PDA

View Full Version : Barack Obama attacks religion




rational thinker
02-24-2009, 12:53 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_zssjFzpGs

Well, my respect for him went up just a tad bit, I have to admit. I just wish we had a Dr. Paul equivalent with completely secular views. That would surely be the greatest candidate ever, but I'd still rather have Ron Paul over Obama (despite being a possible closet atheist) anyday.

Sheepdog11
02-24-2009, 12:58 AM
Yeah, I saw that before.

I have respect for Obama, I just disagree with many of his policies and the way he got himself elected.

Thumbs up for him having the balls to say that.

rational thinker
02-24-2009, 01:06 AM
Yeah, I saw that before.

I have respect for Obama, I just disagree with many of his policies and the way he got himself elected.

Thumbs up for him having the balls to say that.

Yeah, definitely. I don't think it would have mattered in terms of economic and foreign policy with regard to who is president, but I think it's cool we got some young, hip dude who comes from probably one of the first generations that started to question all authority including religion.

It's more of a symbolic move on where America is headed and I'm quite hopeful of that.

Wendi
02-24-2009, 08:16 AM
Why is a politician who attacks religion any better than a politician who embraces it? Neither has any place in government policy making.

A. Havnes
02-24-2009, 08:18 AM
Why is a politician who attacks religion any better than a politician who embraces it? Neither has any place in government policy making.

+10

Truth Warrior
02-24-2009, 12:59 PM
Gee, and he took that OH SO SOLEMN OATH on a bible. How's that OATH go again? :rolleyes:

heavenlyboy34
02-24-2009, 01:01 PM
Gee, and he took that OH SO SOLEMN OATH on a bible. How's that OATH go again? :rolleyes:

and he even brought his OWN bible. ;):rolleyes:

angelatc
02-24-2009, 01:03 PM
It is just Obama being Obama. The Nazis hated the Jews, and the Progressives hate the Christians.

Truth Warrior
02-24-2009, 01:06 PM
and he even brought his OWN bible. ;):rolleyes: I thought he used Lincoln's.

US Presidential Oath of Office

Constitution : Article II, section 2

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Constitution : Article IV

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

http://www.law.mq.edu.au/Units/law404/US%20Presidential%20Oath%20of%20Office.htm (http://www.law.mq.edu.au/Units/law404/US%20Presidential%20Oath%20of%20Office.htm)

heavenlyboy34
02-24-2009, 01:23 PM
Obama sworn in on his Bible (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/238/)


Not according to the "official" ;) reports I've read over the last year-such as the above link.



I thought he used Lincoln's.

US Presidential Oath of Office

Constitution : Article II, section 2

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Constitution : Article IV

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

http://www.law.mq.edu.au/Units/law404/US%20Presidential%20Oath%20of%20Office.htm (http://www.law.mq.edu.au/Units/law404/US%20Presidential%20Oath%20of%20Office.htm)

Truth Warrior
02-24-2009, 01:33 PM
Obama sworn in on his Bible (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/238/)


Not according to the "official" ;) reports I've read over the last year-such as the above link. You mean the MSM on Inuaguration Day got it all WRONG? :eek:

heavenlyboy34
02-24-2009, 01:38 PM
You mean the MSM on Inuaguration Day got it all WRONG? :eek:

Fancy that! :eek:;)

Theocrat
02-24-2009, 01:53 PM
The problem with Barack Obama's views of religion is that he assumes there is such a thing as religious neutrality. There isn't. The removal of one religious belief system from an institution is just the imposition of another. For instance, when Christianity was banned from the public schools last century, the curriculum was replaced by secular humanistic dogma. This is one reason why our public schools are failing today, by the way. As a self-professed Christian, Obama should know better about his own religion because Christianity is not a pluralistic religion. It is exclusive. Jesus Christ says in John 14:6, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me." He also states in Matthew 12:30, "He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad." Those are the terms of having a relationship with God in true religious devotion, according to Christianity. Yet, Obama doesn't even understand the doctrine of his own religion.

Also showing on Obama's part (like so many Americans today) is his lack of understanding about our Founders who wrote about the need for Christianity in the success of our republic. Consider what Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote concerning the importance of Christianity to our republic:


We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical [Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806], pp. 93-94.)

