It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's anti christian speech

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Reply to OP

I am not biased as i an not an amercian. What this guy just said makes sense. Theres been tooo many amendments to the bible that is NOT a direct source. You cannot honestly live your life by it. What you do is anaylse the world yourself and others in it and draw your own conclusions for real faith. Faith that is in something good. Some purpose, a yearning for the truth not to accept wahat is just told to you. In my opinion unless i see something with my own eyes i cannot be 100% sure until proven.

To add, the video was edited so you didnt hear the full version of what was said. Thid video was made in bias and with manipulation.




posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


What came across clearly in this speech is that this kind of secularism will brook no competition. This was clear to me. This is concealed totalitarianism.



Exactly.
The US and Europe cannot in any sense said to be Christian nations. They are secular nations with Christian roots, which the elites are dismantling as quickly as is convenient.

The secularists always maintain that there is no "hermeneutic of suspicion" applied to Christianity. But if you ask a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. about anti-religion in America some of them will tell you that Christians are second-class citizens---and that they are, too.

Of course, the secular majority will refuse to hear any of it. Just like Whites in the south before Civil Rights: "Look how much power 'your kind' has these days. You're as free as anyone; you just complain about everything. You people won't be happy unless you take over!" & etc."

.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MCoG1980
 


From an American standpoint of peoples who know the Constitution of the United States...there is a serious problem with your statement.


I am not biased as i an not an amercian. What this guy just said makes sense. Theres been tooo many amendments to the bible that is NOT a direct source. You cannot honestly live your life by it.


The problem here is not with the Bible as you are wont to quote...it is with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Furthermore every congressman, Senator and President of the United State takes an oath to keep/protect/defend the Consitution if the United States.

In lieu of the Constitution of the United States...what this guy just said does not even make good nonsense. It is however very good rhetoric to those trained only in logic and reason. It is just very UnAmerican and Unconstitutional. In this manner it does not even make good nonsense.
This is why the terms are used...universal and pluralistic society. THey are used to keep away from the concept of the United States Constitution and the fact that this guy has taken an oath to protect and defend this very Constitution. In otherwords to the informed..this is doubletalk/doublespeak.

Be very careful of what makes sense..or logic and reason. There are entire religions based on this very concept ..logic and reason..or what some would call sense. Gnosticism, Sophism, are prime examples of this...as is Luciferianism.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I have been noticing the use of the word "World" in many of the pre inaugural speeches by Barack Obama. This tends to make me a bit nervous as my understanding is the oath of office is for the People of the United States under the Constitution of the United States of America...not the World.

Some how in my mind it reflects the World beliefs, thinking, and values and not the guidelines of the Oath of office for the Constitution of the United States of America. Does anyone else notice this fingerprint. More remains to be seen as time transpires.

I say this in Lieu of the First Amendment guidelines and the knowledge that for most of the "World" they are not interested in First Amendment limits on government but only on imposing them on the pubic and letting the government run free....unlimited.

This is also my understanding from Obama's speech in the video. Limits on the public not on government as pertains to the First Amendment....which is also the "World" position.

Anyone else notice this fingerprint??

Also bumping this back up to get rid of these Anonymous postings for which there is not an Anonymous post made. Very irritating.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
YOU LIVE IN A SECULAR COUNTRY.

GET OVER IT.


[edit on 1/4/2009 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


Hey Irish M1ck,

I didn't see that in the Constitution of the United States. That we live in a secular country. Is that what public education standards are today...a television education. You know..where you can shout anyone down who has a different thought or asks the difficult question...and then call this the high moral ground.

I ask that simply because I dont see the word "secular" in the Constitution. Do You see that word in there..."Secular??"

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.


A Founding Father claiming that the first amendment creates "a wall of separation between church and State". How more secular can you get when the people who created the country explicitly said that church and state are not uniform?



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Adams on the United States' secular nature:

Founding Fathers on Religion

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Wow Mick...you did go to public school and never got over it.

