Skip to main content

The GOP's double standard on mosque visitation

Remember when then President George W. Bush visited a mosque not long after the 9/11 attacks? If you answered no, you're not alone, for it seems many Republican politicians don't recall this event either.

Even before Barack Obama visited a mosque yesterday, which was the first time he had done so during his presidency, Fox News, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and others felt the need to criticize him for it.

Speaking to Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, Trump said, "I think that we can go to lots of places. I don't know, maybe he feels comfortable there. We have a lot of problems in this country, Greta. There are a lot of places he can go and he chose a mosque. I saw that just a little while ago. So that's his decision, it's fine."

Rubio went one step further, as he made the following comments:

"I'm tired of being divided against each other for political reasons like this president's done. Always pitting people against each other. Always! Look at today: He gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.

Of course there's discrimination in America, of every kind. But the bigger issue is radical Islam. And by the way way, radical Islam poses a threat to Muslims themselves. They argue that. They'll tell you that. But again, it's this constant pitting people against each other that - I can't stand that. It's hurting our country badly."

Oddly enough, following Bush's post-9/11 mosque visit, here is what the Washington Post reported about the event:

"In a gesture that surprised and gratified Islamic leaders, Bush stepped up an already intense effort by his administration to prevent hate crimes and discrimination against nearly 10 million American Arabs and Muslims in retaliation for the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks by Middle Eastern terrorists.

'The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam,' said the president, escorted by Islamic clerics into the ornate mosque full of Turkish tile, Persian rugs and Egyptian paintings. 'Islam is peace.'"

So, Fox News, Mr. Trump, Senator Rubio, what's the difference between President Bush visiting a mosque speaking out against anti-Muslim discrimination and President Obama doing so? I'm waiting...

Forget it; I have a feeling I'll be waiting a while. I'll answer the question for them. There is no difference between the actions of Presidents Bush and Obama; the difference is in the reactions to their actions. Marco Rubio's reaction, in particular, is a prime example of projection. In claiming President Obama is dividing the country by visiting a mosque and doing so for political reasons, it's actually Senator Rubio who's using the president's mosque visitation for political reasons and in the process, dividing the country.

Even if Senator Rubio isn't projecting, his comments are nonsensical. How does division via inclusion or division through acceptance make any logical sense? How is President Obama dividing a nation by attempting to make those most susceptible to being discriminated against feel welcome?

It isn't divisive to try and provide equal rights for all U.S. citizens. It isn't divisive to try and provide equal pay for equal work regardless of gender. It isn't divisive to try and legalize marriage rights regardless of orientation. It isn't divisive to try and provide equal opportunity regardless of race. It isn't divisive to try and showcase respect regardless of religious affiliation. President Obama hasn't been dividing this country by trying to make everyone feel like an integral part of it; Marco Rubio and his ilk have been dividing this country by taking advantage of people's prejudices and using them for political reasons to prompt fear, illusion, and votes on election day.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/marco-rubio-obama-mosque

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-mosque/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/04/why-obamas-mosque-visit-is-criticized-in-a-way-george-w-bushs-wasnt/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"