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 at Iftar Dinner: ‘Of All Rights We Hold Sacred, Foremost Is Freedom of Religion’

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
OK Obama said it. But once again his actions speak louder than his words. Should this be a warning to all those who attended this dinner.

Let's see what Obama actually said


“Of all the freedoms we cherish as Americans, of all the rights that we hold sacred, foremost among them is freedom of religion, the right to worship as we choose,” said Obama.

“It’s enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution--the law of the land, always and forever,” said Obama. “It beats in our heart--in the soul of the people who know that our liberty and our equality is endowed by our Creator.”


OK keeping that in mind please read this and remember what just took place several months ago


President Barack Obama—whose administration is being sued by multiple Catholic dioceses, universities, charities and family-owned businesses for violating their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion—told a group of Muslims dining at the White House on Friday that freedom of religion is “foremost” among the God-given rights of man and that he intends to defend it both within the United States and abroad.


Hmmm... One more time

in the soul of the people who know that our liberty and our equality is endowed by our Creator


Take Warning believers of Obama


In his iftar speech, Obama's phraseology seemed to define freedom of religion as merely “the right to worship as we choose.” The First Amendment, however, does not use the phrase "freedom of religion" or the word "worship." Rather, it expressly prohibits the government from prohibiting the “free exercise" of religion--meaning government cannot coerce people anywhere in their lives (whether in or outside a house of worship) to act against their consciences or the teachings of their faith.

President Obama did not use the First Amendment's term "free exercise" of religion anywhere in his Iftar Dinner speech.


The speech looks good on paper but beware of its intent... Once Again Actions speak louder than words


“Notre Dame’s religious beliefs,” says the suit, “preclude it from offering health care plans to its employees and students that include or facilitate coverage for abortifacients, sterilization, contraception, or related education and counseling about those practices.”

“If the Government can force religious institutions to violate their beliefs in such a manner, there is no apparent limit to the Government’s power,” Notre Dame said.

The regulation took effect on Aug. 1, and Notre Dame’s lawsuit and many others are moving forward.


Obama's words in Denver last week

At the Denver event with Fluke, Obama boasted of the HHS regulation and claimed he had worked with Catholic universities and hospitals to protect their religious liberty.

“And now most health plans are going to begin covering the cost of contraceptive care,” Obama said.

“And listen, we recognize that many people have strongly held religious views on contraception, which is why we made sure churches and other houses of worship, they don’t have to provide it, they don’t have to pay for it,” Obama said. “We worked with the Catholic hospitals and universities to find a solution that protects both religious liberty and a woman’s health.”


Obama's reality that he failed to mention while he bragged about his "success"


Obama mentioned nothing about the ongoing lawsuits against his administration by Notre Dame, Catholic University, Franciscan University and other colleges. Nor did he say anything about the ongoing lawsuits by Catholic dioceses and charities. Nor did he say anything about protecting the religious freedom of Catholic laypersons—who, as the Catholic bishops unanimously pointed out—will be forced by Obama’s regulation to act against their faith.


Once again Obama Speaks. But, does he really mean what he says? Perhaps he's just pandering to his audience. Or maybe he is indicating that he plans to pick his favorites once again when the the First amendment issue rises.

Warning

At the end of his White House Iftar speech, Obama noted the recent murderous attack on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.

“The attack on Americans of any faith is an attack on the freedom of all Americans,” said Obama. “No American should ever have to fear for their safety in their place of worship. And every American has the right to practice their faith both openly and freely, and as they choose.

“That is not just an American right; it is a universal human right,” Obama said at that White House Iftar Dinner. “And we will defend the freedom of religion, here at home and around the world.”

cnsnews.com...

Who is the man that sits in the Oval Office, what does he stand for?? Someone please explain... Why won't Obama defend the rights of Catholics...??


edit on 13-8-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Obama at Iftar Dinner: ‘Of All Rights We Hold Sacred, Foremost Is Freedom of Religion

What a liar since I do not subscribe to the church of government and I am and many others are persecuted for that belief.

I do not beleive in the divine right of government or social justice or the benevolence of said government that he and his cult follwers champion.

I am an infidel caught in the bitter struggle of their "holy war".



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
1. How did civilisation - the ability of one human with his family, to co-exist with another, came about, which we know from archeological and anthropological studies based upon evidences that our ancestors once lived in jungles and caves?

Some subscribe as NATURAL evolution, which took place over a period of thousand years. Some ascribed to DIVINE intervention. Such debates will never end.

