Did no one bother to look up the text of the speech? He also said:
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.
This article was written to incite anger. It worked.
Yes, we did bother to look up the text.
Coptic Christians in Egypt are being attacked and killed, so Obama is equating “those who slander the prophet” (which means anyone who states that they don’t believe mohammed is a prophet) with those who physically attack Christians and “bully girls” by preventing them from going to school(again by violence and threats of violence). So speaking out against Islam equates with violence??
Also, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.”
The first sentence is clear as a bell (and taken verbatum means he believes the future doesn’t belong to non-muslims), but the second one is awkward and unclear. Why did he not say “The future must also not belong to those who desecrate the image of Jesus Christ....”? He switches to unclear passive voice - is he condemning the hate of the people by whom the Holocaust is denied, or the “hateful reaction” of those who object to that denial?
Why is his condemnation of those who “slander the prophet” unquestionable, while his supposed attack on those who desecrate other religions is so vague??
This man says what he means, even when he doesn’t intend to...from “My muslim faith” to “punished with a baby” he is clear on his beliefs, but his apologists continually try to explain why he didn’t really mean what he said. He is only unclear when he is trying not to say what he has to say to keep up the charade that he is christian/moderate/capitalist/american.
My 2cents
O2
I read most of it, and while yes, that part is also offensive, it isn’t nearly as offensive as his attack on Christianity and his dismissal of the holocaust.
But for the part you cite: According to Obama, the future belongs to people who care so little about religion that they can’t distinguish between Christianity and Islam, two belief systems that are antithetical to one another. And it belongs only to women, and it has to be educated women.
I’ll assume he isn’t trying to claim that his daughters can’t live THEIR dreams, that he was speaking in some universal language of “tolerance of everybody that we like, and silencing of everybody we don’t like”.
Because in the end, he has declared intolerance to people who actually hold beliefs, people who think a particular world-view is important. Those of us who believe in absolutes are ridiculed by this president, in favor of those who don’t think there are any standards EXCEPT that we must accept whatever perversions they foist upon us or else we will be crushed.