You still did not tell me where the Constitution of the United States says we live in a secular country. I didn't see that in there.

You do know that this...quote from your post..is nature worship..pantiesm..yes.


"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature


If government is based on nature principles ..panthiesm..nature worship..we are back to paganism which is a religion..meaning there is no separation of church and state.

Not all of us here went to public school Mick and didn't get over it.
Some of us did get over it and ask questions about it.

Nonetheless...I did not see in the Constitution of the United States where it says that we live in a secular country. Please give me chapter and verse..on this from the Constitution.

Mick..be very careful what you think is logic and reason..for I know that the Pagan religions are full of logic and reason. The Greeks among the finest at this but they were very religious and also Pagan.

THe very interesting thing about the Founders of the Constitution is that they would never have been able to sell it to the States under the heading of Secular. This is common sense. This is also a concept never spoken about by people so earnestly trying to push this very secular position. It is totally avoided. The colonists would not have bought into it by the term secular or any other.

Nonetheless...Mick..please tell me where the Constitution says it guarantees to each citizen a secular form of government or some such statement. Also please tell me where it states that the government can impose natures principles in lieu of peoples religious beliefs. I'd like to know this information.

I ask this because this is precisely to what Obama is alluding in this video..that people cannot use their religion or something taught by their preachers as a guiding principle.

Remember ..this man is slated to take the oath of office on January 20 2009. To enforce the limits of the First Amendment on government..not the people. By this video ..which course do you think this administration will take??

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 




Why do you assume that anything natural has to be Pagan or any other form of religion? Adams was fairly clear, in a 19th century sort of way, that he was talking about the first government that was secular, secular meaning free from religion.

I don't suppose you know that there are words called synonyms in the English language right? So while the Constitution does not need to say the exact word secular, it can be interpreted as to it meaning that (interpreting is what people do to legal documents).


Nonetheless...Mick..please tell me where the Constitution says it guarantees to each citizen a secular form of government or some such statement. Also please tell me where it states that the government can impose natures principles in lieu of peoples religious beliefs.


You are way off here. It doesn't guarantee to each citizen a secular form of government, it guarantees a secular government in general. Separation of Church and State. There is nothing about "natures principles" in the way you are thinking - Paganism.

Adams, and others, when referring to nature, are mostly talking about reason and scientific means of thought. You, on the other hand, are forced to always think about words in a manner that aligns them with religion.

I ask you to remember, not all of us were home schooled or went to private Catholics schools to be indoctrinated with fairy tales.

What you FAIL to comprehend is that religion and government do not mix. EVER. Also, if you need further clarification on what our Founding Fathers thought about religion (most of them would be considered either Deists, agnostic, or atheist by todays standards):

Thomas Jefferson

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god."


John Adams

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."


James Madison (Father of the Constitution)

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."


Benjamin Franklin (like Jefferson, seemingly despised organized religion):

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."


 

If this was a Christian nation, why did the writers of the Constitution fail to mention it? Why is it not expressed clearly? Why, then, did they lead us into a direction of secularism?

Thomas Jefferson

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."



As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."


How much more obvious can you get that the writers of the Constitution did not create a "Christian Nation"?

James Madison (Father of the Constitution)

And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.


Do you have anything to offer otherwise? Do you have anything that shows that we should all be Christians and that we should conform to some sort of Christian agenda?

Why would the Founding Fathers call it "superstition" if they planned to base their government around it?

*Edit to add:

To answer your question, what course will the administration take? Towards what? Towards religion? Hopefully none.

Religion is of no consequence in politics, and those who use it for their gain make me sick.

[edit on 1/4/2009 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


Mick,

You have some real problems here.


Why do you assume that anything natural has to be Pagan or any other form of religion?


The statement you initially quoted used the term "natures principles or principles of nature"...not the word natural. You need some practice here.

Natures principles is also a religion and it comes under pantheism. It also often comes under Gnostic, Sophism....which includes much of logic and reason. All of these stem from paganism. One could even say they stem from Occult practices which also brings it under religion.