John Adams, a signer of the Declaration and our second President, had this to say about the preconditions of our republic:


[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor [Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854], Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

Barack Obama's ideas about religion in our republic is in stark contradiction against the religious views of our Founders. Religion is important, and there can be no religious neutrality in deciding civil affairs. The teachings of Christianity do not warrant any disciple of Christ to compromise his views for the sake of other religious views, whether it's in civil or moral affairs.

In response to Obama's question of whose Christian views should we inculcate in education, law, and civil governance, I would just say this. Our early Founders were of different Christian persuasions, yet, they were able to perform their duties just fine in spite of their denominational differences. In Christianity, there are many things which are held in common, and I would say where there would be disagreement on certain application of Christian doctrines we solve those on a local level, just as was the case in the beginning of our republic.

Obama fails to understand this because he sees everything as being resolved from the top down. Most of the areas where Christians would disagree about civil matters, like capital punishment, can be tackled in state legislatures, county boards, and city councils. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Understanding Obama's point that our times have changed where other religious views have entered into political culture, it needs to be reiterated that we come to an understanding of there being no such thing as religious neutrality. If we want to decide which religious system should dominate politics and government, we need to appeal to our Founders and their writings, even going as far back as the Puritans in the 1600s. History is on the side of Christianity that most of our political capital in America was from a Christian worldview. The only way our republic can work is by the institution of Christian morals and ideas in law and government. No other religious system has been able to achieve the amount of peace and prosperity in a republic that has come from the precepts of the Christian faith.

Our failure to understand this only shows our ignorance of our own history, thanks to the secular revisionists and relativists who have taught generations of children for the last 60 or so years in our public schools. It then becomes obvious that Obama is simply a product of this morbid indoctrination, and sadly, he is in a position of power now where he can influence even more people with his twisted ideas that we must be religiously neutral in our civil affairs. That is simply impossible. Obama is not religiously neutral, and neither should we be.

Josh_LA
02-24-2009, 01:55 PM
It is just Obama being Obama. The Nazis hated the Jews, and the Progressives hate the Christians.

I don't think it's that simple.

I don't care if Obama is a Muslim or secularist or Satanist, he's just as human as we are and is free to have his opinion (and the more honest the better).

Truth Warrior
02-24-2009, 01:57 PM
The problem with Barack Obama's views of religion is that he assumes there is such a thing as religious neutrality. There isn't. The removal of one religious belief system from an institution is just the imposition of another. For instance, when Christianity was banned from the public schools last century, the curriculum was replaced by secular humanistic dogma. This is one reason why our public schools are failing today, by the way. As a self-professed Christian, Obama should know better about his own religion because Christianity is not a pluralistic religion. It is exclusive. Jesus Christ says in John 14:6, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me." He also states in Matthew 12:30, "He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad." Those are the terms of having a relationship with God in true religious devotion, according to Christianity. Yet, Obama doesn't even understand the doctrine of his own religion.

Also showing on Obama's part (like so many Americans today) is his lack of understanding about our Founders who wrote about the need for Christianity in the success of our republic. Consider what Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote concerning the importance of Christianity to our republic:



John Adams, a signer of the Declaration and our second President, had this to say about the preconditions of our republic:



Barack Obama's ideas about religion in our republic is in stark contradiction against the religious views of our Founders. Religion is important, and there can be no religious neutrality in deciding civil affairs. The teachings of Christianity do not warrant any disciple of Christ to compromise his views for the sake of other religious views, whether it's in civil or moral affairs.

In response to Obama's question of whose Christian views should we inculcate in education, law, and civil governance, I would just say this. Our early Founders were of different Christian persuasions, yet, they were able to perform their duties just fine in spite of their denominational differences. In Christianity, there are many things which are held in common, and I would say where there would be disagreement on certain application of Christian doctrines we solve those on a local level, just as was the case in the beginning of our republic.

Obama fails to understand this because he sees everything as being resolved from the top down. Most of the areas where Christians would disagree about civil matters, like capital punishment, can be tackled in state legislatures, county boards, and city councils. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Understanding Obama's point that our times have changed where other religious views have entered into political culture, it needs to be reiterated that we come to an understanding of there being no such thing as religious neutrality. If we want to decide which religious system should dominate politics and government, we need to appeal to our Founders and their writings, even going as far back as the Puritans in the 1600s. History is on the side of Christianity that most of our political capital in America was from a Christian worldview. The only way our republic can work is by the institution of Christian morals and ideas in law and government. No other religious system has been able to achieve the amount of peace and prosperity in a republic that has come from the precepts of the Christian faith.

