Obama's anti christian speech

page: 9
12
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Okay, now what in these statements is in anyway wrong of him to say?


Democracy demands that participants translate their beliefs into universal rather than religious specific values. It requires that religious proposals be subject to argument, and agreeable to reason. If someone seeks to pass a law, it must be based on something OTHER than just the teachings of the church. You can't simply point to what your pastor said last Sunday, or evoke "God's Will", and expect that argument to be accepted by everyone without further debate.


In today's world, do you really find this to be surprising or wrong? That decisions, especially political ones, should not be made based only on "God's Will"?


Although this may offend evangelicals, in a pluralistic society, we have no choice except to compromise with others. We must persuade people by referencing a commonly agreed to reality. We must compromise, and assess what is really possible. This contradicts religion, which is, at a fundamental level, uncompromising, and practices the art of dealing with the impossible. Basing your life on this may be sublime, but basing policies on this is dangerous.


Fairly synonymous to the previous...




posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


You cannot be serious here especially after quoting the First Amendment.



Democracy demands that participants translate their beliefs into universal rather than religious specific values. It requires that religious proposals be subject to argument, and agreeable to reason. If someone seeks to pass a law, it must be based on something OTHER than just the teachings of the church. You can't simply point to what your pastor said last Sunday, or evoke "God's Will", and expect that argument to be accepted by everyone without further debate.


What part of this point Obama is making is in line with his oath of office..or the separation of church and state clause...

How about the part of the First Amendment which states "Government shall make no law establishing a religion nor the free exercise there of."

I don't know about you Mick, but I see the above quote by Obama as violating the part about "nor the free exercise there of." Any government which can trample on the "free exercise thereof" can in fact switch to a no religion..which is also a religion being established by government. It does not take a huge brain to understand this concept.

In this case the religion being switched like three card monte is " subject to argument and agreeable to reason." This religion is called gnosticism, sophism, wise men religions and has its basis in ancient pantheism. Nature worship. The religion of reasonable men.

This is not discussing freedom and religious liberty. It is discussing bondage to mens reason, logic, and sophism.
I know this by the use of the words...demands...requires...it must be based...you cant simply point out..

What is obvious by this post is that individual freedom and liberty are subject to group think and group emotions. This is socialism..facism...communism. The State is God as Hegel would say.


Although this may offend evangelicals, in a pluralistic society, we have no choice except to compromise with others. We must persuade people by referencing a commonly agreed to reality. We must compromise, and assess what is really possible. This contradicts religion, which is, at a fundamental level, uncompromising, and practices the art of dealing with the impossible. Basing your life on this may be sublime, but basing policies on this is dangerous.


This last paragraph is specifically targeted to Evangelicals..to Christians. They don't even try to hide it.

Once again the group think in lieu of individual freedom and liberty.
" We have no choice..We must persuade...We must compromise...This contradicts religion...This is dangerous.

Evangelicals and Christians who make their decisions on politics or anything else by their beliefs and trainings are "dangerous" They are a threat to democracy.
They do not deserve their religious liberties...they must cede to the new paradigm the new way. No choice for them.

None of these paragraphs of Obama ...speak of liberty or religious freedom..but of coercion.

And Obama takes an oath in a couple of days to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Which dogma do you think he will use..which template?? The First Amendment ..the First Ten Amendments or some other dogma not mentioned in the Constitution of the United States??

I can see why the video was pulled and or disappeared. I am glad that Buck Division was able to leave a transcript of what Obama stated or that would have been lost as well. There is no liberty in Obama's speech in that video. No First Amendment. Only bondage.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Now you're just making up stuff. Even when you have the paragraph in front of you, you have to remove it from context to make it work. Instead of paraphrasing his words, you first remove them from context to change their meaning and then paraphrase.

Both of these quotes are only saying that political decisions and legislation should not be based solely on faith as that is dangerous (see Iraq War).

If you think that's "anti-Christian"... oh well. I guess you've got another one right here.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
One side says he is our savior with 50% of him Kennedy and the other 50% Lincoln. Then we have the other side that say he is the worst used car sales man ever to enter public office.

Can we actually let the guy enter the office first, and give him, oh I don’t know, a year to really see what direction he is going to go?

I didn't vote for the man, but damn....



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Now you're just making up stuff. Even when you have the paragraph in front of you, you have to remove it from context to make it work. Instead of paraphrasing his words, you first remove them from context to change their meaning and then paraphrase.

Both of these quotes are only saying that political decisions and legislation should not be based solely on faith as that is dangerous (see Iraq War).

If you think that's "anti-Christian"... oh well. I guess you've got another one right here.



