Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: Obama Rips Bible, Praises Koran
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/national-s ... bama-rips-bible-praises-koran/
Published: Feb 7, 2015
Author: Ben Shapiro
Post Date: 2015-02-07 06:32:22 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 192563
Comments: 433
Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. So it is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a simple tendency that can pervert and distort our faith. This is historically and philosophically illiterate. Historically speaking, the Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression in Europe and the Middle East; the Inquisition, as Jonah Goldberg points out while quoting historian Thomas Madden, director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, was designed to regularize executions rather than leaving them to the will of the masses. Christians undoubtedly pursued horrible brutalities against people, including innocent Jews. However, as Goldberg points out, “Christianity, even in its most terrible days, even under the most corrupt popes, even during the most unjustifiable wars, was indisputably a force for the improvement of man.” Nowhere is that clearer than in Obama’s second example, slavery. Virtually all of the most ardent abolitionists were deeply religious Christians. Hundreds of thousands of American men marched to their deaths singing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”: “In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea / With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me / As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free / While God is marching on.” That was 150 years ago. It’s not exactly the modern Islamic slogan, “Death to the Jews.” Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., was, as his name suggests, a reverend. He quoted old black Christian spirituals and the Biblical story of the exodus from Egypt. Christians obliterated slavery. Christians obliterated Jim Crow. Modern slavery is largely perpetrated by Muslims. Modern Jim Crow is certainly perpetrated by Muslims under shariah law. There is a larger point, here, too: President Obama’s foolish argument suggests that because Christians were brutal a millennium ago, they should shut up about brutalities today. This is somewhat like saying that because someone’s great-great-grandfather held slaves in rural Alabama, that person should shut up about human trafficking in 2015. It’s asinine. But Obama has a history of insulting Christianity and Judaism while upholding Islam. In 2006, Obama bashed the Bible and religious Christians and Jews in particular: Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles. He then concluded that religious leaders should not speak out against publicly-funded contraception or gay marriage. We can get into President Obama’s pathetic Biblical commentary here – his interpretation of Leviticus on slavery is incorrect, Jews still avoid shellfish, the Talmud explains that no child has ever been stoned for rebelliousness, and the Sermon on the Mount is not a pacifist document. Obama’s not Biblically literate – he’s the same fellow who says, “I think the good book says don’t throw stones in glass houses.” He said in The Audacity of Hope that he would define Biblical values however he chose, stating that he is not willing “to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.” Both are, in fact, parts of the Bible. Citing the Sermon on the Mount to justify civil unions for homosexuals, as Obama has done, is not in fact Biblical. But more importantly, Obama’s scorn for the old-fashioned Bible is obvious. That became more obvious in 2008, when Obama told some of his buddies in San Francisco that unemployed idiots “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” The Obama administration has routinely attacked religious organizations and people who violate Obama’s personal political predilections. They’ve attacked all trappings of Christianity as well. Whether they’re using Obamacare to force religious individuals to pay for others’ contraception or toning down the National Day of Prayer instead of holding a public ceremony, whether they’re covering a monogram of Jesus at Georgetown University during a presidential speech or objecting to adding FDR’s D-Day prayer to the WWII memorial, the Obama administration clearly isn’t fond of Christianity. This contrasts strongly with President Obama’s romantic vision of Islam. He famously called the Muslim call to prayer “the sweetest sound I know.” He said in his first presidential interview, with Al-Arabiya, that his job was “to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.” Weeks later, he said in Turkey, “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.” A few months later, in a speech in Cairo to which he invited the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama said: I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. He added that Islam has a “proud tradition of tolerance,” explained, ‘Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace,” and said, “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” He said in his Ramadan message in 2009 that Islam has played a key “role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.” ISIS, Obama has said over and over again, is not Islamic. His administration maintains that America is not at war with radical Islam. He stated before the United Nations in 2012, just weeks after the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya at the hands of Muslim terrorists, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Hillary Clinton allegedly promised Charles Woods, father of one of the slain in Benghazi, that the administration would achieve the arrest of the YouTube filmmaker behind The Innocence of Muslims. The State Department issued taxpayer-funded commercials denouncing that YouTube video. President Obama variously called the video “crude and disgusting” and stated that “its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.” At the UN in 2014, Obama lauded a Muslim cleric who backs Hamas. And, of course, Obama uses Islamic theology to promote his vision of world peace: All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. All three religions do have access to holy sites now, in Jewish-run Jerusalem. They did not when Muslims ruled Jerusalem. But facts have no bearing in the fantasy world of the president. Perhaps one final contrast tells the tale. In 2012, according to the Washington Post. “U.S. troops tried to burn about 500 copies of the Koran as part of a badly bungled security sweep at an Afghan prison in February.” Two American soldiers were shot in the aftermath. This prompted President Obama to apologize profusely to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, writing him a letter stating, “We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, including holding accountable those responsible.” Three years earlier, members of the military burned Bibles printed in Pashto and Dari. CNN reported that they had been discarded “amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans.” The Bibles were burned rather than sent back to their source organization because the military worried they might be re-sent to another outlet in Afghanistan. There was no apology to the church that printed the Bibles, or to Christians more broadly. Sure, radical Muslims around the world, supported by millions of their compatriots and friendly governments, are murdering innocents. But it’s Christian aggression that forces Muslims to burn other Muslims alive in Muslim countries.
