North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,886 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Without a teleprompter this guy is a buffoon. He is not the eloquent speaker we all thought he was. He is just a good reader with a good speech writer. No doubt he presents those speeches well, but the message is wrong. Now we are beginning to see the grate orator for what he really is.
I think the debates will be the end of Obama and Biden. If the debates don't do it, the world problems (like Russia) certainly will.

September 14th, 2008
Obama Loses His Mojo
by Nancy Morgan
| View comments | Print This Post
After months of media adulation, world attention and surging poll numbers, Obama has hit a speed bump.

A new ad from the Obama campaign ridicules John McCain for not using the Internet, perhaps not realizing that McCain's war injuries leave him unable to use a keyboard. This ad comes on the heels of Obama's "lipstick on a pig" controversy, which is still fueling late night talk shows. The lipstick controversy came on the heels of another Obama gaffe, when he artlessly referred to "my Muslim faith."

The Obama gaffes are piling up, and we're not even counting his VP pick, Biden, who himself is racking up an impressive number of "oops" moments. Poor Obama definitely had a bad week.

The media-anointed Messiah, the man the world would like to elect president, has gone from playing offense to playing defense. And he's not playing well.

Obama is a charismatic, compelling figure. His appeal is undeniable, as long as he is presented in a multi-million dollar staged setting with teleprompters and a prepared speech. Take him out of this element however, and the contrast is as shocking as seeing Ms. America sans make-up on a bad hair day. Complete with morning breath.

Nowhere is the contrast greater than this video clip of Obama in a townhall meeting. His words are confusing, his body language defensive. His coat is off and his sleeves are rolled up, in what appears to be an attempt to be as one with the working man. It doesn't work. Instead, Obama looks rumpled, frayed and clueless.

He apologizes for his lack of coherence by explaining that he had a late night, which doesn't bode well for any future 3AM moments.

After months of media adulation, world attention and surging poll numbers, Obama has hit a speed bump on the road to assuming his rightful place as America's president. That speed bump is Sarah Palin. In the blink of an eye, the novelty of Obama's race has given way to the novelty of Sarah's gender. Point, counterpoint.

With Sarah Palin on the scene, the Obama camp loses a valuable asset, the race card. Charges of racism for those stupid enough not to vote for Obama can now be credibly countered with the sexism card. Obama is finding out that life isn't fair and that what goes around, comes around.

Obama is now playing defense. Instead of blessing the great unwashed with his pearls of wisdom, he finds himself reacting instead of acting. He has turned from the agent of change to the agent of the perpetual whine.

John McCain has stolen his slogan. Everyone knows Obama owns the "change" mantra and it's just not fair for McCain to co-opt it. And besides, Sarah Palin is lying and McCain is so stupid he can't use the internet.

The attacks from Obama are not playing well in Peoria. In fact, the backlash is hurting Obama and throwing Democrats into a frenzy as more women, independents and Democrats switch their allegiance to McCain. Oh, the fickleness of it all.

What has become increasingly clear is that Obama seems incapable of embracing change. His political playbook was written 20 years ago and Obama is sticking to it. He doesn't realize that the game has changed. The media is, gasp, under fire for being so blatantly in Obama's corner. The polls in battleground states are starting to lean towards McCain and the presidential tracking polls have McCain ahead by 3. Palinmania has replaced Obamamania. This wasn't supposed to happen.

In politics, perception is reality and Obama's reality is changing.

The first major decision presidential nominee Barack Obama made was to pick Joe Biden as his running mate. To millions of Americans, this signaled politics as usual, not the change Obama was promising.

The policies Obama supports, now that he has been forced to give specifics, are clearly the timeworn Democrat positions: higher taxes, more government, abortion on demand, and promising (money) cures for yet to be manufactured crises. This is Obama's platform. The only change is the messenger. And the messenger is off his game.

Millions of Americans know something the experts, pollsters and pundits don't yet know. The evidence of their own eyes tells them what legions of experts refuse to acknowledge. Obama has lost his mojo. That's both the perception and the reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
Plainsman ...

I'm not sure who is correct here ...

But, You and I disagree ...

As I said though ...

I could be wrong ...

