security and liberty in this country. For that, the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400, is actually a good document. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/n-400.pdf In Form N-400, take a look at Part 12, questions 10, 11, 12, 14 and 30.What do you think the chances are that Trump has looked at that document? :cheese:
I do not take kindly to prejudice, and your statement was bordering on "All Muslims are terrorists". You have backed off of that quite a bit, ........... I did notice that you didn't say "Muslim", but that is still the topic, and you were defending Trump, so have you changed on that too? ...................Look, buddy, I have no interest/time to care about what you might think you are. But I did not say, 'All Muslims are terrorists'; nor did I defend Donald Trump's 'ban all Muslim' declaration. As for Trump, what I said was that Cory Booker was wrong when he said "“In a nation founded on religious freedom, he (Trump) says ban all Muslims, don’t let certain people in because of how they pray." The “how they pray" part was wrong." As for Muslims, I would give you this: terrorists and fanatics do not grow in vacuum; and I have seen and read enough to know that when it comes to following and trying to follow religious edicts blindly, Muslims on an average are by far the champions among all major religious groups in the world right now. Your conclusion about the individual me matters nothing compared to the atrocities that have been going on against innocent non-Muslims in mostly Muslim-majority lands of the world; the West is not the worst sufferer of such atrocities.
Your conclusion about the individual me matters nothing compared to the atrocities that have been going on against innocent non-Muslims in mostly Muslim-majority lands of the world; the West is not the worst sufferer of such atrocities.The ugliness of many Muslim practices can't be denied by any freedom loving person. Nevertheless, your refusal to acknowledge and appreciate our atrocities - and how USA's acts of terror and our long time aiding and abetting bad people have fundamentally formed this entire violent dynamic that keeps getting worse. - makes your opining little more than worthless words tossed on the fire. So now we have the Arabs and others totally enraged at the abuse they've been forced to live under for generations. Zero hope, nothing to lose, but lots and lots of pain and rage. And folks like you want to ignore all of that history. An eye for an eye until the entire world is blind!
Your conclusion about the individual me matters nothing compared to the atrocities that have been going on against innocent non-Muslims in mostly Muslim-majority lands of the world; the West is not the worst sufferer of such atrocities.The ugliness of many Muslim practices can't be denied by any freedom loving person. Nevertheless, your refusal to acknowledge and appreciate our atrocities - and how USA's acts of terror and our long time aiding and abetting bad people have fundamentally formed this entire violent dynamic that keeps getting worse. - makes your opining little more than worthless words tossed on the fire. So now we have the Arabs and others totally enraged at the abuse they've been forced to live under for generations. Zero hope, nothing to lose, but lots and lots of pain and rage. And folks like you want to ignore all of that history. An eye for an eye until the entire world is blind! I am glad that we agree on your sentence that I have highlighted above with bold. While I have not focused on the violent Western actions in Arab lands, I have not really refused to acknowledge them. I never supported the war on Saddam Hussein of Iraq or that on Muammar Gaddafi of Libya. I am also against the efforts of removing Bashar Al-Assad from power in Syria. These ill-conceived violent actions have resulted into too much of death and suffering for Arab civilians, and death and dismemberment of too many US soldiers. They have also been too costly to US tax-payers with the results that are too negative. However, I am not convinced that Western atrocities are the primary reason for what you phrased as "the ugliness of many Muslim practices." If it were up to me, US would have taken military actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan when they were destroying the Bamiyan Buddha statues in March 2001, as a matter of the principle for protecting a symbol of nonviolence in the world. If it were up to me, US would have kept its punitive military actions after 9/11 limited to Afghanistan, with Pakistan definitely added to the target, and Saudi Arabia looked at seriously for targeting diplomatically/economically/militarily. 'An eye for an eye' is totally against my philosophy. While I criticize blind following of unjust, hateful and barbaric religious edicts, I never advocated injustice, hatred or barbarity on any kind of people in the world. You can read my thoughts quite a bit by visiting: 1) http://enblog.mukto-mona.com/author/sbain/ and 2) https://disqus.com/by/sambain/ Here is one where I have criticized Hindu atrocities against Muslims in India: http://enblog.mukto-mona.com/2015/10/12/the-shame-of-ban-on-beef-in-secular-india/ Sam (Sukhamaya) Bain
