reply to post by Irish M1ck
It has been awhile since I have checked this thread. Good to see you replied.
i]At which point did anyone discuss the First Amendment or the Constitution. Here's the Obama quote again:
Originally said by Obama
Democracy demands that participants translate their beliefs into universal rather than religious specific values.
I discussed the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States since this is a thread about Obama,s anti christian speech.
Also and furthermore, as a Senator and now the President of the United States, Obama takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States which includes the First Amendment. Obama does not take an oath to Universal rather than religious specific values. Neither as a Senator
nor as President does he do this. What Obama takes an oath specifically to protect and defend is the First Amendment. No where in that Oath or the
Constitution does it ever reference Universal values.
And the First Amendment includes " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
This is the portion of the First Amendment in which I am particularly concerned.
Universal values are not limited government.
While I do think a First Amendment would be helpful in the Middle East, it wouldn't do that much. I was talking about participants in
government not basing their decisions on religion. That also pretty much sums up the entire argument Obama was trying to make.
Surely you jest. In decisions on the Middle East they had better make their decision by including and factoring in the area of religion.
Furthermore ...any politician who does not consider in the factor of religion in dealing with the American people is a phony and a liar to their oath
of office. This is called reason and logic..not politics. Anything else is a counterfeit. A hijacking. Sneaking in the back door privily, furtively.
It looks reasonable ..it is not when one thinks it through.
Any Senator, Congressman, or President who does not consider the religious beliefs of the American people is misrepresenting them. Hence a liar and a
phony to their oath of office.
Once I detect this trend line...I quickly ask myself exactly what is their religion which allows them to justify misrepresenting their oath of office
to the people of the United States. It must be a counterfeit religion..one which allows deceitfulness and counterfeiting. If this is what politics has
become by logic and reason..I am forced to ask myself what is the religion which justifies misrepresentation/counterfeit of their oath of office...to
not consider the religious beliefs of their constituency. Congressmen, Senators, and President alike..and substitute instead ..universal values in
contradiction to their oath of office.
So, again, not the First Amendment, but rather that politicians (and maybe even its citizens) making decisions based off of logic rather
I hope you do understand that logic and reason have their origins in religion..yes?? This religion is called Gnosticism and sometimes Sophism and is
still with us having hidden its doings under the guise of Enlightenment...the Age of Reason. Deism itself is of Gnosticism ..Gnosticism is a religion.
THe religion of wise men..of men of reason and logic. The religion of Disraeli as Winston Churchill was quoting in a letter to his mother.
As to "maybe even its citizens" making its decisions based off logic rather than religion, the problem is that people here have freedom of religion.
Thus meaning the "free exercise thereof." This too is the part I am debating about Obama as the two are interconnected in the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. They are not disconnected.
The other problem here Irish Mick is that the Politicians including the President take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States..not to divide and separate the clauses so that they can sneak around the Constitution by logic and reason. By this same manner they, by the
whoredom of politics, attempt to divide and separate the public for votes. This is a religion at work here.
Again, I have to disagree. I thought we agreed that the founding fathers were pretty clear that this government would be secular. For that
to even work, the participants must be secular themselves when making decisions.
Incorrect here. We agreed to no such thing. The participants have the freedom to practice their religion..the free exercise thereof. They have this
freedom because the "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment any religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of.
The participants here are the public ..in electing representatives according to the charter of government... to represent them according to this
charter ..not according to universal values.
It can't work both ways. We can't have a secular government if that government employs individuals who make non-secular decisions.
You are absolutely correct here with the exception that you don't take this far enough. You ..like the "Exclusionary rule" exclude part of the
problem here in your explanation.
It cannot work indeed when you have a government which is wont to make secular decisions for a people who are non secular. The tendency of secular
peoples is to make decisions based on logic and reason...contrary to the tenets of the religious beliefs of the overall public. In short they
misrepresent the public in favor or their private religious paradigm. Their secular template. They are counterfeiters. They are deceitful about their
oath of office.
The proof of this is that the leaders must often make decisions privily by Supreme Court decree..bypassing the public will and voting process
Or conversely they borrow huge amounts of moneys on deficits and then dole them out to the states and provinces with strings attached and once again
sneak in privily with the new paradigm/templates...all secular.
This has nothing to do with representative government..it has to do with deceit. We are reaping the results of this deficit spending and its deceit
today in our economic woes. And this is happening world wide..by logic and reason. The religion of secularism...the religion of wise men, sophists.
Can you prove that? As far as I can tell, he's definitely talking about government.
Once again Irish Mick...surely you jest. The government is the people. The government is not a separate entity. This is not feudalism or royalty as is
the case throughout most of human history. Feudal governments or royalty was and is the norm throughout most nations with the exception of this
Most peoples have the view of this world that their are two classes of peoples..royalty or government and then the rest of us. This is not the case
The government here is to represent the people..not the people represent the government. You seem wont to get it backwards in every respect.
Including represent the people in the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof.
As I told Valhall earlier in this thread...Secular is anti christian. Always has been and always will be...privily..by deceit. It looks perfectly
logical and reasonable by first glance..but it is anti christian.
Valhall chose to use the term non sectarian...non sectarian is another word for secular. Christians are a sect..meaning separated from. Universal
means non sectarian or secular. Christians are not universal. They are to come out from amongst them and be ye separate.
Christians are to have under the Constitution of the United States the ability to enjoy the "Free exercise there of" by virtue of "Congress shall
make no law respecting the establishment a religion. This includes universal values as the new paradigm of the religion of logic and reason.
Americans have every right to expect that thier government respect thier religious beliefs and vote accordingly by representing them. Not by
representing universal beliefs..privily deceitfully.
Gotta go..lots to do here today.
Thanks for your post,