Obama's Request to Cover Christian Symbol , page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 2-5-2009 @ 11:21 AM by amazed

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by amazed

Very good point you make as well .

Just for the record I do not make Obama threads all that often nor do I often post in the different threads out there about Obama .

Could I be over reacting , very possible .

Did the title of this thread create the very debate that I was trying to avoid , the religion card , possible , however in all honestly it was not my intention to do so . Nor did I which to create an Obama bashing thread and I hope my past posts here prove that .

Would I cut my lawn for Obama , sure .

Did the direction set out in this post by myself as well as others , on both sides of the debate , turn this issue into something that its not , again very possible .

Once again time will tell .
[edit on 1-5-2009 by Max_TO]

No problem, and thank you for being willing to look inside yourself, and think about the questions that I asked.

Time will tell what? Where this thread will lead? Or if Obama is "the bad guy"? He is a politician, almost all politicians are basically at the core, the same. Though you are right either way, time will tell what he is trying to accomplish, and time will tell where this thread will lead.

: ) now,

What about the other part of my question? If Obama came to my house, at my request for a speech, and asked me to cover my religious symbols, which are Wiccan, how would you react? In support of him for requesting my symbols be covered? Or upset that he made such a request?

That is the big question, which should clue you (and others) into where your irritation in regards to this situation, and similar situations, might really come from.

Harm none
Peace to you

Originally posted by bongsmoker
Simple explanation. Obama is the anti-christ and obviously if he didn't cover up the Christian symbol it would hurt him. So he doesn't want everyone to find out the truth and just covered it up from feeling the pain.

Originally posted by Trauma
You have to cover up Jesus if you are a servant of Satan. The implication here is that Obama is some sort of satanic demon or possibly the anti-christ. Who knows?

oooookkay, can we say "fear mongering"?

Fear fear fear fear fear MONGERING!!

The implication is, that Obama is trying to respect everyone, as like it or not, many American's are NOT Christian.

HARM NONE, no matter how much I might wish to at moments

PEACE

reply posted on 2-5-2009 @ 02:48 PM by Max_TO

reply to post by amazed

If any form of government ever comes to your house and makes a request of you to cover your religious symbols of choice I would be happy to come stand by your side and defend your right to display whatever you like as guaranteed by the Constitution .

In general I see the erosion of the Constitution as a bigger and bigger issue with each passing day . I also see this issue as being much bigger then Obama or any one man . It seems to be almost a policy of many people in power that want to subvert a lot of our rights . This may not be the case in this instance but it can be seen as some , rightly or wrongly as such . Having said that we must not let any one man , or women , ever be aloud to make a case to diminish our rights for a greater good .
Once again there is a good chance that I over reacted on this instance but having said that I feel others too over reacted by the shear mention of Obama .

Is Obama a "good' man ? I would argue yes he probably is a "good" man however this doesn't mean that his " handlers " are not feeding him bad info as dictated by the CFR or some other globalist agenda .

And thank you for your question

[edit on 2-5-2009 by Max_TO]

[edit on 2-5-2009 by Max_TO]

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 02:25 PM by spiritwomyn

I thought Obama was a Christian? So if he wants a symbol representing Christ covered what does that reveal?

We allow Muslims, Jews, Kwanzaa and other religions to have their way, yet we again, like they did over 2000 years ago, want to silence Jesus, His message is not the central message in Roamn Chrisitan churches today, the Catholic Church silenced that long ago.
But again His name stirs fear and anger and hate, not because of anything he did, but because His true message would free us all.

But sadly even here the Truth is not really wanted, only a place to complain and grouse and chnage who is in power, not a place for REAL TRUTH that could free us all.

A change will happen and will come to you as you believe.

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 03:21 PM by scobro

I would say he is probably sick to the back teeth of all the "Messiah" references made towards him,and decided it would be better not to be photographed, standing in front of the letters"IHS", only for them to turn up on some conspiracy website,claiming it to be a sign of his messianic pedigree!

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 03:27 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Max_TO
I do however take offense to these " small " changes that we seem to be seeing more and more of now a days that seem to forever change the country .

And as for is crafty PR people that you speak of could they be the same handlers that advised him to bow to every one he met well over seas ?

Maybe he needs some new handlers .

I am cofused. I thought it was just covered up. How does that FOREVER change the country?

He asked for a symbol he was speaking in front of to be covered up. When he go to give a speach on the roof of a swastika shaped building, you will have an argument, otherwise......what??????

Maybe you are not anti-obama but you are certainly making a mountain out of this molehill.

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 03:28 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by spiritwomyn
I thought Obama was a Christian? So if he wants a symbol representing Christ covered what does that reveal?

That he is the president of the United States. His personal religious beliefs have no place there.

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 03:29 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by amazed

If any form of government ever comes to your house and makes a request of you to cover your religious symbols of choice I would be happy to come stand by your side and defend your right to display whatever you like as guaranteed by the Constitution .