You are way off here. It doesn't guarantee to each citizen a secular form of government, it guarantees a secular government in general. Separation of Church and State. There is nothing about "natures principles" in the way you are thinking - Paganism.


Mick..it is you who are way off here. It does not guarantee a secular government in general. It is to guarantee that government stays out of the religious affairs of the public...which it is not doing. Meaning the government is conducting itself in a hidden concealed manner to control and regulate the religious affairs of the public. This comes across quite clearly in Obama's speech in the video where he states " it is no longer sufficient for a person to state that this or that was discussed in church or what their preacher says or taught them.

We also know this by government allowing tax supports for church tithing or giving to the churches. This is a price support for churches. Government has no business incorporating churchs and also churchs have no business being incorporated as a entity/creature of the state...both of them are whoring themselves out in violation of the separation of church and state doctrines...they are both whores in this. Neither government nor churchs have any business in this. Churchs should be tax immune to have separation..not tax exempt.
If government is offering tax subsidies to the churchs then government is sneaking into the religion business...by this price support and once again there is no separation of church and state...they are both liars ..the churches and the state.

But Mick...it says "In God We Trust" on the moneys!! Give me the name of the god of the US Government who is the Liar!!?? When, where and for what reason ..did they switch gods and not tell anyone??? Back to that Occult, Hidden, Esoteric thing again. Difficult to get away from it once you know the pattern.

Hey Mick...while I am thinking about it..isnt that pretty much what the Jewish Pharisees did when they brought the woman caught in adultery ..in the very act ..before Jesus for judgement. You cannot catch a woman in adultery without catching a man. Yet they brought only the woman. The Pharisees and Jewish leadership had secretly switched gods and told no one...since they obviously were not keeping the Law of Moses which said "they both shall be stoned." The law the pharisees were keeping said women get stoned for adultery and men do not. And yet we have the statements of the pharisees claiming to keep the law in all points!!

So You see Mick..it is possible to have Pharisees in our government and also the churches....who have secretly switched gods and religions without most people even being aware of it. Could it be Mick that you are debating a Pharisee point and not even know it??? An Occult point??

Also Mick...this too is being done both by the churchs and government in a manner most of the public is totally unawares. It is being done in an occult manner. Hidden, concealed, esoteric. Neither the government nor churchs want the public to know of this price support or tax subsidy.

I also want you to know that I am aware that Politics is in fact a religion. It is the religion of the secret. Occult, hidden, concealed. We know this by the passion and zealousness of the adherents of the body politic. We also know by the history and track record of the body politic that they will sell the very souls of the people in a nation on their altar for lucre and votes. Just like a Pharisee. This is not difficult to understand this concept...nor the occult nature of it.

Oh..another thing Mick. There is nothing in the Constitution about Separation of Church and State. The limit in the First Amendment is on government ..not on the people. This is for the purpose of government doing what was so obvious by the history of Europe where the principle was government by feudal decree by Divine Right of Kings...leading to a lot of government mischief. This history was known by the founders. The intent was never to limit the public's ability to practice their religion but to limit government and their excesses into religious arenas.
Both of these burdens Mick are on government ..not the public ...the not making a law respecting an establishment of a religion and also the not prohibiting the public from the free exercise thereof. Both limits on government, not on the people.
This is a total reversal of what government is attempting to do today...which is to put limits on the public ability to live by their religious beliefs.

I am all for government staying out of the religion business. I am not interested in a system of feudalism or divine right of kings..which is in essence feudalism/royalty.

I too did not go to private schools or home schooled. I did however not take as big a bite out of public school indoctrination as did you and many others out here.

Mick,
Once again you are stretching what the founders stated here..in this quote you give by Thomas Jefferson..


"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."


I agree that a legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion but there are two parts to this ...the second part often avoided by people looking for total separation....of even the ability of a people to practice and live to their religion. The second part says....nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This part is usually totally avoided in debates like this.

