Posted on 08/29/2012 2:01:48 PM PDT by bimboeruption
(CNN) -- The Republican National Convention will make history Wednesday night. Ishwar Singh, wearing a turban and beard, will take the stage and lead thousands of conservatives in prayer.
For the first time in U.S. history, a Sikh American will give the invocation at a Republican National Convention.
The inclusion of a Sikh prayer on the stage comes just a few weeks after a gunman opened fire on Sikhs praying in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, killing six and hospitalizing three more in what could be the largest racially motivated mass shooting in recent U.S. history. Many praise the invocation as a mark of progress in the Sikh community's 100 years in America.
Visuals matter. And in a racially charged political climate, a turbaned and bearded man will be presented to the country by Republicans as a fellow American. This is a remarkable step forward.
But speech also matters. If Mitt Romney and Republican leaders want the historic Sikh invocation to be more than tokenism -- and are serious about preventing another Oak Creek -- they cannot continue to let hateful speech within their own party go unchecked. In a time when hate groups are on the rise, the Republican Party must accept responsibility for fostering a political climate that often casts people of color as foreign and inherently suspect.
GOP leaders have not only stood silent while fellow Republicans fan the flames of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim bias, they have given them the megaphone. Singh will speak on the same stage as Sheriff Joe Arpaio, infamous for shaming and rounding up undocumented immigrants, saying that it's an honor to be compared to the KKK. Newt Gingrich, who is presiding over "Newt University" at the RNC, has compared Muslims to Nazis.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I’ve been on FR since 1998...
Where in ANY of my posts have I indicated I wouldn’t vote for a Jewish person?
Bigots masquerading as conservatives and Christians are, in fact, neither.
Where in ANY of my posts have I indicated I wouldn’t vote for a Jewish person?
I didn't say this. I said you would vote for a Jewish person because you acknowledge the Divine origin and truth of the Hebrew Bible. You do not acknowledge the qur'an or the Sikh holy book (and neither do I). But I said your acceptance of Judaism was on chrstian terms, and since you are a sincere chrstian, it could hardly be otherwise. I asked that you merely understand that Jews do not consider the Hebrew Bible an "old testament" on its way to "fulfillment" but a religion complete in itself and thus chrstianity to be in error.
I don't want to fight with you. Why you think I do and why you think I accused you of not being willing to vote for a Jew is absolutely beyond me, especially since I just defended Americo-chrstian identitarianism as perfectly respectable and no threat to Jews at all, despite what some have come to believe.
Your criticism of wideawake, however, was uncalled for. He's still the world champion FReeper.
Now please kindly stop picking stupid, unnecessary fights with me.
>”Sikhs cannot be conservatives? Only Christians can?”<
Did someone on this tread actually state this? I can’t find it.
I would say that we have had presidents, senators and justices who, while ethnically British, were not Christians in any sense that a modern Christian Fundamentalist would recognize.
That includes John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln.
A general belief in Providence was the preferred religion for much of America's ruling classes in the 1800s.
It wasn't until aggressively atheist and socialist foreign ideologies came to our shores that views began tightening up.
See post 5.
>”Because you seem to be indicating that only chrstians should be elected to political office (or at least the Presidency) in this country.”<
Your quote.
>”Now please kindly stop picking stupid, unnecessary fights with me.”<
Sorry if it seems like I’m picking “picking stupid, unnecessary fights”. I’m just responding to your long-winded, pompous, didactic posts.
Post 5...”“Ishwar Singh, wearing a turban and beard, will take the stage and lead thousands of conservatives in prayer.”
CNN abusing the term “Conservatives” again.”
IMHO, the poster isn’t saying that Sikhs cannot be conservatives...that only Christians can.
The poster is saying that thousands of people in the audience aren’t Conservatives because they support Romney.
Please investigate a bit about the Sikhs...
While I am not a Sihk, I find much that is admirable in their religion, and they have much in common with Conservative Christians in the way of values...
I understand the resistance to any but Christian clergy, and perhaps the GOP is going overboard in effort to be inclusive...That’s for each to decide for him- or herself...
The Sihks are decent honorable people and I prefer them as allies...Their beliefs and culture make them excellent soldiers, by the way...
Now that is just rich. The Democrat Party has spewed more hate then any hate group ever in existence! Just this past week we have heard their hope that Republicans all die in the hurricane, that Akin be raped, and they have entered vile things on Wikipedia about Mayor Mia Love...you get the picture. It's time they look in the mirror before they throw accusations around about Republicans and hate!
BTW, Sikhs are the good guys. Many are mistaken for muslim, but they are as far from being muslim as both Christians and Jews are!
Every word was true, widey!
I would say that we have had presidents, senators and justices who, while ethnically British, were not Christians in any sense that a modern Christian Fundamentalist would recognize.
That includes John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln.
It would also include Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and a number of the Founders--perhaps including Washington himself.
A general belief in Providence was the preferred religion for much of America's ruling classes in the 1800s.
It wasn't until aggressively atheist and socialist foreign ideologies came to our shores that views began tightening up.
True, and that is why most "tightening up" begins--in response to some sort of attack. That's one reason the Catholicism of Trent was less lenient than that of the Middle Ages (just as an example).
Every word was true, widey!
I would say that we have had presidents, senators and justices who, while ethnically British, were not Christians in any sense that a modern Christian Fundamentalist would recognize.
That includes John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln.
It would also include Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and a number of the Founders--perhaps including Washington himself.
A general belief in Providence was the preferred religion for much of America's ruling classes in the 1800s.
It wasn't until aggressively atheist and socialist foreign ideologies came to our shores that views began tightening up.
True, and that is why most "tightening up" begins--in response to some sort of attack. That's one reason the Catholicism of Trent was less lenient than that of the Middle Ages (just as an example).
**If the GOP limits itself to white Christians it will become impossible for them to win federal elections within 10-15 years.**
Who said anything about “white”?
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Quoting John Adams
John Adams was refering to Judeo/Christianity, not Sikhs or Hindus or Muslims.
AND I COMPLETELY RESENT THE RACIST REMARK.
Look, I’m sorry for my ignorance. I’m trying to learn. I know it’s not Islam and that the Sikhs and the Islamicists fight. I also know that Sikhs are splendid friends and terrifying enemies. Cut me some slack, I’m still trying to learn about Jains and Hindus.
Ha, ha, reminds me of the old pop song ... “ooh ee, ooh ah ah, ting tang, walla walla bing bang”
It’s fine and dandy to have people as political allies, but Christians cannot pray with pagans to their pagan gods. It’s as simple as that.
that’s different. Don’t forget that a Sikh was targetted by a nutter who thought they were Moslem. Sikhs have been fighting Moslems right since the birth of their religion in the 1600s.
Comparing Sikhism to shamanism and Islam is ignorance talking -- as BrewingFrog and wideawake point out
they are monotheists but not in the tradition of Abraham.
both wideawake and I are Christian Americans and for me, yeah i'm foolish too. But I try to learn other languages and know who I'm talking about before considering Sikhs = Moslems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.