If it were up to me, US would have taken military actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan when they were destroying the Bamiyan Buddha statues in March 2001, as a matter of the principle for protecting a symbol of nonviolence in the world.That's always worked so well. Like we used to say in the good old days - bombing for peace is like fucking for chastity. I guess what I take offense at is how we (USA communally and you in your writing) always play so innocent with all our flag waving (okay, so you haven't been waving the flag) and finger pointing (but you certainly are a finger pointer). Our general refusal to acknowledge how much of this cycle of escalating madness and violence is a direct result of our own expectations, attitudes, arms sales and senseless military actions (invading Iraq for fun and profit being the most grievous, but certainly not the only example.). And our steadfast disregard of their just grievances, because all we are concerned with is 'our own interests' and the expectation that others bow at our feet. As for how hideous they can be with their women and daughters - disgusting, but then I look around this country and right next door in Utah there's some mighty disgusting domination happening within that grand ultra-rich Mormon Church, you know the one started by a convicted fraudster and conman and his Golden Tablets that no-one else was allowed to see, because they weren't godly enough. As for backwardness Christian Fundamentalists have that in spades too. My rant comes down to me taking umbrage at all your Self-righteously finger-pointing and judgmentalism while ignoring our own gross flaws. Ignoring the history of this dynamic doesn't do anything to lend your words moral authority.
I do not take kindly to prejudice, and your statement was bordering on "All Muslims are terrorists". You have backed off of that quite a bit, ........... I did notice that you didn't say "Muslim", but that is still the topic, and you were defending Trump, so have you changed on that too? ...................Look, buddy, I have no interest/time to care about what you might think you are. But I did not say, 'All Muslims are terrorists'; nor did I defend Donald Trump's 'ban all Muslim' declaration. As for Trump, what I said was that Cory Booker was wrong when he said "“In a nation founded on religious freedom, he (Trump) says ban all Muslims, don’t let certain people in because of how they pray." The “how they pray" part was wrong." As for Muslims, I would give you this: terrorists and fanatics do not grow in vacuum; and I have seen and read enough to know that when it comes to following and trying to follow religious edicts blindly, Muslims on an average are by far the champions among all major religious groups in the world right now. Your conclusion about the individual me matters nothing compared to the atrocities that have been going on against innocent non-Muslims in mostly Muslim-majority lands of the world; the West is not the worst sufferer of such atrocities. I'm not going to play word games. I choose my words carefully, and stand by them. Do you know what "bordering on" means? I don't need to, because you started out with bad logic and hate filled rhetoric, and right after you said "I didn't say that", you return to "on an average" and "atrocities" and "most Muslism-majority" and other slippery language. In politics, it's call "dog whistle".
Let me make my concluding comments on this thread on this anniversary of 9/11.
I already said that Cory Booker was wrong when he said, ““In a nation founded on religious freedom, he (Trump) says ban all Muslims, don’t let certain people in because of how they pray.” The “how they pray” part was wrong. That is not the reason behind Trump’s suggestion of banning all Muslims; nor is that the reason behind Muslims being scrutinized a lot more than people of any other religion even now while they try to enter the USA. The common reason behind Trump’s suggestion and the current administration’s actions that can be called unfair is terrorism committed by people who are Muslims.”
While Donald Trump has shown himself to be too obnoxious, and while the idea of banning all Muslims from the USA is utterly foolish and undesirable, was Cory Booker just innocently wrong when he said “he (Trump) says ban all Muslims, don’t let certain people in because of how they pray”? Is Cory Booker that ignorant/stupid? Obviously not. He certainly knows about 9/11, San Bernardino, Orlando, etc.
I think it is too much of a shame in the world that too many people who seem to be good are too politically correct, dishonest and irresponsible when it comes to attacking the problem of injustice, hatted and barbarity. People like Cory Booker and political parties like the US Democratic Party are examples, where they are like that with Islamic fanaticism, hatred and terrorism.
It is too much of a shame that the world has too much of fighting between religious fanatics, between groups of bad people. The fights really need to be between good and bad, where humanists would take the no-nonsense position of being on the side of human dignity and rights.