Mick,

You left out and ignored the part about ..."we must compromise, we must persuade, this contradicts religion, this is dangerous, it requires that religious proposals be subject to argument, it must be based on something other than church teachings."

Emphasis here on the word "must" and "requires." THese are not examples nor the wording of liberty. Nor is it the "free exercise there of."

How be it that in describing this video or even the transcript you avoid these statements which Obama clearly makes in contradiction to the oath he will be taking tomorrow. Do you think that as a Constitutional Lawyer...Obama is not aware of the difference or what it means .."the free exercise there of?" How about Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion." For those of us with some common sense remaining, we know that to limit "the free exercise there of" is indeed to establish a religion..a religion of "reasonable men." This religion is very ancient and predates Christinaity. It is called paganism. And it is the government religion. A religion in which the exercise of the liberties of the public is constantly curbed in favor of government reasons and justifications.

Howbeit...that you do not debate theses points I specifically make about this video?? Are they not all examples of limits on the public..not on government in the manner in which Obama states them in his speech?? Is he not arguing for the point of limiting the public's beliefs and practices..not governments. ARE not the limits on the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States to be on government ...not on the public as pertains to religion...."no law to establish a religion, nor the free exercise there of?"

THe Establishment Clause is exactly the same thing. A limit on the public..not a limit on government. IN this manner they do exactly the thing the Constitution says they are not to do...just as did the Pharisees in times past. A rule for getting around the rules. This is textbook paganism..textbook gnosticism, Textbook rationalism, logic, and reason of men

Obama is saying that "none" of political decisions should be based on religion or something learned in church or by way of a preacher. He is saying that these people "must be persuaded" "must be compromised" "Must be required and many more" None of this is in line with individual liberty and the "free exercise there of."
He is talking about government or political reason logic and understanding being allowed to play through. He is talking about "
"no free exercise there of."

He is talking about exactly the opposite of what you state in your posts.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


He doesn't need to say those things, as they are in the Constitution. It goes without saying that people can practice freely, but yes


Originally said by Obama
Democracy demands that participants translate their beliefs into universal rather than religious specific values.


Yes, it certainly does require that. Just this act alone would help bring peace in the Middle East.


Originally said by Obama
It requires that religious proposals be subject to argument, and agreeable to reason.


I think this goes without saying... every proposal should be subject to argument.


Originally said by Obama
If someone seeks to pass a law, it must be based on something OTHER than just the teachings of the church.


Well considering we live in a country whose government is secular, I'd say this is not only a good observation, but to not follow this line of thought is to go against the Constitution.


Originally said by Obama
You can't simply point to what your pastor said last Sunday, or evoke "God's Will", and expect that argument to be accepted by everyone without further debate.


Again, he is talking about government here, not the people, in all of these quotes. Even if he wasn't, it still stands as a valid point, does it not? Can you expect everyone to take your argument as correct because your paster said it?


Originally said by Obama
Although this may offend evangelicals, in a pluralistic society, we have no choice except to compromise with others.


Oh no! Not compromise! Evil Obama and his anti-Christian compromising rhetoric!



Originally said by Obama
We must persuade people by referencing a commonly agreed to reality. We must compromise, and assess what is really possible.


Meh, that's really open to interpretation. I think he's really saying that politicians really need to focus in terms of reality when trying to talk to people. Instead of focusing on God, they need to focus on facts.

Again, a secular government...


Originally said by Obama
This contradicts religion, which is, at a fundamental level, uncompromising, and practices the art of dealing with the impossible.


Is religion uncompromising? I would so say, until it is faced with inevitability. They are generally the last to get on board with anything that is progressive.

And I believe we can all agree that it deals with the impossible.



Originally said by Obama
Basing your life on this may be sublime, but basing policies on this is dangerous.


Especially in a secular government. Notice what he didn't say? He didn't say anything about making any laws that infringe upon the 1st amendment. In fact, all he said is that people in government need to be more secular, which, according the Supreme Court, is their job to do anyway.