Remember something Mick...In England a bit more than a hundred years earlier a people had put their kings head on the block and chopped it off....for crimes against the people using the Non separation of church and state...called Divine Right of Kings. I speak here of Charles 1st of England. THe founders knew ample history of the mischief governments could get into under divine right of kings...as the crowns of most of the sovereigns of Europe was put on their heads by the Popes or in England by the head of the English Church. Thus meaning that government power came from God to the Sovereign...absolute power. The beheading of Charles 1st broke this divine right of kings and the mischief of absolute power. Since that time many leaders have tried to get back to absolute power...by various schemes and machinations...even by logic and reason.

As to Benjamin Franklin..you'd better look more closely as to precisely what was his religion. Very closely.

This too is a quantum assumption on your part....


If this was a Christian nation, why did the writers of the Constitution fail to mention it? Why is it not expressed clearly? Why, then, did they lead us into a direction of secularism?


The writers of the Constitution did not lead us to the direction of secularism. They followed their own writings and limited government to prevent the mischief which is taking place today under the guise of Secular Humanism...which is the deification of men...by logic and reason.
Man is the ultimate power in the Universe...Secular Humanism. Demigods.
I can find this trail in many Gnostic/Sophist books and writings of logic and reason.

You are attempting to use logic and reason to stretch what the First Amendment says. The limits of the First Amendment are on government.
As a matter of fact..the First Ten Amendments are all limits on government for the purpose of protecting the public. I should not have to tell you this.


How much more obvious can you get that the writers of the Constitution did not create a "Christian Nation"?


Once again you attempt to pull the bait and switch here. It is not up to the founders to determine what kind of religion the people practice or how they do it and secular attempts to do just that as evidenced by your quote above. This was and is up to the people of the nation to decide..not the founders..nor politicians today. You misspeak, misquote and attempt to misdirect here.
You are practicing the religion of politics here. This is called occult Mick. It has its origins in pagan logic and reason.

Oh..one more thing Mick. Public schools are financed and paid for by the body politic. What religion do you think they will teach to the kids?? It has to be an occult religion to keep the kids from ever catching on. Not difficult to connect the dots here.

And once again ...Mick, Lest I forget..your position on secularism of the founding fathers doesnt make good nonsense unless you are trying to default through on most people not knowing much history. You would be correct in this tack as most Americans going through public school do not in fact know much history...but not all of us

Here is one of your big problems with a secular government. However not even many church going Americans know that there is a office of Chaplain in the US House of Represenstives. As I recall the history of this tradition and office go back to the Continental Congress..before the Constitution.

chaplain.house.gov...

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 5-1-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Can I please clarify the word secular before we go on:

Secular

1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular ).


Our government is secular. Don't believe me? Well, just go ask the Supreme Court:

Find Law

The Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion." 3 The Court [482 U.S. 578, 583] has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause. First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose.


Good ole judicial review. They have interpreted the First Amendment, and any law that is not secular is invalid.

What kind of nation would you say we are again?

The word secular is probably used 50 or more times in that court decision. Please tell me, why would our Supreme Court overturn Acts based off of failing to be secular if we are not a secular nation?


The statement you initially quoted used the term "natures principles or principles of nature"...not the word natural. You need some practice here.


You can twist words around as much as you want, doesn't bother me. There was nothing spiritual said in that quote, and there is no reason to believe he wasn't merely talking about the laws of science.


This comes across quite clearly in Obama's speech in the video where he states " it is no longer sufficient for a person to state that this or that was discussed in church or what their preacher says or taught them.


And it isn't. It is not sufficient for a person to say, "well I beat Jimmy up because he is gay and my preacher said that gays are full of sin". Obama is correct, that is not okay.


We also know this by government allowing tax supports for church tithing or giving to the churches. This is a price support for churches.


That's just ignoring the fact that churches are "nonprofit". Anything nonprofit is tax exempt. It's just tax law.

It means nothing.


But Mick...it says "In God We Trust" on the moneys!! Give me the name of the god of the US Government who is the Liar!!??


