They are all full of crap. He wants to claim that he's only responsible to the law of the land, but he happens to need the votes of people who do claim to be religious. He knows if he stands in front of micrphone and says, "I don't want to have a discussion about religion because it is not important to me fulfilling the requirements of the office of President." He wouldn't even be the nominee. He implies that Christian people should accept the notion of being governed by non-Christian, non-english speaking people and that everyone should be cool with this idea.

Isn't that what its about? He wants support from Christians and cannot even be considered to be a viable candidate without them, but he doesn't think it is neccesary to govern as a Christian, in a nation where the OVERWHELMING majority of the people are Christians, at least the ones who own land, homes and businesses.

I suppose its a real inconvienence for a guy like that. He has to kiss the butts of a bunch of religious fanatics in order to run their government. Even though there would be no such thing as THE LAW in the absence of THE Church, educated buffoons have know decided that they no longer need the church. Pagans don't build States!! Pagans don't have civilizations. Pagans tribes don't have scientists. Pagans tribes don't have written language.

There is a real simple reason why Rome, Greece, Persia, etc. don't exist. It is because they reverted to Paganism and none belief. The source of the Bible is a lot smarter than the rest of you, that's why he still lives and why his civilization still exists.

A doctrine of non-belief is still a doctrine and a distasteful one at that. Not the least because when you propagate your doctrine you use the alphabet and language of believers. Its also distastful for a 1st generation Christian and American tell me about what he thinks of my home, my laws and my way of life.

That's why your candidate won't win in November. He's offensive beyond comprehension. At this point in the game it doesn't matter what he says or does, success is not achieveable.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by bruxfain]

I for one believe in the seperation of church (or any other places of worship) and State. In other words the church (or any other places of worship cannot or shouldnot say anything political about any parties running and the State should not say anything about any church (or any other places of worship). All debates should be done at a forum or some public place for all to hear or disagree, Churches or any other places of worship should only preach about religion and nothing else. They should have no influence on anything said about the secular government and the secular government should have nothing to say about the religion. Because we know only too well how a church or any other religions like to tell people what to think and say and cause riots and most likely hurt and or kill people.

Originally posted by Wintermute
He wasn't criticizing a specific religion. He was pointing out how absurd it would be to run the country based on a set of outdated laws from ANY religion. He was only using his own religion as an example.

Then he either picked a very poor example or knows nothing about his own faith he claims to have if he doesn't grasp the very basic Christian's view of the Old Testament Law and the New Testament covenant. I mean, that is like Sunday School knowledge a child would know. Again, I understand the point he was trying to make but it turned out to be an epic fail.

He's running for President, not Pope.

Er... Exactly? So stick to politics and not theology. He crossed over the political boundaries of church and state issues and made a butt of himself due to the fact he misunderstood some very basic concepts concerning his own supposed faith. He needs to stick to his 'change' ticket and the separation of church and state political issue without the dose of theology and without sticking his nose into Judaic and Christian religion, as he clearly did. I also don't know of American Christians and Jews wishing to enact Old Testament law as American law. Obama was off base, used a straw man, showed ignorance of the topic, and is better left to sticking to political issues.

---

Anyways, this is what we should all actually be asking and concerned about: How does he plan to accomplish what he wants changed? If anyone knows how, I would be very grateful to hear. If it's in the video, please let me know but I have a headache, can't handle the sound at the moment, and forgot if it mentioned any type of plan of action. Thanks.

[edit on 8/24/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
So stick to politics and not theology. He crossed over the political boundaries of church and state issues and made a butt of himself due to the fact he misunderstood some very basic concepts concerning his own supposed faith. He needs to stick to his 'change' ticket and the separation of church and state political issue without the dose of theology and without sticking his nose into Judaic and Christian religion, as he clearly did. I also don't know of American Christians and Jews wishing to enact Old Testament law as American law. Obama was off base, used a straw man, showed ignorance of the topic, and is better left to sticking to political issues.

These days, though, religion is a political issue. I mean, by all means, separate church and state when it comes to governance. That's how it's supposed to be and that's what Obama was saying. But to completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of the people you're running to preside over are religious people, would be ignorant on his part. I don't know what the context of this video is, as far as who he was addressing here, or what was said before this video started. But from what I saw, he was just saying that he understands the distinction between church and state (possibly to imply "unlike our current President"), and plans to abide by it when he's President.

Anyway, I know you realize that already, and as you said, you found it to be an epic fail. To each his/her own. I may disagree with what you say but I will defend until my internet connection goes out your right to say it.

Originally posted by Wintermute
These days, though, religion is a political issue.

I can completely agree with that, especially in a multicultural society. However, the point I made above was not dealing with religion and politics in a general sense (like church and state) but specifically targeting religious tenets in a political speech, especially in a critical light and resorting to the use of straw men (Example: OMG! The Jewish law says we have to stone adulterers so THIS is why we have to focus on separation of church and state! And we'll never be able to wear polyester again! [When I know of no one who is trying to enact these things]).