Our failure to understand this only shows our ignorance of our own history, thanks to the secular revisionists and relativists who have taught generations of children for the last 60 or so years in our public schools. It then becomes obvious that Obama is simply a product of this morbid indoctrination, and sadly, he is in a position of power now where he can influence even more people with his twisted ideas that we must be religiously neutral in our civil affairs. That is simply impossible. Obama is not religiously neutral, and neither should we be.

Josephus and the Origin of the State (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/horn2.html) ;) :)

Josh_LA
02-24-2009, 02:00 PM
The problem with Barack Obama's views of religion is that he assumes there is such a thing as religious neutrality. There isn't. The removal of one religious belief system from an institution is just the imposition of another. For instance, when Christianity was banned from the public schools last century, the curriculum was replaced by secular humanistic dogma. This is one reason why our public schools are failing today, by the way. As a self-professed Christian, Obama should know better about his own religion because Christianity is not a pluralistic religion.

I wish you ran for President, I would very much support you.

Not sarcastic, at least you're honest about it. Better to have an honest crook than a backstabbing hypocrite.

rational thinker
02-24-2009, 02:07 PM
Why is a politician who attacks religion any better than a politician who embraces it? Neither has any place in government policy making.

Except that this ensures he won't twist his government policy making through religion. If you read some articles written by Dr. Paul, you'll see that there were some policy changes he was going to make because of religion. Whether or not you believe in religion should be irrelevant, but unfortunately it's not.

Theocrat
02-24-2009, 02:26 PM
Except that this ensures he won't twist his government policy making through religion. If you read some articles written by Dr. Paul, you'll see that there were some policy changes he was going to make because of religion. Whether or not you believe in religion should be irrelevant, but unfortunately it's not.

Thank God religion will always be relevant in politics, whether it's Christian or secular humanism. It is impossible to remove religion from civil government, and even Congressman Paul understands this.

rational thinker
02-24-2009, 02:52 PM
Thank God religion will always be relevant in politics, whether it's Christian or secular humanism. It is impossible to remove religion from civil government, and even Congressman Paul understands this.

Then there's no need to thank God for that.

Theocrat
02-24-2009, 02:55 PM
Then there's no need to thank God for that.

Of course there is. God is sovereign, and He controls all things.

By the way, I like your signature. :)

jmdrake
02-24-2009, 03:26 PM
Why is a politician who attacks religion any better than a politician who embraces it? Neither has any place in government policy making.

Because some put their own religion of atheism above the needs of the country. Really every negative thing that can be said about how religion has been used can be applied to the way communist countries used secular humanism. But I'll be sure and forward this YouTube to all of the devote Christian I know who think Obama is "of the Lord".

jmdrake
02-24-2009, 03:30 PM
Except that this ensures he won't twist his government policy making through religion. If you read some articles written by Dr. Paul, you'll see that there were some policy changes he was going to make because of religion. Whether or not you believe in religion should be irrelevant, but unfortunately it's not.

And policies have never been twisted by atheists? :rolleyes: Do you even know why atheism was a requirement for party membership in the USSR? Hint, it's not because it made Stalin more "rational". They didn't want people having allegiance to anything but the state. They wanted the state to define what is "moral".

Anyway, what specific religious "policy changes" or Dr. Paul's bother you?

Regards,

John M. Drake

rational thinker
02-24-2009, 04:43 PM
And policies have never been twisted by atheists? :rolleyes: Do you even know why atheism was a requirement for party membership in the USSR? Hint, it's not because it made Stalin more "rational". They didn't want people having allegiance to anything but the state. They wanted the state to define what is "moral".

Anyway, what specific religious "policy changes" or Dr. Paul's bother you?

Regards,

John M. Drake
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Theocrat
02-24-2009, 07:48 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

That's one of his best articles ever. :)

Truth Warrior
02-25-2009, 09:32 AM
That's one of his best articles ever. :) Yeah, why would ALL of those office holding "Christians" in the governments be allowing that to happen?

DAFTEK
02-25-2009, 10:18 AM
Why is a politician who attacks religion any better than a politician who embraces it? Neither has any place in government policy making.