I spell it Baffoon ... ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,556 Posts
yeah, he has screwed himself.......i expect desperation will result in one of two possibilities......they smear Palin successfully or he dumps O'Biden and picks up Hilary.....time is running out, the rag-tops gave him $66 million last month, but money is not likely to cure his new set of problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
It's interesting how the Israelis view Obama. He receives much support
both from Jewish liberals and arguably the right-wing AIPAC, but his
middle name bothers Israelis a lot. Also, there are doubts whether he is
really a Muslim apostate. Here is an article which analyzes Obama's
similarity to early Zionists:
http://samsonblinded.org/blog/obama-aga ... shness.htm What do you think of the parallels?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,734 Posts
tranquill said:
It's interesting how the Israelis view Obama. He receives much support
both from Jewish liberals and arguably the right-wing AIPAC, but his
middle name bothers Israelis a lot. Also, there are doubts whether he is
really a Muslim apostate. Here is an article which analyzes Obama's
similarity to early Zionists:
http://samsonblinded.org/blog/obama-aga ... shness.htm

What do you think of the parallels?
umm...... I'd throw out the phrase that "all I see is reverse antisemitism"

There are NO parallels, except for those trying to start a different flavor of a conspiracy theory.

So let me get this straight... now "certain" Jews are complaining and casting "doubts" whether he is a Muslim apostate. Pleasssse.

What is that saying about living in a glass house again? hmmmmm

Here we go again... another "minority" group trying to get on top of the issue over another. Talk about a stretch. You would think that those who have been oppressed through the years, would have a bit more sympathy and understanding when they witness it happening to Obama. But no... instead they are the first to cast a stone of intolerance and bigotry of their own by "casting doubt and aspersions" towards another person with a "funny sounding scary middle name"

The Israelis really need to get over themselves. We spend way too much time and money on them, considering all of the extra trouble they stir up with things such as this.

*yawn*

edit: one last thing... as this kind of religious BS really gets me fired up. Doesn't the United States celebrate freedom of Religion here?

Should it matter if he does practice Islam? just curious? I know lots of people that I consider friends to practice more than one religion. In your view Tranquill is that acceptable if they don't practice strict Christianity? What if they don't have some form of Jewish background? Is that ok? What if a presidential candidate doesn't support the State of Israel as gung ho as others in the past have? Is that acceptable if the United States pulls back a bit from its support of Israel?

I'm curious because we have 1/3 of our population that either doesn't practice Christianity, or holds some form of a more aethist view. It is only a matter of a time before the majority living here will start having different political views in matters of religion. The younger generations of Americans who now hold anti-religious views is growing, even when they come from a religous family. Churches, and denominations across the entire country are losing numbers fast, especially Catholiscm.

I personally wish that all of politics didn't have to factor anything religous into the equation. I'm entirely for a complete seperation of Church and State at all levels. This notion that we were founded on Christianity is bunk. I've said it here before. Others would like to claim otherwise, but it is simply not true. It was founded on freedom of oppression and religion from their former home countries. Yes many practiced Christianity, but this is not a Christian State.

The Founders of the Constitution had every opportunity to put language into any number of documents including the Constitution itself discussing Christianity and they did not intentionally. In fact in 1797, the Treaty of Tripoli was passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate and signed by the President. Article eleven of the Treaty states that "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

There is no question that God is referred to in our Constitution. What is not referred to is Christianity or Jesus, Judaism, Islam, or any other religion or faith, because our founding fathers didn't intend for our Constitution to be based on a particular religion or faith.

Nor is there any language dictating that a Presidential candidate can't have a Islamic based middle name, has to practice a certain religion, be of a certain skin color etc...

Trying to tie some scare tactic of religous intolerance into this debate is simply ridiculous, and getting old, as many here have tried this very thing before you.

You ask "What's the big deal?" It's a very big deal today and in the history of mankind because of the wars and deaths that can be attributed to differences in beliefs related to religion and its role in government. It's been happening for thousands of years in the middle east. It's happening today between Christianity and Islam and Judaism.