I have no idea what you are talking about other than taking things out of context.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by amitheone
 


i cannot understand how it is that people like your self don't hear what this man is truthfully saying not just your fears playing out in your head,wow how did you feel when bush chose his words & wrong paths?Obama is trying to do his best i believe not only say but stand for & implement also, he wants a world that includes everyone,because that's what this world is made up of, he wants tolerance compassion & understanding he knows that there are many different types of religious beliefs in this world & even those that don't believe at all but he wants everyone to see each other as the common race of HUMANITY that's all he wants peace understanding & for those that have too much,too help those that don't have anything. whats wrong with that?he is a cleaver man who has amazing diplomacy & will not just believe the lies of the last old watch.
He wants real change he has a real vision & i only wish that those that cant let go of their fears of change just to stand back & watch him do what he can.To give him the chance he deserves after all surely nothing can be as bad as the last few years & how USA has come over to many other countries,oh & he has already started showing how he wants to look at the real core of the truth of situations by suspending trails at the torture camp guantanamo bay, oh there u go get all worked up on that now,but perhaps he is going to throw the doors wide open on all the lies of the last administration, i for one wait with faith for the 1st time in my life in a world leader.GOOD LUCK TO HIM>...maybe its time to have some real faith?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


Irish Mick,

You cannot possibly be serious about this..once again.


Yes, it certainly does require that. Just this act alone would help bring peace in the Middle East.


Which part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States applies to the Middle East?? I am curious about this since you seem wont to bring up a lot here on random rabid trails.
Is it the part about" shall make no law establishing a religion" or the part about " nor the free exercise there of???" Which part Irish Mick will help the Middle East?? I am curious about this.

How about the Establishment Clause since you also are wont to bring this up. How will this help the middle east or does it even apply to the Middle East??

What part of the oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States applies to the Middle East? Curious about this as well Irish Mick??

Or is there a different oath in the aid of Democracy? An oath of and to which most of us are unawares?? A secret oath..one not publicly taken by our elected leaders.
To my knowledge Irish Mick ..the oath of performance is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The oath is not to "democracy demands." What part of this concept are you having problems understanding??


I think this goes without saying... every proposal should be subject to argument.


I don't have a problem with concepts being subject to argument. Debate is one of the hallmarks of our legislative process. I do however have problems with the counterfeit process where someone makes the point that "Democracy Demands participants translate their beliefs to universal rather than religious specific values." This is a very different and forceful point far away from the concept of subject to argument. This is coercion...it is a hijacking..it is justification for force ...it is UnAmerican. Unconstitutional in its intent. Universal is not American. It is worldly..the World system not the American system.


Well considering we live in a country whose government is secular, I'd say this is not only a good observation, but to not follow this line of thought is to go against the Constitution.


You have a big problem here with this....what happened to the part of the First Amendment which also states..."nor the free exercise there of??"
See how easy it is to pay favorites and show only half or less of the whole picture. Do our leaders take an oath to protect and defend only parts or half or less of the Constitution of the United States??


Again, he is talking about government here, not the people, in all of these quotes. Even if he wasn't, it still stands as a valid point, does it not? Can you expect everyone to take your argument as correct because your paster said it?


He is not talking about government here. He is talking about applying this template to society. Not to government. Here again is the problem. He is charged under oath with upholding the Constitution of the United States for the People ...not for the Government. Do you understand the difference? He is also not charged with upholding an oath for Universal values but the Constitution of the United States for the People.
The Government is not a separate entity from the people. The government is bound by the Constitution of the United States. It is a limit on the Government. It is not for Universal values.


Oh no! Not compromise! Evil Obama and his anti-Christian compromising rhetoric!


somewhere earlier in this post or thread...I made debate points with someone named Valhall. Their point was that Obama's speech was not Anti Christian..but was instead..non sectarian. Non sectarian is non Christian. Christians are a sect...meaning separated from ..not universal.
Your drama points are wasted here. It also shows poor tack. Stay on point please.


Meh , that's really open to interpretation. I think he's really saying that politicians really need to focus in terms of reality when trying to talk to people. Instead of focusing on God, they need to focus on facts.


Oh, I agree they need to focus on facts. Quite right Irish Mick. And facts are that for the people, religion and religious beliefs guide most of them daily. Government needs to keep this fact in mind if they are going to focus on facts. Otherwise they are promoting the government not the people. This should be obvious. Otherwise government is a hijacker and a counterfeiter of its oath of office and charter of government.


Is religion uncompromising? I would so say, until it is faced with inevitability. They are generally the last to get on board with anything that is progressive.

And I believe we can all agree that it deals with the impossible.


I disagree here Irish Mick, Where is it written that religion must be compromising?? What is the law or title of Fiefdom ..which says religion must and is required to compromise? Where is it written that people who have a religious belief must compromise or cede to government or some other entity..in contradiction to "nor the free exercise there of??"

Do you see the problem here? Which oath is Obama going to keep ...his public oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States or a secret oath which says...people must compromise...must cede...must be persuaded..coerced...to universal values?? Where is this in Obama's oath of office??

This is why I constantly say..which oath will Obama be keeping?? IN which direction and towards which oath will he be steering this nation??
A public oath and direction within the Constitution of the United States or a private secret oath to do all that to which he alludes in his speech here??