Glad that you also noticed it doesn't say which God that "we trust".


I agree that a legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion but there are two parts to this ...the second part often avoided by people looking for total separation....of even the ability of a people to practice and live to their religion. The second part says....nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This part is usually totally avoided in debates like this.


It doesn't matter what part you agree to. That is not my quote, that is a quote from Thomas Jefferson. I did not write that the First Amendment created a wall of separation - Thomas Jefferson did.

Oh, and apparently the SCOTUS agrees.


Here is one of your big problems with a secular government. However not even many church going Americans know that there is a office of Chaplain in the US House of Represenstives. As I recall the history of this tradition and office go back to the Continental Congress..before the Constitution.


I agree with you here. I think we need to remove "In God We Trust" off of the dollar. I think there should be no office of the Chaplain. However, it must be noted that the office does hold no real authority (basically performs prayers and marriages in the House).

Also, the definition of a Chaplain:

Chaplain

A chaplain is typically a priest, pastor, ordained deacon, rabbi, imam or other member of the clergy serving a group of people who are not organized as a mission or church, or who are unable to attend church for various reasons; such as health, confinement, or military or civil duties; lay chaplains are also found in other settings such as universities.


So, just like the Office of the President, the office of the Chaplain is also vulnerable to be taken over by Muslims.


Uh oh, watch out Christians. Don't want more Muslims taking over your spots.


[edit on 1/5/2009 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


Irish Mick,

You cannot be serious about your post..especially this..


Our government is secular. Don't believe me? Well, just go ask the Supreme Court:


I keep telling you that you have a problem with your technique and rationale.

I agree with you ..our government is indeed secular...humainstic...even down right anti christian and moving more so in that direction.

However..this is your original post...


YOU LIVE IN A SECULAR COUNTRY.

GET OVER IT.


Do you see the difference? I don't think so. You operate on some kind of entitlement belief system based on your version of rational, logical, reasonable thinking.

The government may indeed be secular ...even Luciferian ..but that does not mean the country/people are. It is a quantum leap in thinking to go from a secular government which is openly hostile to the beliefs and practices of the people... to saying or implying that the secular government is the people and the country. There are folks/people out here who know the difference.
You constantly attempt in your posts to jump back an forth in these assumptions ..and think no one out here catches it or knows the difference.

The Supreme Court is also not the people..they are part ofthe secular government.

I told you that you need more practice.

As to the Establishment Clause...
This one bothered me for a long time until I read some history and began to understand how a Talmud and Talmudic principles work.

Notice in this Establishment Doctrine how they now use the Establishment Clause to make the decisions. They are not basing it on the Constitution of the United States but the talmudic new rule...and disregarding the part of the Constitution having to do with the "Free Exercise thereof."

What a Talmud is ..is a commentary .. a rule which allows one to get around the rules...a rule for breaking the rules one does not like. It is a way of being selective and not telling others that this is happening. You can break or violate the rules..but you must use rules to break the rules..even if you must write a new rule to break the rules. This is how a Talmud or commentary works.
This is also how a Legal Fiction works..also called a Fiction of Law. Look it up some time ..in Blacks Law Dictionary.

By the way..Talmud has its origins in the Babylonian Captivity...the Babylonian Religion. This is where the Hebrews came into contact with this rationale. It can be found in other cultures under different names but this is where they came into contact with it big time. It is religious in nature.

They left out the part about ..".the free exercise thereof" in favor of the part which states..."pass no law respecting the establishing a religion."

What they are doing is limiting the ability of the public..to have the "free exercise thereof." and by this promoting the government religion....ie..politics. Thinking people know this. Emoting people do not.

As to this....


You can twist words around as much as you want, doesn't bother me. There was nothing spiritual said in that quote, and there is no reason to believe he wasn't merely talking about the laws of science.