I have been asked on this forum before:
"why are folks so afraid that this country was founded upon Christian principles?"
They aren't afraid, because it wasn't. They are just stating documented facts. I am not a non-religious person. I believe in God. I also believe it is dangerous and wrong for people in the United States to politicize religion for their own interests in a manner that is not consistent with what our founding fathers intended and wrote in our Constitution.

</rant>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,006 Posts
The Founders of the Constitution had every opportunity to put language into any number of documents including the Constitution itself discussing Christianity and they did not intentionally. In fact in 1797, the Treaty of Tripoli was passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate and signed by the President. Article eleven of the Treaty states that "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
And most of the time when people refer to this they use it out of context. Now, when people use it I have to deduce whether they are very intelligent and using it correctly or just a normal person taking something and fitting it into their stump speech.

This is correct: The GOVERNMENT of the U.S. was not founded on religion.

Think about it people, then post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,191 Posts
This notion that we were founded on Christianity is bunk.
BS!!!! The country was founded on Christianity, the government was not. Sorry Ryan, another swing and a miss!!! :roll:
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,886 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I think today we are seeing an attack on Christianity itself. The youth move away from religion because they have been conditioned much like Pavlov's dog. Over and over they have heard the phrase "separation of church and state". Many who see themselves as intellectual have heard it so many times that they believe it's in the constitution. Our government may not have been founded on religion, but Christian religion was the basis for our constitution and many of our laws. Perhaps the confusion lies in the term founding. It simply means the beginning. Our nation began as a nation with many looking for freedom of religion. The truth of the matter is freedom of religion in that time meant you could worship under any Christian faith you wanted to. I doubt the idea of Islam crossed anyone's mind.

If you say something often enough, even if it's a lie, soon people begin to believe it.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/
This exhibition demonstrates that many of the colonies that in 1776 became the United States of America were settled by men and women of deep religious convictions who in the seventeenth century crossed the Atlantic Ocean to practice their faith freely. That the religious intensity of the original settlers would diminish to some extent over time was perhaps to be expected, but new waves of eighteenth century immigrants brought their own religious fervor across the Atlantic and the nation's first major religious revival in the middle of the eighteenth century injected new vigor into American religion. The result was that a religious people rose in rebellion against Great Britain in 1776, and that most American statesmen, when they began to form new governments at the state and national levels, shared the convictions of most of their constituents that religion was, to quote Alexis de Tocqueville's observation, indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. The efforts of the Founders of the American nation to define the role of religious faith in public life and the degree to which it could be supported by public officials that was not inconsistent with the revolutionary imperatives of the equality and freedom of all citizens is the central question which this exhibition explores

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

I. America as a Religious Refuge:
The Seventeenth Century
[ PART 1 ] [ PART 2 ]
Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe. The New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were conceived and established "as plantations of religion." Some settlers who arrived in these areas came for secular motives--"to catch fish" as one New Englander put it--but the great majority left Europe to worship God in the way they believed to be correct. They enthusiastically supported the efforts of their leaders to create "a city on a hill" or a "holy experiment," whose success would prove that God's plan for his churches could be successfully realized in the American wilderness. Even colonies like Virginia, which were planned as commercial ventures, were led by entrepreneurs who considered themselves "militant Protestants" and who worked diligently to promote the prosperity of the church.

II. Religion in Eighteenth-Century America

II. Religion in Eighteenth-Century America
Against a prevailing view that eighteenth-century Americans had not perpetuated the first settlers' passionate commitment to their faith, scholars now identify a high level of religious energy in colonies after 1700. According to one expert, religion was in the "ascension rather than the declension"; another sees a "rising vitality in religious life" from 1700 onward; a third finds religion in many parts of the colonies in a state of "feverish growth." Figures on church attendance and church formation support these opinions. Between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the population attended churches, which were being built at a headlong pace.