On Thursday, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., President Obama blithely informed his audience that Christians ought not get on their “high horse” about the problem of radical Islam:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-155) not displayed.
.
.
.
#156. To: Liberator (#118)
At everything I do...always have been, always will be!
Don't get all cuddled because you posted a link. You are a liar, a thief and a charlatan.
Aaw, has your integrity been challenged? Don't worry -- it's on its way to the municipal water treatment plant to be processed...
Are you always this nice to traitors?
No. I want see traitors hung by the neck until dead. If you can find a judge, we can accomplish this mission goal.
*cough, hack* Rachel Maddow? Stop smokin', snortin', shootin', poppin', sniffin', gulpin', swallowing whatever meds you're doing. Immediately... ...RESUME the Sterno.
Don't forget he could be suckin' the yukon pipe and *is* his catcher.
You having a "melt down"... Earlier today President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast, where he discussed freedom of expression along with highlighting the many acts of barbarism that are happening now and have happened throughout the centuries which were justified under the guise of religion. He also explained in depth about how as Christians, we can overcome these perversions of religion. President Obama spoke for about thirty minutes and used almost three thousand words today, but the only part of the speech the right wing media is focusing on is when he brought up the Crusades. Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation. How dare the president put into context the historical atrocities performed over centuries in the name of God! As usual the Catholic League's Bill Donohue took front and center stage on Fox News and was fuming because Obama dared to mention Christ and demanded that he apologize. Neil Cavuto actually defended Obama for the most part which kind of surprised me, but Donohue, the pedophile priest apologist didn't. Cavuto: Bill Donohue called that an insult to all Christians and said the president needs to apologize, but I think what he said Bill, obviously you're worked up over it, "look, what's done in the name of religion has often caused some heinous acts," you argue he hasn't said this enough about Islam. Donohue: I'm saying this, had he said just said that, that people have killed in the name of their God and it's not unique to one religion, who could argue with that? But he didn't do that, did he? He spoke with specificity. he singled out the Crusades and the Inquisition. There's so many myths about.. What Donohue is actually demanding is to be the president's speech writer/approval monitor. Bill has no problem with the speech except when Obama mentions acts of brutality perpetrated by Christians and Catholics. he immediately tries to rewrite history and said that the atrocities happening name in the name of Islam far outweigh anything that happened in the history of the world. After he bloviated for a while, Cavuto cut in. Cavuto: Stepping back for this he is saying what's done in the name of God, his name or whatever deity you believe that we take it too far? Or you're not giving him the benefit of that.. Donohue: I think he should have said that. I think you're being exculpatory here. Another real problem for the Donohues of the world is that they refuse to admit that Barack Obama is a Christian and will never allow him to discuss religion on those terms. Bill continued, "We have a problem with Islam. Not just with Islamists, but a problem with Islam." For some reason the right has focused on Obama for not constantly bashing the Muslim religion, as Bill Donohue does in this interview, but then they demand that Muslim countries join us in fighting groups like ISIS. Do they not understand the fallacy of their reasoning? More of Obama's speech, which appears to make Donohue's whining completely unfounded. But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions. http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/right-wing-melts-down-over- obamas-comments.