I speak here not only of Obama..but all politicians/leaders. Which oath will they be wont to keep ..thier pubic oaths or some other hidden oath or belief not known by those who elected them??


Especially in a secular government. Notice what he didn't say? He didn't say anything about making any laws that infringe upon the 1st amendment. In fact, all he said is that people in government need to be more secular, which, according the Supreme Court, is their job to do anyway.


Obama said nothing of the kind..he is talking about applying his template to the people of this country. He is not talking about limits on government. He is talking about limits on the People of the United States contrary to the Constitution of the United States and in favor of universal values. Obama is talking about applying this template to society..people..not government.

It is you Irish Mick who is taking this out of context.

There are people out here who can see this ..clearly.

Thanks,
Orangetom



[edit on 23-1-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Conservatives are against abortion as the baby has no choice, but to die. If a person kills other people, then he knows what the consequences of his actions are, and therefore chooses his own death penalty.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


First off, before I respond to specific points... please, do not tell me what to do, what I should think, etc. This will be difficult to respond to, since you discuss me some in your post, and I am not allowed to reference people anymore on this site.

So if we can, let's keep the topic off me, or else I'll reference you, and then I'll get in trouble.

 


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Which part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States applies to the Middle East?? I am curious about this since you seem wont to bring up a lot here on random rabid trails.


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.


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.

So, again, not the First Amendment, but rather that politicians (and maybe even its citizens) making decisions based off of logic rather than religion.

"Hey, maybe I won't go suicide bomb them just because they have different religious values because killing people is wrong".


Originally posted by orangetom1999
I do however have problems with the counterfeit process where someone makes the point that "Democracy Demands participants translate their beliefs to universal rather than religious specific values." This is a very different and forceful point far away from the concept of subject to argument. This is coercion...it is a hijacking..it is justification for force ...it is UnAmerican. Unconstitutional in its intent. Universal is not American. It is worldly..the World system not the American system.


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.

It can't work both ways. We can't have a secular government if that government employs individuals who make non-secular decisions.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
You have a big problem here with this....what happened to the part of the First Amendment which also states..."nor the free exercise there of??"
See how easy it is to pay favorites and show only half or less of the whole picture. Do our leaders take an oath to protect and defend only parts or half or less of the Constitution of the United States??


Well free exercise thereof is not unlimited. Just like freedom of speech, if it breaks another law, then it is not covered. Government officials who are bringing their religion to work are breaking a fundamental part of the Constitution.

So, no, I don't see a conflict. Those same Senators can go home and pray to whatever God they like, but they can't bring it to work.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
He is not talking about government here. He is talking about applying this template to society. Not to government.


Can you prove that? As far as I can tell, he's definitely talking about government.


Originally said by Obama
If someone seeks to pass a law, it must be based on something OTHER than just the teachings of the church.


Then after he said:


Originally said by Obama
You can't simply point to what your pastor said last Sunday, or evoke "God's Will", and expect that argument to be accepted by everyone without further debate.


Sounds like he's talking about government to me.

So, can you please describe how you know he's not?


Originally posted by orangetom1999
somewhere earlier in this post or thread...I made debate points with someone named Valhall. Their point was that Obama's speech was not Anti Christian..but was instead..non sectarian. Non sectarian is non Christian. Christians are a sect...meaning separated from ..not universal.
Your drama points are wasted here. It also shows poor tack. Stay on point please.


It isn't anti-Christian, it is SECULAR. And as I pointed out earlier, please do not tell me what to do or give your opinion of me - it is moot.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Oh, I agree they need to focus on facts. Quite right Irish Mick. And facts are that for the people, religion and religious beliefs guide most of them daily. Government needs to keep this fact in mind if they are going to focus on facts. Otherwise they are promoting the government not the people. This should be obvious. Otherwise government is a hijacker and a counterfeiter of its oath of office and charter of government.


This is a pretty broad statement. They can relate to people, and understand that MANY are religious, but they cannot base their POLITICAL opinions on those ideals. It is unconstitutional.

Want to ban abortion? Can't do it because of God. Want to go to Iraq? Can't go because of God.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
I disagree here Irish Mick, Where is it written that religion must be compromising?? What is the law or title of Fiefdom ..which says religion must and is required to compromise? Where is it written that people who have a religious belief must compromise or cede to government or some other entity..in contradiction to "nor the free exercise there of??"


Nobody has to do anything. However, the ability to compromise is one of the greatest attributes people can have. In fact, one of Ben Franklin's virtues was compromise. So I suppose you could say that compromise is an American virtue.