III. Religion and the American Revolution

III. Religion and the American Revolution
Religion played a major role in the American Revolution by offering a moral sanction for opposition to the British--an assurance to the average American that revolution was justified in the sight of God. As a recent scholar has observed, "by turning colonial resistance into a righteous cause, and by crying the message to all ranks in all parts of the colonies, ministers did the work of secular radicalism and did it better."
Ministers served the American cause in many capacities during the Revolution: as military chaplains, as penmen for committees of correspondence, and as members of state legislatures, constitutional conventions and the national Congress. Some even took up arms, leading Continental troops in battle.
The Revolution split some denominations, notably the Church of England, whose ministers were bound by oath to support the King, and the Quakers, who were traditionally pacifists. Religious practice suffered in certain places because of the absence of ministers and the destruction of churches, but in other areas, religion flourished.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

IV. Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89
The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.
Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.
The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,734 Posts
djleye said:
This notion that we were founded on Christianity is bunk.
BS!!!! The country was founded on Christianity, the government was not. Sorry Ryan, another swing and a miss!!! :roll:
*sigh*

Dan I respect your posts, however you are wrong. Very very wrong.

The intention of the founding fathers was to make sure we did not have a theocracy. Although there is an underpinning of God in the Constitution, it is not the Christian God, the Jewish God, nor the Muslim God. By the time of the Constitution the experiment with creating a Christian nation had failed. The Puritans in Massachusetts, the Anglicans in Virginia, the Quakers in Pennsylvania, etc. all tried and it did not work out.

In order to create a "United" States, our founding fathers basically negotiated a constitution that would allow for freedom of religion by making sure it was not founded on any religion. Many of our more visible founding fathers were not even Christian but did believe in God. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, who although admiring Jesus Christ, did not believe Him divine. Benjamin Franklin was baptized as a Puritan but also came to the belief that Jesus was not divine.

Many people today believe that the Christian religion was the foundation of our Constitution. They couldn't be more wrong. The religious history of America from the 1620s to the 1770s was fraught with religious persecution by the different Christian denominations. People were run out of town, brutalized, and killed if they did not believe the way certain denominations believed. If you were not of a certain denomination in a particular state you couldn't hold office, own land, etc. Basically what was occurring during this time was what occurred in England, and that is religious persecution.

To summarize all of the above, it was the Christian religious persecution in America before the 1770s, that convinced the founding fathers that the underpinnings of our Constitution should not be based on a particular religion, including Christianity. Many people today would like us to believe otherwise, but they are wrong and most likely politically motivated.

Part of the problem today is that to many people have been fed religious rhetoric for someone else's ulterior motives, that are not based on the facts of the founding of this country.

If you need some background reading material, you can check out this article in Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

A blog discussing further:
http://mtemples.wordpress.com/2008/08/3 ... -religion/

Christians like to say the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Some, for some strange reason, like to be more specific and emphasize the Ten Commandments as the basis for our law. Fortunately, they are wrong. While some of the founding fathers (framers build houses!) were Christian, and Christianity was dominant in all the social arenas of the time, religion was not the impetus to a new constitution. What primarily drove the founders was property rights. They were good citizens of the Crown, but the Crown was daily trampling on their rights to their own properties and the products of their enterprise. Read the Declaration. This is what it concentrates on. It talks not at all about religious persecution or religious freedom. It concerns itself only with the trampling of the natural rights of the colonists by the King.

Natural rights was the main consideration of the founders in framing the Constitution. The most concise description of natural rights is that given in the Declaration by Jefferson - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It should have have said Property instead of pursuit of happiness, but since slaves were men (it's a universal, get over it) as well as property, to have said Property here would have shut the door on abolishing the perversion of property rights that slavery was (not to mention its other outrages against natural human rights). The battle with the Constitution was how to frame a government which could not trample on the natural rights of the people by becoming too powerful. Read the Federalist Papers. They explain the reasoning behind each part of the Constitution.

The Declaration and the Constitution barely mention a Creator, and the Federalist talks about history and reason and natural rights, but rarely mentions religion. Christians take the term creator to mean their God, but that is not the only meaning of the term, nor even the major meaning. Many of the founders embraced Deism, which is a philosophical position that, while accepting the existence of a god denies that god's ability or inclination to intercede in the universe. He only pushed over the first domino. This is a far cry from the Christian or Jewish concept of God. Their God is an active participant in events. The Deist Creator is not. It's alright if Christians want to think that the founding references to a creator means their God, they just need to know that that is just their own personal definition, and that the intent is really something else.