Plenty of those still around, strangulating America. They're the same ones who defend Mooselimbs who every single day stack their victims and burn them on six continents.
Lol, what they do in the privacy of their own igloo is nobody's business.
Yea, where did Obama lie?
*laughing* Do you really think ANY one is reading your neatly boxed cut & paste propaganda??
*Yeah, but I'm still laughing* (AT YOO)
(I WON'T CONTINUE WITH THE HEADERS.) Your question was directed to some comment that Gary made. I'm not sure about what that comment was, so I'll start by defusing the lead in - I'm not answering whatever issue you were debating with him. Rather, I am addressing the questions directly put: (1) "Is 'belief' tied to 'reality'? (2) "If so, how do you explain 'animism' and the perpetual belief systems thereof?" (3) "What about 'luck' at a casino in Las Vegas." I will answer the first and third questions directly in this missive. To answer the second question I will need you to define for me what you specifically mean by "animism". When I hear the word "animism", I think of the belief among various tribes that all things, be they animals or trees or rocks, have individual spirits that are perceptive and aware, and that have the power to interact with men and the world. That's what I think of what I think of "animism", and given my use of the word, I would find the second question a non-sequitur: what one thinks about beliefs and reality is unrelated to the question of whether rocks and trees have intelligent souls. Obviously you have something different in mind when you use the word "animism" here, such that the question flows logically from the answer to the first question. Please supply your definition of animism, so that I can see what your second question is aimed at, and I will happily answer (NO IRONY INTENDED). As it is, I can't answer because I'm not sure what you are asking. Now then, to return to the first question: "Is 'belief' tied to 'reality'?", to answer it I have to define three words: "belief", "tied" and "reality". These words have varied meanings in different people's mouths and minds, so I have to tell you what I mean by each word to be able to answer it. Depending on the precise meanings of each word, the answer could be "yes", "no", "yes and no", or "maybe". So let's get precision. "Belief" can mean a lot of things. When I use the word, it is a noun for of the verb "to believe", and refers to a mental state in which a person thinks that something is true. Whether or not the thing thought really IS true is dependent upon reality external to the mind of the individual, but belief, as I use the term, does not speak to the ultimate truth of the thing believed, only to the fact that the person doing the believing thinks that the thing is true, or is probably true. The third word "reality", I take to mean "objectively true", something that exists, that IS. The real key word, then, is "linked", because in this context it COULD mean many things. There is a philosophical link called "truth" between a thing that is believed and reality then the thing believes is externally, objectively true. If the thing believed is not objectively true, then the philosophical link between the belief and the reality is that the belief is untrue, or that there is a true belief in something that is unreal. I think that your use of the word enters a different realm of philosophy, and raises the question of subjectivism: does belief in a think CAUSE IT to be real. In such a case, the link would be causation. To that, I would answer that I do not believe it to be so that human beliefs, on their own, cause things to be real. To quote an old Irish proverb: "You don't plow a field by turning it over in your mind." That said, I do think that human beliefs can unleash events that brings a state of reality into being that did not exist before. But in these cases it is because the belief triggered a man to act in some way that changed external reality. Certain realities are themselves internal: for example, to enter into a state of hypnosis does result in a change in brainwave pattern on a monitor, and this is the result of an internal mental state. It is a case where a belief itself induces a change of state in the mechanism by which belief happens: the internal activity of the brain, bringing about a concrete reality. The same thing is true when a human thought causes an arm to reach out and do something. There, the link between the belief and the reality is direct, and it is caused by mental will, although that will is then mechanically translated down a system of nerves to cause the action to be. Simple thought initiates physical reality in such a case. Nevertheless, for humans a physical conveyance mechanism is required. For gods, such a conveyance mechanism may or may not be required. For God, as I use the word, mental will itself creates reality and there is no need for a mechanism. So, the link between belief and reality exists, but the nature of that link is dependent on who is doing the believing, and what the thing is that is believed. To move, then, to the Las Vegas question: Does a person really wanting to roll a 7 cause, in any way, to 7 to be rolled? Only to the extent that it causes the hands to throw the dice. But beyond that, what the dice DO is a matter of external reality, not the internal mental state of the believer, however fervent the desire. In the physical universe, if the dice are honest, how they turn up is a matter of randomness. There is a grand philosophical debate as to whether TRUE randomness exists, or whether if one had all information about all of the forces that impinged on the dice, one could demonstrate that the fall of the dice is an utterly foregone conclusion by the mechanism of physics. While the debate has raged, there is an apparent answer to the question, and it is that the fall of dice, while affected by many inputs, is truly random because there are chaotic elements among the forces that are themselves random and not predictable. Of course, all of this assumes that the dice are honest. Beyond the philosophical question of whether the dice are random (if they are honest, they are), there is the question that you're asking, which is whether mental state can cause the dice to fall a certain way. The answer to that is "no" when referring to human beings. But when speaking of God, the answer is "yes" - yes, God determines the outcome, or perhaps God CAN determine the outcome, if he chooses, but he may simple decide to leave the outcome to the function of the random elements that he has built into the universe. Then we come to the linking question: can a man's prayer and belief about God cause God to effect the outcome of a dice roll in Las Vegas. The answer to that is that it can, of course, logically, for God is God. However, the answer may be that the outcome effected may not be good. The next logical question is "How do you know there is God at all?" But the answer to any question like that should wait until we've first clarified your second question and answered it.
