Imam Rauf State Department Trip

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by CaptainObvious, Aug 21, 2010.

  1. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    Imam behind support for Ground Zero mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf may do fundraising on Federally funded trip - NYPOST.com

    I was going to post this in the Obama comments thread but since it would be somewhat off topic I decided to post it here.

    How do you feel about this? Should our tax money be spent on sending a religious leader abroad on a PR trip? Would it be ok to send say Pat Robertson or Billy Graham abroad on a tax-payer funded trip? If the mere mention of God in a school building violate the First Amendment doesn't this violate it as well? Isn't this a violation of separation of church and state?
     

  2. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    If it is the seat he holds and that seat is also the most appropriate seat to take on such a diplomatic mission. Then it would be a waste to spend tax payers money to send anybody else.

    As above.

    How does it violate it?

    I thought it would violate the First to discrimate against the Iman from a diplomatic role because of his faith.

    Promoting diversity in the face of adversity is an issue of national security. The Iman makes that quite clear. Religion just happens to be the root of the problem.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2010
  3. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

     
  4. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Can you clarify how this constitutes spending money on religion?

    I was under the impression the Iman is acting on behalf of the state department as a representative of the Secretary of State. I dont see what the problem is.

    I think you should clarify the problem rather than use speculative statements and rhetorical questions.

    I also dont think Pat Robertson would of been the man for the job, I cant see him lasting long orating in a Bahraini mosque.

    Ask yourself these two questions;

    1. Is it against the constitution for the state to employ prelates, imams, chaplains, vicars, ministers or any other religious leader or affiliate?
    2. Is it against the constitution for the state to influence religion in any way shape or form?**
    **perhaps to keep in line with the OP; in the practice of addressing the relationship between US secular values and the rather fundamental values of middle-eastern religious intolerance and fundamentalism that is breeding terrorists that threaten the USA.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2010
  5. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

     
  6. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    So how come you have a Commission for the International freedom of Religion?

    Still dont see how that is a problem. Under what exact interpretation is having an Imam act as an envoy a violation?

    Ive read quite a bit about the guy in recent days and his credentials for this role are exceptional. Why do you think the Imam would not make a good envoy?

    Depends on what?

    I just had a very brief read through this case and cant see how it would correlate with using the Imam as an envoy.

    I think a better correlation would be the US military manual to combat insurgency. Paragraph 6-60;

    The difference in this case though is the Imam is there to change the local religion by trying to project a positive image of the USA to the host countries devout who are on a knifes edge to becoming extremists.
     
  7. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

     
  8. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    It still employs people with your money to condemn the religious practices of others that the USA does not agree with whilst trying to promote its own ethics. I'd hardly call that a neutral view towards the belief of others.

    Why talk in "if's"? The only "if" is if this was not a certain Imam involved in another high profile news story this would be just another goodwill mission in Americas plight to stamp out terrorism.

    The problem is when you try and remain neutral you become anything but. I remember a thread on here where you and Hybrix made it clear that not teaching your children about God was the same as teaching your children there is no God. When the US is faced with an enemy that has its roots within a religion, it either has to stay loyal to its broad interpretation of a clause or it has to redefine the parameters. As far as I am aware the boy scouts of America do not negate this boundary.


    I'd like to read your source.

    Despite my suspicion of this claim...how does having ties with Hamas diminish his credentials as an envoy?

    This does not answer the question.

    ...What are the depending factors that separate a military chaplain or prison chaplain or member of the above mentioned commission that removes them from the boy scouts, nativities, schools and in this case an envoy of the executive branch? ...why can a Prison employ a chaplain to encourage the inmates away from crime, why can the military employ a chaplain to give comfort and support to its personnel yet the State department can not employ an Imam to help heal the wounds and narrow the divide between the disenfranchised?

    Without this detail or the previous detail(see above****)then there is no substance to the rhetorical question you gave that would place the story in the news article as a violation of the First Amendment

    I think your seeing an inconsistency that does not exist. Probably largely down to the media interest in this man.

    If you look at it as envoy who happens to be an Imam (as that would be the best person for the task) then it would be against the constitution to deny him that role.

    The only other query is whether the envoy itself is a violation? ..building relations between the United States and those who are likely to oppose it (who happen to be muslim) I cant see anything wrong there either.
     
    Sim likes this.
  9. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

     
  10. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Right, and can you explain in detail how the article in the OP favours or shows preference towards one religion?

    Had it instead been an envoy to pay visit to the catholic church in the Phillippinnes to address the relationship between contraception, population density and poverty, Would this too violated the First Amendment?

    On what authority?

    You're not, you are being attacked by terrorists who do so in the name of Islam.

    Is this a statement or a question? ...and what happened to the source of the allegation or should I dismiss it as most likely a non-confounded bigoted slur by some prejudiced blogger, because with out a source that what I think it is.

    Can you clarify is the violation; In sending an Imam, or is it sendng an envoy to talk to religious groups?

    ...and different religions treat the Usa with different consistencies. I t would not make any sense to treat them all with the same regard.

    What good would not sending anyone be?
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2010

Share This Page