So, religions can continue to be uncompromising, but it only hurts themselves.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Obama said nothing of the kind..he is talking about applying his template to the people of this country. He is not talking about limits on government. He is talking about limits on the People of the United States contrary to the Constitution of the United States and in favor of universal values. Obama is talking about applying this template to society..people..not government.


Again, I need some support for that argument, because while I did see him refer to lawmaking, I never once read any comment that said anything about "the people of this country" or anything similar.

[edit on 2/14/2009 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


Irish Mick,

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 than religion.


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 one.
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 here.
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,
Orangetom



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alora
He mocked the bible by repeating passages from it? When was he wrong about anything he said? I'll tell you-- never. There is nothing wrong with proposing the separation of government and religion. It is, after all, one of our fundamental rights. One that usually goes ignored by christians. There is nothing wrong with bringing up certain parts of the bible that are too archaic to be useful in modern society, and the parts that are too outlandish to be taken as historical accuracy.

I agree with the point he was trying to make: we are a nation of different beliefs, and that is ok.

To me, you all sound scared and hateful....but mostly scared.


edited because someone forgot to proofread, AGAIN. *sigh*

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Alora]


This has been eating at my craw (I still don't know what a craw is though).

I am a Christian let's just get that out in the open (surprise surprise). And I support the notion that you don't mix church and state. Ok. So why did Obama feel the need to make a public statement about religion to even begin with? Has any president in our history made a public statement about what he thought of religion? I'm not telling I'm asking. Because it just strikes me in a very unsettling way that this guy who claims he is Christian would not only make a point to discuss religion, he would a) lie when he said "if anything, we are not a nation of Christians anymore. Well I guess 76 percent doesn't make it a nation of Christians there is the other 28 percent, but WHY? You guys need to think about that and be concerned.

Then b) he goes on to mock the Word of God, the very center of the religion he "claims" to be. Has he mocked the muslim koran, has he mocked the teachings of buddha, has he mocked atheists in a public forum?

This is being swept under the carpet, but imo this is the most telling thing this character ever did. And this isn't a Bible thumping session, believe whatever the heck you like. Whoever or whatever you believe you should be shocked at the blasphemy and slipperiness of this thing called Obama.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Bombeni
 


Bombeni,

Barack Obama's religion is the religion of this world after the god of this world. This is why he can claim Christianity and then go on to deny the Word and what the Word states as if it were a contradiction. A Faithful Believer would not do what he has done but show how the Word is consistant and the world backwards.

Barack Obama's religion is Gnosticism...the religion of wise men. The sophists. Another version of it is Phariseeism. Where the Pharisees were claiming one thing and then doing another. Does that sound familiar??

Another version of this is pandering to an audience for votes and power. This is textbook of the body politic. Jesus Christ in the New Testament often refers to the Pharisees after just this pattern of dual conduct. Saying one thing and then doing another. This is precisely the definition of most of Politics and the Body Politic.

By the way..as I am often fond of saying...the Body Politic also finances our public education system. What religion do you think they are teaching from the pulpit of public education?? What dual religion??

Barack Obama and those who are his handlers think they can get away with this because the average American and even the Average Believer is dumber than box of rocks about most things and even religion. And they would be correct in this assumption.

Barack Obama is not the only politician to use this tack...he merely joins a long list of others before him who have this fingerprint if one is capable of closely looking.
Our Congress is full of these types. Government itself is full of these types and government is constantly attempting to fill the Supreme Court of this country with more of these types so that they can substitute our Constitution and Rights with the way of this world after the god of this world while making everyone subject to this template or pattern.

What most peoples cannot digest is the concept that politics is in fact a religion...while counting on the rest of us being ignorant and then claiming separation of church and state as their exclusive privilege.

It is easy to tell politics is a religion by the very devoutness, faithfulness, and zeal of its adherents ..including the cheering section for the body politic...the media and public education.

The reason most people have difficulty recognizing politics as a religion is that the real rules of politics are undefined and unknown to most of us.....so we don't think of it as a religion..but it definitely is.

To have a system at operation where the rules are undefined by and to most of us..means that the religion/discipline of politics is hidden ..concealed from most of us that they intend to rule or affect. This concealment or hiddenness falls under the religious arena of "OCCULT RELIGION." Meaning hidden, concealed, esoteric.

You can apply this knowledge and template or fingerprint to any political party or position. To education, to politics, to science..or any other arena seen and unseen....once you know the principle and how it works.

Hope this helps,
Orangetom


[edit on 1-5-2009 by orangetom1999]





top topics
 
12
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join