Of course, and to Obama's credit (as much as I hate to give him credit for anything>...look at what he has everyone talking about right now. Playing the Right Wing and the Media like a multimillion-dollar Stradivarius!
Whoever said he was?
Your political party.
Translation for that means: "You can't answer my question!" 10 point penalty...failed deflection!
What lesson?
Translation for that: "You are totally frustrated because you can't handle me!"
Slander...where?
0bama has no credit other than subversion of America and taking advantage of weak-kneed little WhiteHouse worshippers such as yourself. He didn't change the the gist of ISIS controversy other than display his ignorance in obvious emphasis towards applauding Muslims and yourown agreement as a cheerleader. So you say .. communist.
I think you are AFRAID to...check that, I know that you are AFRAID to. I know that you can't handle the TRUTH!
Where in the world are Christians creating violence? Show one place anywhere around the world today; infact, go out of this world in your usual blather.
Because that is the only thing you can do since you cannot answer face truthful reality. Keep on laughing, bro...
http://www.juancole.com/2015/02/standard-christian-atrocities.html The source for Gatlin's anti-Christian post #71, is Juan Cole "The New Arabs". The jist seems to be... it was OK for Muslims (and Yankees) to have house slaves, but evil for Southern Christians to have them in the field. It's "progressive" so it doesn't have to make sense!
UN: Muslims ethnically cleansed in CAR UN report says Christian militias engaged in ethnic cleansing of Muslims in ongoing Central African Republic civil war. Christian militias in Central African Republic have carried out ethnic cleansing of the Muslim population during the country's ongoing civil war, but there is no proof there was genocidal intent, a United Nations commission of inquiry has said. "Thousands of people died as a result of the conflict. Human rights violations and abuses were committed by all parties. The Seleka coalition and the anti- balaka are also responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity," the inquiry said on Thursday. "Although the commission cannot conclude that there was genocide, ethnic cleansing of the Muslim population by the anti-balaka constitutes a crime against humanity," the report said. The final report of the inquiry, which was submitted to the UN Security Council on December 19, said up to 6,000 people had been killed though it "considers that such estimates fail to capture the full magnitude of the killings that occurred". The mostly Christian or animist "anti-balaka" militia took up arms in 2013 in response to months of looting and killing by mostly Muslim Seleka rebels who had toppled President Francois Bozize and seized power in March the same year. The UN Security Council established the commission of inquiry in December 2013. Preventing violence In September 2014, the International Criminal Court opened an investigation into allegations of murder, rape and the recruiting of child soldiers in the Central African Republic. Some 5,600 African Union peacekeepers, deployed in December 2013, and about 2,000 French troops have struggled to stem the violence in the impoverished landlocked country of 4.6 million people. The United Nations took over the African Union peacekeeping mission in September and is mandated by the Security Council to double its size to nearly 12,000 troops and police. The UN commission of inquiry said the deployment of the African Union peacekeepers, French troops and then the UN peacekeeping mission (MINUSCA) had "been primarily responsible for the prevention of an even greater explosion of violence".