And as far as the Ten Commandments being the basis of our law, this is an exceedingly tenuous stretch. Our laws were founded primarily on English common law, which in turn was pretty much influenced by Roman law. There are only a couple of the Commandments which relate to our law: not stealing, not perjuring, and perhaps not committing adultery. In fact, the Bill of Rights is in direct opposition to the first Commandment, while another of the Commandments approves of slavery. At least seven of them are strictly religious, not civil, whereas our law is strictly civil and not religious.

At best, the Commandments are only a symbol, a symbol of moral authority. And while the old saying is that ya' can't legislate morality, they just keep right on trying.

So, sorry, Christians. The nation really wasn't founded on religion.

It was founded on civil concerns, as it should be.
Maybe you'd like more proof?:

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

This website goes into detail about each of the authors of the Constitution, and their views during those times, based on documented quotes they made.

And if that still isn't authoritative enough for you, you might consider some light reading from some of these sources:

Sources (click on an underlined book title if you wish to obtain it):

Robert Boston, "Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church & State, "Prometheus Books, 1993, pp. 78-79

Morton Borden, "Jews, Turks and Infidels," Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1984)

Charles I. Bevans, "Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949," Vol. II, [ICCN 70600742 // x763]

Merrill D. Peterson, "Thomas Jefferson Writings," The Library of America, 1984

Hunter Miller, ed., "Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America," Vol. 2, Documents 1-40: 1776-1818, United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1931

Paul F. Boller, Jr., "George Washington & Religion," Southern Methodist University Press: Dallas, 1963, pp. 87-88

George Seldes, "The Great Quotations," Pocket Books, New York, 1967, p. 145

James Woodress, "A Yankee's Odyssey, the Life of Joel Barlow," J.P. Lippincott Co., 1958
Sorry I only had a few moments to put this together for you.. but the list goes on and on and on.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,829 Posts
They were good citizens of the Crown, but the Crown was daily trampling on their rights to their own properties and the products of their enterprise.
Liberals need to read this part of your post!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,886 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Longshot, your right the Crown was taxing the snot out of them. Maybe Obama would make more of a king than a president. :D Now all he needs to do is find a country that wants him.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,886 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Freethought???? Ryan please tell me you don't belong to the Freethinkers Society. I know a couple of them and both are a couple fries short of a happy meal. The two of them are the only ones who actually think they are freethinkers. Both have a distaste for religion and America. Both think that communism if they were running it would be the best form of government the earth has ever seen. The key there is 'if they were running it". Of course there are a lot of people that think they are gods gift to humanity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,556 Posts
Quote from Ryan:

"They aren't afraid, because it wasn't. They are just stating documented facts. I am not a non-religious person. I believe in God. I also believe it is dangerous and wrong for people in the United States to politicize religion for their own interests in a manner that is not consistent with what our founding fathers intended and wrote in our Constitution. "

i don't think our founding fathers would have tolerated 911 very well, as did the Jews not tolerate the Holocaust either.........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,734 Posts
Plainsman said:
Freethought???? Ryan please tell me you don't belong to the Freethinkers Society. I know a couple of them and both are a couple fries short of a happy meal. The two of them are the only ones who actually think they are freethinkers. Both have a distaste for religion and America. Both think that communism if they were running it would be the best form of government the earth has ever seen. The key there is 'if they were running it". Of course there are a lot of people that think they are gods gift to humanity.
C'mon now Plainsman! you know better than that!

Freethinkers? Based on looking at the forward part of a long URL? that is just how he/she differentiates a particular post category. The Freethinkers like Martin Wishcrazyidot in Fargo are certified loony. Let's not sidetrack the post with that...

Your previous post (@11:55 AM) was taken from a religous talking points memo. It is a religous organization's attempts at distorting the truth for their own gains. Take a look at what I posted. It has no religous bend to it. There is a huge difference in motivation. Think to yourself honestly. Why would a religious organization want to perverse the intent? Why would they want to insert themselves into anything politics, unless they were trying to use their religous beliefs to further a political (religous) agenda? If you are still believing that to be ok, are you then falling into the same trap of trying to further an agenda by pushing one dogma over another?