BUT the point is, we have on paper, the very clues of our origins, listed upon papyrus, leaves, clay tablets, stone carvings, etc, left behind by our ancestors, which led to our phenomenal evolution as compared to other animals, which shared almost entirely of our DNA but yet we built civilisations and even progress into the stars, while our DNA inferior cousins still languished in the jungles and caves.


2. And it is those texts, which some termed it as 'religion' that led to our evolution, and still continuing. Even atheists cannot deny it, for their behavior in life is not NATURALLY ENDOWED at birth, but values taught to them at young, and through maturity, to comprehend those values to work, and those that not, in the course of their daily lives.


3. Religion itself, is subjected to interpretations, and even mis-interpretations, for we are all flawed humans, prone to errors and selfish desires. However,the CENTRAL TENETS of 'religions' - honesty, integrity, uprightness, morality, etc, had only proven true and the only sustainability for mankind to progress, the very same values that even atheist cannot deny.


4. Thus, no matter how one parses 'religion', it brought more benefits to the progress and civilisational aspects to our human race, then harm for centuries, even as we study another world -Mar, which we would not have been able if we had not learnt civilisation, to live in peace with our neighbour, upon shared common goals to progress.

The only harm was man-made, when religion was through flawed man-made interpretations, which fortunately, we mankind do have the ability to acknowledge those mistakes if it brought more harm than good, to correct them, to progress and evolve, not by one man alone but COLLECTIVELY as a society.

Therefore, religion, or civilisational guides, are that which separates us as thinking rational beings to progress from beasts of the wild. Without which, the cities, the ipad, the ventures into space, would not have been possible, let alone concept of nations. Even atheists can agree on that, a common ground for all humankind to stand pon.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Beware. Obama has a demon inside.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I though americans enjoyed freedom of speech the most.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Look behind what he is saying and you could see -

"of all rights we hold sacred, foremost is freedom of divisiveness"

I wouldn't want someone telling me what right I hold most sacred.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
He should have said, "Of all the rights that we will allow you. . . . . . "

THAT would have been honest!



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The issue of Freedom of Religious Exercise goes a hell of a lot deeper than the Catholic lawsuits, my friend. Somewhere around 50% of the United States identifies themselves as "anti-abortion" with the vast majority of them (OK, "us", as I count myself among the pro-life supporters) being strongly rooted in Faith which is the source of our pro-life stance. If waivers were granted to the Catholic Church organizations, as a group, exempting them from the institutional requirements associated with Obamacare, then the next logical step would be individuals who are strongly pro-life demanding the exact same exemption. Why in the hell should so much as one cent of the money stolen from me in taxes go towards something I find morally and ethically repugnant?

I am a realist, thus I acknowledge that this knife cuts deeply both ways. While I have little issue with that same stolen money funding the millitary machine (so-long as it isn't throwing good money after bad as has been the escalating case over the past 5-10 years), many out there DO have major moral issues with their money going toward that cause. We can't stop at abortion, then... we would have to lay out virtually every morality based issue confronting government funding and, in the end, we'd ultimately break the back and cripple the legs of the government through the littany of programs and actions we the people refused to financially support based on our religious underpinnings. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see that back broken and those legs dangle uselessly as it would be far, far more desirable than the over-reaching, underachieving, ever present mongrel we see in DC today... but the machine that makes everything go would never allow that to occur.

So we're stuck with semantics and verbal chess in the name of hoping the majority remain relatively satisfied that they still have "freedom", regardless of how out of touch with reality that belief is.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Isn't it really correct to say that we have freedom FROM religion? You know, that any religious myth isn't crammed down our throats by the state?

Derek



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viesczy
Isn't it really correct to say that we have freedom FROM religion?
Derek


No, actually that's precisely what the Constitution does not say...

en.wikipedia.org...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


You have the right to freely chose not to exercise, support, believe in, or otherwise care about any or all religions if you so decide. You have an implied right to be personally free from religion... but there is no global freedom from religion mentioned anywhere in the document.

One of the major thorns in my butt over this is that, in many, many ways, atheism is a religion. Thus, the current model of atheistic teachings being approved by Congress is actually a violation of the Constitution. This is where separation of church and state plays such an important role and where the modern analysis of the same is completely off kilter. Historically speaking, spearation of church and state was intended more to protect the church from the government than it was to protect the government and people from the church. In England, the church was wholely controlled by the crown and any who stepped outside of the crown's belief structure was labeled a heretic by the church through the orders of the crown. THAT is what the founding fathers were seeking to prevent in the USA.

Today's US government has simply replaced the Anglican church with the church of atheism and uses many of the same persecution methods and mockery as were used by the crown against "enemies" of the Church of England in the colonial days.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join