Then he mentioned the Abraham and Isaac story if I recall correctly. Totally inappropriate. It appeared to me he was pointing out things he personally felt were absurd concerning the Christian and Jewish faiths. For what reason I don't know. It was very awkward to watch and I feel embarrassed for him. He should have stuck to the political issue of church and state instead of ridiculing his voters and their sacred texts. Not very smart.

I mean, by all means, separate church and state when it comes to governance. That's how it's supposed to be and that's what Obama was saying. But to completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of the people you're running to preside over are religious people, would be ignorant on his part.

Very true. Which was why I think it was very ignorant and unwise of him to single out the faith of the majority of voters in America.

I don't know what the context of this video is, as far as who he was addressing here, or what was said before this video started. But from what I saw, he was just saying that he understands the distinction between church and state (possibly to imply "unlike our current President"), and plans to abide by it when he's President.

Well, like most of Obama's speeches, this one leaves me wondering how he plans to implement his changes and exactly what he wants changed. I hear an important issue being addressed without any specifics whatsoever. Instead it's just the typical 'change and unity' message he has become known for.

It's like abortion is illegal, the ten commandments are removed, Jewish or Sharia law is not government law, prayer is out of schools, etc. What exactly is Obama complaining about and how does he want to go about changing it. America has already become a very secular state even if the majority is religious. There is very little more than could be changed (except for little things like 'In God We Trust' being on our money, the pledge stating 'Under God,' etc.) until you start infringing upon people's private right to worship as well.

And I am only guessing because it doesn't look like the video even mentioned why he was even talking about this issue. What exactly is the issue here? People using their personal religious views to determine political issues? Religious lobbies? The influence of religions on politics (That comes down to the the individual's right to decide)? He wants Christians to stop basing their political choices on religious grounds? Sounds like something that is up to the individual, IMO. It's like he is discussing a very heated issue but not giving us the who's, how's, what's, and why's. Just more 'change and unity' but in this case it also comes across as 'Haha! That silly Bible!' being thrown into the mix.

[edit on 8/25/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD

Then he mentioned the Abraham and Isaac story if I recall correctly. Totally inappropriate. It appeared to me he was pointing out things he personally felt were absurd concerning the Christian and Jewish faiths. For what reason I don't know. It was very awkward to watch and I feel embarrassed for him. He should have stuck to the political issue of church and state instead of ridiculing his voters and their sacred texts. Not very smart.

Okay, I see what you're saying. Without the whole context as far as what the "rest" of this video was, I'm not going to agree or disagree with that, but you're probably right that he was overstepping his bounds a bit and making it a bit personal. However, I still agree with the general idea of what he was saying.

Well, like most of Obama's speeches, this one leaves me wondering how he plans to implement his changes and exactly what he wants changed. I hear an important issue being addressed without any specifics whatsoever. Instead it's just the typical 'change and unity' message he has become known for.

Agreed. I doubt there will be any radical change if he gets into office, but anything to get the vote, eh? It's a catchy slogan, at least. And we silly Americans do love us some catchy slogans.

Ok... Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution. It was written in a letter as a personal belief of jefferson, and is not law.

Furthermore, he does mock the bible, and it seems that he is adverse to it. Soon, you will see his adverseness turn to outright hatred, then he will start passing laws regulating what you can and cannot believe.

All of his biblical references were from the old testament, and if you are farmilliar with the christain religion, you would know that christ nullified the old laws with his death, taking away the need for sacrafice.

The establishment clause basically prohibits what happened in england, and the other european contries, where the pope used religion to take charge of the government, and force people to do as he wished. It does not prohibit having a(n) religion(s) in government, but prohibits having a religion as the government.

Originally posted by AshleyD


Then he mentioned the Abraham and Isaac story if I recall correctly. Totally inappropriate. It appeared to me he was pointing out things he personally felt were absurd concerning the Christian and Jewish faiths. For what reason I don't know.

Are you serious? You don't know??? So let's make a fictional name, say...Mohammad Atta...took his son, Mustafa, into the middle of Time Square, strapped him to a manhole and proceeded to stab him screaming Allahu Akbar, you'd be okay with that? You wouldn't be on this very board the next day saying something about how deranged that was? And if you were there in Time Square at the time of incident, would you just stand and cheer "Go Mo!"??? and when he was done say "Hell, yeah!" Is that what you're saying? Because that being unacceptable is the point Obama was making - not in case you missed it, but BECAUSE you missed it - I point this out.

It would be LEGALLY unacceptable in this country to allow a father to sacrifice his son because he claimed his God told him to. And there's legal precedence to back that statement.

GOOD GAWD HAVE MERCY...DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT?