Stop for a moment and deeply consider that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,734 Posts
Plainsman said:
I think today we are seeing an attack on Christianity itself. The youth move away from religion because they have been conditioned much like Pavlov's dog. Over and over they have heard the phrase "separation of church and state". Many who see themselves as intellectual have heard it so many times that they believe it's in the constitution. Our government may not have been founded on religion, but Christian religion was the basis for our constitution and many of our laws. Perhaps the confusion lies in the term founding. It simply means the beginning. Our nation began as a nation with many looking for freedom of religion. The truth of the matter is freedom of religion in that time meant you could worship under any Christian faith you wanted to. I doubt the idea of Islam crossed anyone's mind.

If you say something often enough, even if it's a lie, soon people begin to believe it.
As always we have those that anytime someone challenges the veracity of statements that involve another's religion, even in abstract, you have religous zealots come out in force stating that "Christianity is being attacked"

No it isn't at all.

Youth haven't been "conditioned" to move away from religion. Rather Youth are taking an honest open look at all religions, and asking themselves why does religion exist in the first place? Has religion and religous battles led to peace or war? Which religion is in fact real? Are none of them or all of them? Why do people gravitate towards a religion? Historically speaking? Think about that....

If Christianity is the only way, are 70% of the world complete blathering idiots who are all going to hell? What if THEY are all right? Hmm?

Christian religion was NOT the basis for our Constitution and laws. THAT is a regurgitated talking point that I hear continuously and is blatantly false. As my previous post stated, I outlined where the laws came from.

You are correct though on one thing...
If you say something often enough, even if it's a lie, soon people begin to believe it.
You said it.

Now go find out the truth for yourself from a source that isn't religously biased. I provided a bunch if you can't find any.

Ryan
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,886 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Let's not sidetrack the post with that...
You mean like going from Obama's gaffes to your obsession with religion? :D

Your previous post (@11:55 AM) was taken from a religous talking points memo.
Actually I dug it out of the Library of Congress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,734 Posts
Plainsman said:
Let's not sidetrack the post with that...
You mean like going from Obama's gaffes to your obsession with religion? :D

Your previous post (@11:55 AM) was taken from a religous talking points memo.
Actually I dug it out of the Library of Congress.
touche' my friend! :thumb:

(I did see the website reference of loc.gov btw..)

But where was the basis of pulling the from the LOC?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,886 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
As always we have those that anytime someone challenges the veracity of statements that involve another's religion, even in abstract, you have religous zealots come out in force stating that "Christianity is being attacked"

No it isn't at all.
So you don't think the removal of the ten commandments from all public places is an attack. You don't think that those who want "In God We Trust" removed from our money are not attacking religion. How about the people that want "One Nation Under God" removed from the pledge to our flag. I think your in a state of denial Ryan. Like you say Ryan,be more open minded, and see things for what they are. Our first amendment is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

If Christianity is the only way, are 70% of the world complete blathering idiots who are all going to hell?
I don't think they are blathering idiots, but if your Christian you might think they are going to hell. If the Bible is right they are perhaps going to hell.

What if THEY are all right? Hmm?
Well, my Christian faith isn't so weak that I entertain the thought that they might be right. If you want to go ahead, that's what communion is for.

Have you noticed were way of subject? I think that's because you don't want us laughing at one blathering idiot. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,734 Posts
Plainsman said:
As always we have those that anytime someone challenges the veracity of statements that involve another's religion, even in abstract, you have religous zealots come out in force stating that "Christianity is being attacked"

No it isn't at all.
So you don't think the removal of the ten commandments from all public places is an attack. You don't think that those who want "In God We Trust" removed from our money are not attacking religion. How about the people that want "One Nation Under God" removed from the pledge to our flag. I think your in a state of denial Ryan. Like you say Ryan,be more open minded, and see things for what they are. Our first amendment is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
The 10 Commandments should be removed. It is Christian based and not appropriate.

The "In God We Trust" removal from money is a hoax. Always has been. However, notice that it says "IN God", Not "In Christianity"

God is ambiguous. They aren't inferring any particular dogma.

Same thing for "One Nation Under God". It is fine too, as it doesn't enforce any Christian dogma.

You are right... Freedom of Religion. That also includes freedom of the inverse too. I never ever said or implied otherwise.

I'm in no state of denial.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top