You are joking here once again..yes?? Science is not a religion though you would be hard pressed to see the difference by the manner in which so many try to use the zeal and belief in science as the new paradigm or template to mold social structures...by this means science is attempting to become the new religion. Science is not a religion....Nature worship "is" a religion.
Once again..thinking people know this...unthinking, emoting people do not.
They just operate on their zeal and passions and think no one else knows it or can think it through.

You are totally losing me here...I don't even understand from whence this drama came to demonstrate a point or its relationship to the topic at hand.


And it isn't. It is not sufficient for a person to say, "well I beat Jimmy up because he is gay and my preacher said that gays are full of sin". Obama is correct, that is not okay.


This is not what Obama was describing..are you being Talmudic here??

Also this...Talmudic again..


We also know this by government allowing tax supports for church tithing or giving to the churches. This is a price support for churches.

That's just ignoring the fact that churches are "nonprofit". Anything nonprofit is tax exempt. It's just tax law.

It means nothing.


It means everything. Either government is separate from the churchs and religion or they are not. Churchs are separate or they are not.
Once a church has the 501c tax number..they are corporations of the state..created by the state..not by God. This is not separation. Ironically most churchs do not seem to know this or educate their members in this.
These churchs can now be controlled and regulated by the government.
This is not separation ...it is whoredom both on the part of the churchs and also the government.

Churchs are to be tax immune..not tax exempt. Tax immunity ..also means churchs are non profit..it changes nothing but the relationship of separation by not being 501c corporations. To have true separation...churchs need to drop their 501c corporate status with government. Having the 501c tax number means churchs can profit from their relationship with government. This is not seperation..but being a parasite on the people and the government. People deducting thier giving to the church on their taxes is a price support for the churchs and the people...it is not giving Biblical first fruits. It is also once again ..not seperation of church and state..it is church and state in bed together. It is also whoring out the public unknowingly...for neither the church or state will educate the people on this simple Truth.

I know a number of churchs which do not give out chits to their members for their support. These churchs do not have a 501c corporate number issued by government. They have no interest in it and are able to preach and teach the whole council of God. THese churchs also educate their flocks in the whoredom practiced by both government and many of the churchs out here.

Obama's speech tells me he is for taking this government control over the churchs/people further than it is currently practiced...ie..even less separation.


It doesn't matter what part you agree to. That is not my quote, that is a quote from Thomas Jefferson. I did not write that the First Amendment created a wall of separation - Thomas Jefferson did.


Notice here that just like the courts...you use the "wall of separation" argument based on the exclusionary rule...but avoid the part about "or the free exercise thereof." Jefferson also stated the "nor the free exercise thereof." Why do you and so many others avoid this concept..this other part of the First Amendment when debating these points?

The courts as well avoid this position. All the cases used by these people debating these "wall of separation" and "Exclusionary Rule" points are recent cases...and seldom bring up cases from the time of the founders.
But they do like to quote the founders and misquote and then leave out part of the quotes as if no one will notice. They do not like to bring notice to the quotes about "the free exercise thereof" in favor of keeping the public from the very "free exercise thereof" by quoting separation through the "Talmudic " rule of the "Exclusionary Rule." They do not quote the whole First Amendment.

The first Amendment as well as the first Ten Amendments are all limits on the Government ..they are not limits on the people. Read them some time.

As to this Mick,


So, just like the Office of the President, the office of the Chaplain is also vulnerable to be taken over by Muslims.

Uh oh, watch out Christians. Don't want more Muslims taking over your spots.


This is gloating...like a woman trying to get in the last word. It is not worthy of your positions of logic, reason, and intellect. It is however a demonstration of your emotional levels/passions.

It also implies to me that you are not an atheist. You would have one religion to replace another religion which you hate even more. This is more in line with Luciferian principles...than atheism. Luciferian principles are a religion...and it is the dominant religion we find being practiced by most governments. It is not the religion of most of the peoples of these nations ..including this one.

Also Mick..when one reads actual texts on Luciferianism..you see the appeal to ones passions, emotions, instincts, and also the appeal to nature...panthiesm..including the cultivation of mans true nature by these very passions, instincts and emotions. The Talmud is often quoted in these books as well.