Wait a minute....now Obama is going to people's homes and ordering they cover up their religious items? What on earth are you talking about anymore???

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 03:34 PM by Max_TO

reply to post by evil incarnate

Funny you should mention the Swastika , as I pointed out at the beginning of this thread , the U.S. Naval barracks in Coronado, California is in fact shaped exactly like a Swastika .

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 03:36 PM by Max_TO

reply to post by evil incarnate

My dear friend I was answering a hypothetical question from one of the posters . neither myself nor anyone else made the claim that Obama was doing anything of the sort with regards to a privet home .

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Max_TO]

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 03:51 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by evil incarnate

Funny you should mention the Swastika , as I pointed out at the beginning of this thread , the U.S. Naval barracks in Coronado, California is in fact shaped exactly like a Swastika .

Yeah um, that is what I was referring to. Try and keep up.

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 03:52 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by amazed

If any form of government ever comes to your house and makes a request of you to cover your religious symbols of choice I would be happy to come stand by your side and defend your right to display whatever you like as guaranteed by the Constitution .

Why even entertain the thought, hypothetical or otherwise, if you give it no credence? I am just responding to the words you used. That really seems to bother some people on ATS.

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 03:56 PM by Max_TO

reply to post by evil incarnate

I was answering a question that I was directly asked , it wasn't me that asked the question I was only replying . If you look to the top of this page you can see the question that I was asked .

You may be using my words but you are taking them out of context .

As for the Swastika-Shaped Government building am I to understand that you do not have a problem with government building such places ?

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Max_TO]

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 04:11 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by evil incarnate

I was answering a question that I was directly asked , it wasn't me that asked the question I was only replying . If you look to the top of this page you can see the question that I was asked .

You may be using my words but you are taking them out of context .

Actually, they are completely in context. I did nothing to take them out of context. Anyone can go up and read them anyway. Why do defensive and ready to toss the blame to someone else. You apparently completely missed the point, nevermind.

As for the Swastika-Shaped Government building am I to understand that you do not have a problem with government building such places ?

Like I said, you missed the point. Did I say any such thing? Try reading what I actually said about swastika shaped buildings. Now who is taking things out of context? At least I quoted you. Can you quote me condoning the building shape? I am pretty sure you are outwitted here and in over your head. You do not seem to understand simple concepts so I would be very happy if you stop responding to me altogether but I will be happy to explain things to you some more if you still cannot grasp what I actually say.

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 04:25 PM by gimme_some_truth

Perhaps he was just trying not to put out the wrong message to those who might see the speech. you know, seperation of church and state and all that....

If he wants it covered up, so what? Religion is a big part of what is wrong with the world anyway. I say cover the thing up.

If I were presedent I would want to give my speech in as nuetral a place as possible. Do you not think that giving a speech in front of a stature of jesus might make for example, jewish people feel left out or non included?

Do you think it might give off an impression that he only cares for christians and does not care for the people that we are busy shooting and killing in the middle east? (crazy huh? did you know that jesus is a prohpet even according to the muslim religion)

I digress, it is just a matter of trying not to alienate a group of people. I support the decision to cover up the statue.

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 04:30 PM by evil incarnate

reply to post by gimme_some_truth

I agree completely. This is still the US isn't it? Why are people so ready to hand the church over to the state? The reason for seperation of church and state was to protect the church, not the state. Why on earth would anyone want our president representing only Christians or appearing that way? I suppose all the atheist suicide bombers are behind this.

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 10:06 PM by Max_TO

reply to post by evil incarnate

So I was wrong to answer a direct question as asked to me ? ok ?

I was also wrong to think that its ok for the government to publicly fund the construction of a building shaped like a Swastika , ok again , sorry I should say its ok to build it with public money as long as he doesn't stand on it ? sure .

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 11:00 PM by looneylupinsrevenge

Originally posted by Max_TO
I agree government should have nothing to do with religion and thats exactly why he should have let it be .

Why should the government show up at a place to give a speech and then request that the place " modify " there religious symbols ?

If I am not mistaken that could also be seen as an infringement on ones right to expression or ones freedom of speech .

Who really cares if its christian , Muslim or whatever , not the point .

I have a couple questions that relate to this topic. First and foremost who funds the school? Is it private? Or the government? If it's the latter than they should have EVERY right to say whether or not something gets covered up during an official presidential speech. It only makes sense. If it's privately funded then Obama really shouldn't have planned the speech there to begin with, or at least chosen another spot within the school to hold the photo op, one without a religious symbol if he thought it was going to be a problem.

Second question, would you have cared and/or made such a big deal if he had held the same photo op under a blanked out symbol that doesn't represent a faith you're personally associated with? I'm assuming here that your of christian faith since you seem to bring up the bias against Christians in most of your posts on the first page.