Thank you all...and to all, Good Night!
Your sources are not authenticated by crediable sources. Case dismissed!
I have many MORE... YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Good Night, Loser!!!
When you bring the UN into the discussion/argument, there must be a reason why your supporting evidence for your argument is dismissed, IMMEDIATELT!
What religious reasons would that be?
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17)
The answer is no. Christ never gave the sword to evangelize the Gospel. Secular European kings and emperors falsely assumed the sword under the name "Christian." However, in Islam the sword was preached by Muhammad. There is only One Christ Jesus. There are two Muhammads.
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17)
Thomas Jefferson thinks otherwise and his thinking and that of his contemporaries was what held sway. You argue the point for someone who Jefferson was against because of modern American Fundie attempts to hold onto their modern myths of Protestant Fundie America's origins.
Absolutely!!! One example is Obama pronouncing Pakistan in the correct way of "POK-istan" rather than how most Americans pronounce it as "Pak-istan" like in the Packers football team. Reminds me of Hispanic reporters that over enunciate Hispanic names or pronounce Mexico and Mehico. Obama doing it sounds pretentious to Joe Blow American ears and Obama is just not able to 'dumb' it down for them. He does not have that skill which is what I think Obama was referring to when he said he should appoint Clinton as head of "explaining stuff". If Obama used the more accurate "Lord's Resistance Army" example to show how Christian terror groups fighting for religious reasons in the modern world are also doing ISIS level depravities (as are Buddhist and Hindu terror groups until recently in Sri Lanka - the Hindu Tamils invented suicide bombers and there were cases where Sikhs blew up airplanes as well) most Americans would have scratched their heads having never heard of them. So he has to reach back to the Crusades and the Jim Crow era. That Americans kind of remember he figures.
Obama has killed more terrorist with drones than even Bush while depriving the terrorists of easy to target Americans on the ground. I ask again, what Muslim agenda has Obama enacted in the USA? Are women whipped for leaving their men? Is abortion banned? Is sex outside marriage grounds for execution? Is Obama urging the faithful to kill gays? You are making it sound like I am supporting Obama - I don't - I just want people like you in the right wing to end your stupidity and in being kooks like thinking Obama is making America Muslim. Just by associating with your nuttiness taints the right wing.
Lee actually freed his slaves before Grant freed his.
What religious reasons would that be? Google works as well for you as it does for me for you to look up what LRA does in the name of their version of Christ. And if you argue they are not 'real Christians' that is what Muslims say about ISIL, al-Qaeda, etc. I don't like Muslims. I have a long posting history of supporting wars against Muslims even moderate Muslims like in Bosnia and Kosovo. That does not mean I have to make myself as stupid as a FOX news viewer in discussing the issues.
The only myth is the leftist, atheist secular myth that the founders were deists. 93% of the Founders were Trinitarian Christians of the Protestant or Reformed type. 56 signers of DoI church affiliation On the "Fundie" issue...What? You don't hold to the 5 basic Christian fundamentals handed as the rule of faith since the apostolic era?: 1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9). 2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27). 3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14). 4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15). 5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20) So the above was embraced by Christians at the turn of the 20th century to distance themselves from the dead liberal churches and theological centers promoting a false gospel. Thus they were called fundamentalists.
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17)
I did not mention that at all. I showed where Thomas Jefferson stated flat out that English Common Law was not based on Christianity and predated it - he mentions the fact that the British establishment always claims their laws are Christian based and he disagrees. And Jefferson did not hide his views - they were very open. Imagine the modern uproar if an American president said this? Also, the Treaty Of Tripoli which the Senate ratified for Jefferson flat out stated that the USA was not founded as a Christian nation and not one noted comment of shock, dissent, etc to the wording of that treaty which was published in the newspapers back then for all to read. That tells me this was an unremarkable view by Americans at the time of the Founding Fathers regardless of their individual faiths.
Comments (197 - 433) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYup. The Gatlin is the very best!!
#157. To: Gatlin (#155)
#158. To: Gatlin (#147)
Slander...where?
#159. To: Pridie.Nones (#157)
#160. To: Liberator (#159)
#161. To: Gatlin, his source, Rachel Maddow (#142)
#162. To: Liberator, gatlin (#161)
#163. To: Liberator (#135)
Oh...pardon while I get up and take a "tater." At ease, Spammeister.