You are doing well here Mick.

Thanks,
Orangetom



[edit on 8-1-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Okay. You live in a country whose government is secular. Fair enough?

Obama is a politician and a part of the government, and therefore has no reason nor responsibility to be religious, pretend that he is, or bend to its will.

[edit on 1/15/2009 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


98% of the "people" of this country can only trace their ancestry afew centuries back. Before that native americans lived on the land.

This was not a christian country when the Europeans settled upon it. This is not a christian country to this day. Thats how it should and will probably stay.

I believe in God. I also believe in the individual freedom of all men not to have to abide by anothers belief. I further believe there need be respect towards the founding tribes of the land.

Your religion in your backyard. You may preach, as it is your freedom of speech, but you may not force it into law, as you are not the original of the land, you do not practice the native believe prior to foreign settlers.

The founding fathers specifically intended seperate church and state, maybe, just maybe as respect to native americans, we should follow what the founding fathers intend, nomatter the majority belief of the foriegners on the land today.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by southern_Guardian]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Okay. You live in a country whose government is secular. Fair enough?

Obama is a politician and a part of the government, and therefore has no reason nor responsibility to be religious, pretend that he is, or bend to its will.

[edit on 1/15/2009 by Irish M1ck]


Your public school education is showing here Mick. On the 20th of January Obama will be taking an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. He is there to protect our rights as Americans...not "his" responsibility to be religious or even non religious.. How did you miss out on this concept concerning the oath of office?? What you are stating is that Obama or any other president has no accountability to the Constitution or the American Public. That somehow the Government is something very seperate from the People of this country.

Tell me Mick...is the goverenment of the United States something very different from the People here...not accountable to the people here??
Accountable only to itself...the government itself??

Astonishing!!!

Southern Guardian,

Like Mick, you are in danger of losing me here. This thread is about Obama;s anti christian speech. Yet you seem wont to take a time warp trip back in history and change the basis of all the history of which we are talking.

I do agree with you in that we should follow the beliefs of the founders which was to make no law respecting an establishment of religion..nor the free exercise thereof. The pattern of today under intelligence, wisdom seems to be one of ignoring the "free exercise there of" in favor of limiting he publics ability to worship and follow thier consciences concerning their religious beliefs. This is what Obama is clearly stating in this video.

While you are at it..to bring things up to date here in Virginia. The Mattopanii Indian Tribes...a coastal tribe...has land on a reservation ceded to them back with the King of England in the 1600s and the early Virginia Assemblys. The State of Virginia wants to build a water Resevior on thier land. The local Indians dont want to cede this land for this purpose to the state. I am in agreement with the Indians here. It is their land. If they choose as free people to cede this land ...that is entirely thier buisness. If not ..the land is theirs as well. It is not our buisness nor the buisness of the state...but thier land. The land is not of the State to take from them but granted under ancient title by the King of England as well as early General Assembly. They own this land under sovereign title. The State needs to shut up and back off on this..get their resivior some other way.
The Indians should be able to live their lives on thier land and practice thier religion in the manner they know and worship. They are mostly fisherman and live off the land and water as did thier forefathers.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 18-1-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Do you have another link to the video? It no longer works and I need to refresh myself on what exactly he said.

Is this it? If so, watch the whole thing (including the part where it is put back into context).



[edit on 1/18/2009 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by amitheone
 


I clicked on your link but which video is it?
There's alot of them there.
I would really like to see this .



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


Mick,

Wow!!! You are correct...the link is indeed not working. It seems this video is wont to disappear into the ether of cyberspace.

However ..do not despair. Buck Division has taken the time to transfer what has been said in the video onto the ATS link here from page 6 of this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can read his transcription of what Obama said here at the link above.

Magic Rose..I too would like to see the video by the original link but you may have to settle for Buck Divisions transfer of the video on page 6 of this thread.

Thanks,
Orangetom



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join