Third and final question, Why should faith matter? If he's trying to set an impartial image, as in not supporting one faith over another, then why should he be criticized for it? You've said yourself that Faith and Government should be separate, that's what he's trying to do by covering the symbol... so what's the problem?

[edit on 3-5-2009 by looneylupinsrevenge]

[edit on 3-5-2009 by looneylupinsrevenge]

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 11:37 PM by Max_TO

reply to post by looneylupinsrevenge

Hey there

Thanks for giving me the chance to answer your questions

First off as I have stated earlier it is very likely that I have over analyzed this issue as it was pointed out that there were other issues that could have lead to the symbol being covered other then a planed attempt to disassociate them selves with one symbol or another , fair enough .

My point was simply this , government should not have the right to tell a respected establishment what they can or can not display , as long as they are operating in accordance with the constitution , applied that to any faith .

Now , wether or not any government official likes the symbol or not should not matter at all as long as its a granted right as per the constitution . I am sure no one here would pretend to claim that simply because Obama , or anyone else , has there picture taken while standing under a symbol doesn't imply his/there following of that particular group , as represented by so displayed symbol .

As for if the establishment is funded publicly or not in order for there constitutional right
to apply , well thats a whole other topic altogether .

As for me " I'm assuming here that your of christian faith since you seem to bring up the bias against Christians in most of your posts on the first page. "

I respectfully disagree with that statement , the only time I mentioned the word Christian was when I said

"As for if this is a christian story or not really shouldn't matter ."

However I made the huge mistake by placing the word Christian in the title of this thread and as I stated earlier and as pointed out to me be a previous poster , I created the very debate that I have tried so hard to avoid , the religious issue .

My issue once again was simply this , if so said place has a constitutional right to display an item / symbol and if the government choose to go to so said place for an official visit then that place , there rights and tradition should not be dictated by the government , they should simply be respected .

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Max_TO]

reply posted on 4-5-2009 @ 01:20 AM by looneylupinsrevenge

reply to post by Max_TO

Well first off let me say, thanks for answering my questions in a prompt and orderly fashion, I appreciate it.

I'd also like to say that I'm sorry for assuming which faith you practice, or if you even practice a faith to begin with. I shouldn't have since there is always a rather large margin for error when dealing with posts, opposed to seeing and hearing someone in person. The sentence that actually caught my attention and was instrumental in my assuming you faith was...

Originally posted by Max_TO - posted on 1-5-2009 @ 02:40 AM
When the " christians " are all gone who do you think they will go after next ?

It's one I've heard repeated many times when faith and government enter a discussion, so it's more of a knee jerk reaction to seeing that comment and making the assumption that one follows that faith... Again sorry for making that flawed jump in logic.

I feel I must also apologize for saying that it was on page one, I have my settings set to show 40 comments (I think) per page. So since this comment is rather far down on the page it could very likely show up as page two, three, or four to everyone else. I simply forgot about that when I posted my original comment.

Now that I've gotten all my apologies out of the way, onto the actual subject at hand.

Now , whether or not any government official likes the symbol or not should not matter at all as long as its a granted right as per the constitution . I am sure no one here would pretend to claim that simply because Obama , or anyone else , has there picture taken while standing under a symbol doesn't imply his/there following of that particular group , as represented by so displayed symbol .

I have to agree with this, and I think that most people who visits these boards would as well... The problem is (and yes I'm nit picking here) the average person could (and most likely would, once the press was finished with them) associate Obama (or any other influential figure for that matter) with whatever organization and/or faith they were photographed with, below, or in front of. An example of this would be if G.W. or Clinton had been pictured standing next to or even near a clan symbol. It's more than likely that the press would run with it saying that G.W. or Clinton where supporting the KKK because of it. Along with numerous questions along the lines of why, if they didn't support the clan, they allowed themselves to be photographed near such a symbol without at least covering it up before hand. Not to mention the protests and other political crap-storms that would arise from such an event.

The point I'm trying to make is that yes they shouldn't have covered it, but I can understand their reasoning behind doing it, even if the act alone infringes on certain rights to do so. In truth they should have moved the photo op to another location, away from the symbol, rather than covering it up. The press conference or speech, unless it was raining, it should have been held outdoors facing away from the school. That alone could have saved him for any embarrassing fallout that might come from this story.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by looneylupinsrevenge]

reply posted on 4-5-2009 @ 06:53 PM by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by evil incarnate

So I was wrong to answer a direct question as asked to me ? ok ?

I was also wrong to think that its ok for the government to publicly fund the construction of a building shaped like a Swastika , ok again , sorry I should say its ok to build it with public money as long as he doesn't stand on it ? sure .

What are you even talking about? Obama had nothing to do with the construction of that building. It has been there a while now. What exactly have you been doing to get it taken down?

Sorry but you cannot compare these, you cannot blame Obama for the swastika. I know you want to hate him no matter what he does but you cannot get mad at him for a building he had nothing to do with.

But what have you done to show the government that you do not approve?