Right Wing Melts Down Over Obama's Comments At National Prayer Breakfast
#164. To: Pridie.Nones (#160)
#165. To: Pridie.Nones (#162)
#166. To: Liberator (#137)
But oh wait...
#167. To: Gatlin (#163)
#168. To: Gatlin (#166)
#169. To: Pridie.Nones (#117)
#170. To: Pridie.Nones (#138)
Don't you understand what politicians do to take your focus off current events?
#171. To: Pridie.Nones (#146)
If POTUS is the Great Orator of the US Constitution...
#172. To: Gatlin (#171)
#173. To: Liberator (#151)
Here's are the bigger questions:
#174. To: Liberator (#152)
Tsk. Haven't you learned your lesson yet, Wolfgang?
#175. To: Liberator (#154)
Where did Obama lie?
#176. To: Pridie.Nones (#157)
You are a liar, a thief and a charlatan.
#177. To: Liberator (#158)
Slander...where?
#178. To: Gatlin (#170)
Of course, and to Obama's credit (as much as I hate to give him credit for anything>...look at what he has everyone talking about right now.
Playing the Right Wing and the Media like a multimillion-dollar Stradivarius!
#179. To: Liberator (#167)
Do you really think ANY one is reading your neatly boxed cut & paste propaganda??
#180. To: Gatlin (#176)
#181. To: Liberator (#168)
*Yeah, but I'm still laughing*
#182. To: Liberator, Gatlin the new Arab, Juan Cole and the house negroes (#161)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#183. To: Pridie.Nones (#180)
Show one place anywhere around the world today...
Had you been keeping up…you would have already known this:
#184. To: All (#183)
(Edited)
#185. To: Gatlin (#183)
#186. To: Pridie.Nones (#185)
(Edited)
#187. To: Gatlin (#186)
#188. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator, Destro (#89)
Well, Obama was stupid in mentioning the past. he should have mentioned the Christian Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), in Africa that is as brutal as Boko Haram and are fighting for religious reasons.
#189. To: Gatlin, liberator, GarySpFc (#139)
If it is to accepted that those who committed heinous barbaric acts deemed themselves to be “Christians” but were not really “Christians”….can it not also be said that those who deem themselves to be “Muslims” and commit violent acts are not “Muslims?”
#190. To: GarySpFC (#111)
. The work became the basis of university legal education in England and North America. He was knighted in 1770.
#191. To: Gatlin, cranky, Murron, Stoner, Liberator, Pridie.Nones, Deckard, CZ82, GarySpFC, SOSO, rlk, hondo68, Vicomte13, redleghunter, sneakypete (#133)
(Edited)
Well, Obama was stupid in mentioning the past. he should have mentioned the Christian Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), in Africa that is as brutal as Boko Haram and are fighting for religious reasons. But Obama has to dumb stuff down for Americans to get a point across and that is Obama's weakness because while Clinton was good at dumbing down his points so the yokels could get his message, Obama never understood Joe Blow Americans and how to talk to them.
#192. To: SOSO, cranky, gatlin, (#149)
(Edited)
Agian, total BS. Obama is total BS, a total fraud. Wake up. Obama played the useful idiots by telling them what they wanted to hear. He knew that he could not get elected on a pro-life and anti-gay marriage message. In the meantime time he has done evertything he can to misdirect attention from the true agenda of Islam and ignoring modern day Islamic terrorism and brutality. He goes out of his way to avoid using the term Islamic terrorism, he can't even same Islamic extreism. I can understand why he goes so far up his ass to portect his agenda. I can't understand why you do.
#193. To: GarySpFC (#153)
Lee was against slavery and a number of years before the war he freed his own slaves.
#194. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator (#188)
Well, Obama was stupid in mentioning the past. he should have mentioned the Christian Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), in Africa that is as brutal as Boko Haram and are fighting for religious reasons.
#195. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator, Destro, BobCeleste (#190)
You argue the point for someone who Jefferson was against because of modern American Fundie attempts to hold onto their modern myths of Protestant Fundie America's origins.
#196. To: redleghunter (#195)
The only myth is the leftist, atheist secular myth that the founders were deists.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]