Originally posted by Valhall
Are you serious? You don't know??? So let's make a fictional name, say...Mohammad Atta...took his son, Mustafa, into the middle of Time Square, strapped him to a manhole and proceeded to stab him screaming Allahu Akbar, you'd be okay with that? You wouldn't be on this very board the next day saying something about how deranged that was? And if you were there in Time Square at the time of incident, would you just stand and cheer "Go Mo!"??? and when he was done say "Hell, yeah!" Is that what you're saying? Because that being unacceptable is the point Obama was making - not in case you missed it, but BECAUSE you missed it - I point this out.

Slow down on the errors so I can keep up, please. Abraham never stabbed Isaac so your analogy is off. Do I particularly approve of this story? Nope. But for some reason you ass/u/me/d that I did. You, Obama, and I can believe what we wish concerning religion and religious stories- it's a private matter. But in a political speech was highly inappropriate (especially considering his speech's topic). And was this the only example Obama mentioned? Nope but it was one of the examples I pointed out because it had nothing to do with religious law (more on this in a moment). So no that is not what I am saying.

You also state Obama claiming this was unacceptable is the point he was making. I agree but I never missed it or else we wouldn't be talking about it now would we? What you seem to miss is the fact of the matter: Why is Obama presenting his own opinions of biblical stories in a political speech... ironically a speech about church and state separation. Second, this incident with Abraham and Isaac, you erroneously assume I approve of, has nothing to do with religious laws (the only real reason that would have been relevant). Obama was making judgments on Bible stories (even if we agree with this opinion) and not only on religious law, therefore not involved in separation of church and state.

It would be LEGALLY unacceptable in this country to allow a father to sacrifice his son because he claimed his God told him to. And there's legal precedence to back that statement.

You don't say. I completely agree. Oh, by the way... human sacrifice is forbidden according to the Jewish law and Christianity. And in this case, the religious laws (NOT religious beliefs or Bible stories) would have been the only thing remotely pertinent to his speech because Obama is not hosting a theological debate but instead a political speech about separation of church and state. The Abraham and Isaac episode was not done according to law and Isaac was never sacrificed. Not to mention it was misleading how Obama talks about religious laws found in the Torah (that no Jewish or Christian group is trying to implement as American law) and mentions this story as if implying it was somehow legally acceptable according to Judaism or Christianity. Your analogy is wrong, you leap to numerous assumptions, and you end with this rude outburst:

GOOD GAWD HAVE MERCY...DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT?

And do you not understand the irony of a man preaching about separation of church and state yet giving his own personal opinion on stories that happened in religious texts in a political debate for the office of president? Ironic and hypocritical. Separation of church and state is something I agree with strongly as I have mentioned on ATS numerous times. You never know when you will suddenly find yourself in the religious minority so, yes, separation of church and state has my full support. I feel so strongly about the subject of separation, that I find Obama's speech distasteful and strangely hypocritical. Do you not understand the contradiction Obama displayed by doing this? "Separate church and state! But while I am up here running for president, let me point out some things in the Bible I find odd, disturbing, oh, and let me talk about Christian and Judaic Bible stories." Bush left the same sour taste in my mouth when he used his soap box to talk about religion as well. So, the Abraham/Isaac story was one example but he also drifted off into more obvious theological discussion. This goes against the grain of the point he is trying to express.

[edit on 8/25/2008 by AshleyD]

Anything thats a part of the CFR isnt good, globalism at its finest enough said.

They wanted a "black" president though, lol. Why wouldnt they find at least one that isnt crooked? Of all people..

Originally posted by AshleyD

Anyways, question one: Why is a presidential candidate sticking his nose into religion? If I had never heard of Obama before or knew he was a presidential candidate, it would have been fair to assume that was a video of a unitarian preacher.

Question two: Why is a presidential candidate criticizing his own (supposedly) religion and ridiculing the Bible which is his own (supposedly) sacred text?

Question three: Why were most of his criticisms taken from the Old Testament? That was more of a massive slam against Judaism in my opinion than it was Christianity due to the fact we believe the OT is the old covenant while we are under the new covenant of the NT. But then he says we also need to realize the country consists of Jews. Way to go, Obama. You just totally displayed ignorance. The Christian Old Testament is essentially the Jewish Tanakh with a few differences.

Answer one: Everyone else has made religion an issue in this. You can't expect to batter a man with propaganda and rumours about what his religion may or may not be, and then expect him not to respond. And in fact, that speech wasn't about religion. It was about policy making, with religion as a sub-context.

Answer two: Please point out - with direct quotes from that hack job video - where the criticisms were. I'm interested.

Answer three: Your 'question' (which isn't a question at all, more of a commment) speaks to exactly what he was saying. When you say 'we' are you referring to a specific group, or using it in the royal sense? Because if you mean 'Christians' then I assure you, there are many who follow the Old Testament still. What if it was the Old Testament Christianity that was being taught? That was his point, and I'm not sure why you're re-making it for him.

I feel bad for some of you people on here who got tricked into thinking what he said was anti-christian with that sorry excuse of propaganda. He pretty much said we are diverse nation. I don't even like Barack either.

Believe what you want, but religion has no place in any government.