We need a damn thumbs up smilie! :D +10 Obubba is just doing more of his magic tricks on mushy brains and sadly more and more victims of his Obubba juice are saying YUMMMMY YUUUMMMM I can throw up now 10Q... :mad:

Wendi
02-25-2009, 03:26 PM
Except that this ensures he won't twist his government policy making through religion. If you read some articles written by Dr. Paul, you'll see that there were some policy changes he was going to make because of religion. Whether or not you believe in religion should be irrelevant, but unfortunately it's not. Policies made because you hate religion are as dangerous as those made because you embrace it, IMHO. Apparently the founding fathers felt the same, 'cause they made it real clear that religion shouldn't be endorsed or oppressed by government.

Josh_LA
02-25-2009, 10:59 PM
Of course there is. God is sovereign, and He controls all things.

By the way, I like your signature. :)

for every good thing you thank God for, where do you place the blame on the millions of bad things?

Josh_LA
02-25-2009, 10:59 PM
Yeah, why would ALL of those office holding "Christians" in the governments be allowing that to happen?

because they believe God will do whatever it takes and it's not a human's responsibility to make things right. THAT'S what I call faith and trust in an Almighty God.

Truth Warrior
02-26-2009, 04:55 PM
because they believe God will do whatever it takes and it's not a human's responsibility to make things right. THAT'S what I call faith and trust in an Almighty God. Maybe they're facilitating the tribulation and PRAYING for Armageddon.

idiom
02-26-2009, 05:08 PM
Maybe they're facilitating the tribulation and PRAYING for Armageddon.

..


Well, if they DON'T "fix it" then it's just ALL the fault of MANKIND. :D

jmdrake
03-06-2009, 05:19 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

So you think that Christmas scenes are a threat to you? And you think Christians are braindead. :rolleyes: We can have pagan symbols all over the place (and yes people still worship pagan gods) but you're worried about a some donkeys, camels and angels. Go ahead and vote for Barack in 2012.

Now here's the problem with Barack's speech and why it attacks the very ideals you CLAIM to support. Barack said that one shouldn't use a position to advocate a political position. What part of the first protection of free speech does Barack (and apparently you) not understand? Modern Christians have every right to say they oppose abortion based on religious grounds just like abolitionists had a right to say they opposed slavery on religious grounds. Sure there are other reasons to oppose both slavery and abortion but there is no reason why a pastor or other religious leader should not be allowed to advocate his or her position. In fact the freedom of religion GUARANTEES HIS RIGHT TO DO SO! The IRS was wrong when it tried to strip a church of its tax excempt status because the pastor spoke out against war and if Barack tries the same trick to silence his religious critics he's going down.

Also his speech was full of hyperbole. Name some time in this country's history where non Christians were deported! It's funny that the same Barack that is attacking Christianity is also openly seeking the support of black Christians. I hope they have better insight to see through him then you apparently have. Oh and happy Easter.

Regards,

John M. Drake

heavenlyboy34
03-06-2009, 05:33 PM
So you think that Christmas scenes are a threat to you? And you think Christians are braindead. :rolleyes: We can have pagan symbols all over the place (and yes people still worship pagan gods) but you're worried about a some donkeys, camels and angels. Go ahead and vote for Barack in 2012.

Now here's the problem with Barack's speech and why it attacks the very ideals you CLAIM to support. Barack said that one shouldn't use a position to advocate a political position. What part of the first protection of free speech does Barack (and apparently you) not understand? Modern Christians have every right to say they oppose abortion based on religious grounds just like abolitionists had a right to say they opposed slavery on religious grounds. Sure there are other reasons to oppose both slavery and abortion but there is no reason why a pastor or other religious leader should not be allowed to advocate his or her position. In fact the freedom of religion GUARANTEES HIS RIGHT TO DO SO! The IRS was wrong when it tried to strip a church of its tax excempt status because the pastor spoke out against war and if Barack tries the same trick to silence his religious critics he's going down.

Also his speech was full of hyperbole. Name some time in this country's history where non Christians were deported! It's funny that the same Barack that is attacking Christianity is also openly seeking the support of black Christians. I hope they have better insight to see through him then you apparently have. Oh and happy Easter.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Depends. Do you consider "Indian Reservations" deportation zones? ;) I have no qualms with the rest of your post. TTYL.