"Religion of Peace March" in London

[blankall]

Originally Posted by photon

I can't confirm or deny your allegation, so I'll grant it. If he didn't speak out for it or against it, seems he just avoided the whole issue as it would have been too divisive and hurt him in the campaign. So it's just politics. I don't think Obama or any politician is some paragon of virtue, they're all calculating and smarmy to some degree.

However later he catches a ton of bad press among Evangelicals for declaring June Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride month, something no President has ever done (including bisexual and transgender in a proclamation like that).

So again that's my point, if Obama is a full bore evangelical, he keeps it to himself and does his job. Bush never made such a proclamation, and Palin has said she is against gay marriage.



Of course he's been vocal about his faith, no one could be elected in the US without that. However saying church is a pillar of the community is hardly a strong religious comment; he's clearly indicated that "church" in that case could mean any denomination while most evangelicals take the position that any church other than theirs is of the devil.

Saying that church is a pillar of the community isn't violating church and state, community is private. Saying church is a pillar of good government would be.

Palin wanted to change the constitution to say that marriage was only between a man and a woman, based on her religious beliefs.

So again Obama's either more liberal in his views or he keeps them to himself and tried to be accepting rather than divisive.



Re-read what I wrote. I said there would be zero percent chance of being elected if he was an atheist or agnostic and that if he was he would go to church to satisfy the irrational requirement of some religious people.





I made the point that you had to appear religious to win an election before you did. And I don't own any left wing sites, so I really have no idea what point you are either responding to or trying to make here, though the tone sounds like you are stereotyping me.



The political system is what it is, I don't recall ever saying how much real change I expected (or even desired) from Obama.

There would have been far more change if Palin would have ended up President, though definitely not for the good.

The kind of change I wanted from Obama I got; he's attempting to give science more importance (just look at the kind of men he's appointed to various science related positions), and he's talked about equality further than any other President has dared, and those are two things that speak to me.

The only reason that Obama is less vocal about his views, sometimes, is because of the voter base he is attempting to appeal too at the time.

The amount of religion he preaches in his speeches changes depending on the audience he is talking to.

[Traditional_Ale]

Holy crap guys. I haven't been on CP at work the past little while, and so I got to come home and crack a beer and read this absolute monster of a thread?

My head hurts.

Insert generic anti-religion comment here with a dash of colorful language wrapped in bad grammar.

Also, CC, I really agree strongly with your first post in this thread on P1. Well said.

[photon]

Originally Posted by blankall

The only reason that Obama is less vocal about his views, sometimes, is because of the voter base he is attempting to appeal too at the time.

The amount of religion he preaches in his speeches changes depending on the audience he is talking to.

Which agrees with what I said.

I don't care what Obama believes, I only care about what he says and does in relation to his job. Obama may hate homosexuals (for example) but if he does he ignores that and does his job.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by photon

Which agrees with what I said.

I don't care what Obama believes, I only care about what he says and does in relation to his job. Obama may hate homosexuals (for example) but if he does he ignores that and does his job.

Well, maybe I'm just a little more jaded than you. I don't see a difference between any of them at this point.

What you perceive as "doing his job", I perceive as typical political double speak. I have yet to see Obama follow through on any of his talk.

[photon]

You don't see a difference between (if you grant that Obama is an evangelical) one of them keeping their beliefs private and doing things like being inclusive towards the homosexual community because it's right and the other bringing their beliefs into their politics and saying the constitution should be changed so that marriage is only between man and a woman, making homosexual marriage unconstitutional?

(I don't think all Republicans are like this, though the whole Birther thing has made me think twice, I'm just focusing on Palin in particular)

[blankall]

Originally Posted by photon

You don't see a difference between (if you grant that Obama is an evangelical) one of them keeping their beliefs private and doing things like being inclusive towards the homosexual community because it's right and the other bringing their beliefs into their politics and saying the constitution should be changed so that marriage is only between man and a woman, making homosexual marriage unconstitutional?

(I don't think all Republicans are like this, though the whole Birther thing has made me think twice, I'm just focusing on Palin in particular)

What has Obama actually done so far? You talk about bringing beliefs into the public, but I would prefer it if Obama actually did this.

Once again, Obama seems to skate around the issue. Depending on what crowd he is talking to, he always hints that he either supports the family or human rights. Never really explicitely supporting either position. Meanwhile, the gay marriage laws remain repealed.

Hardly the great messenger of change he promised every he was.

[blankall]

BTW, I'm not the only one who thinks this way:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...oval-1044.html

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by blankall

I just watched this video. It totally affirms my point. What exactly do you think "God Damn America" means?

It is anything but peaceful. It's advocating violence for religious reasons. The only difference, is that it is a black church so they are advocating a position that most benefits them.

I don't take it as advocating violence at all. It's deservedly criticizing America for it's past deeds. Still, I guess you have moved from your idea that Obama's evangelical church is a fount for Republican ideas, so that's something.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by blankall

BTW, I'm not the only one who thinks this way:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...oval-1044.html

What was his election majority, 53% and now his approval rate is 52%. That's fantastic considering the health care criticisms he's getting.

[photon]

Originally Posted by blankall

What has Obama actually done so far? You talk about bringing beliefs into the public, but I would prefer it if Obama actually did this.

Once again, Obama seems to skate around the issue. Depending on what crowd he is talking to, he always hints that he either supports the family or human rights. Never really explicitely supporting either position. Meanwhile, the gay marriage laws remain repealed.

What do you expect him to do? With respect to this specific issue, I thought this wasn't a federal thing?

And if he is an evangelical Christian as you say, you do want him to bring his beliefs into his job and change the constitution to define marriage to be between one man and one woman?

I never wanted to make any kind of discussion about Obama's policies or actions or inactions, I don't follow politics close enough to talk about that meaningfully.

My only point was to contrast Obama vs Palin. While Obama may change his wording depending on who he's talking to (he's a politician), I don't recall him outright saying he will change the constitution to make marriage just between a man and a woman.

I haven't heard or read anything from Obama that would indicate to me that he lets his religious beliefs, whatever they are, influence his politics.

Palin was the opposite.

I get this vibe from Harper too.. while I guess one could say that he hasn't touched same sex marriage issues because of the minority government, I really do think that if he got a majority he would still leave it alone, despite his (presumed) personal beliefs.

Originally Posted by blankall

Hardly the great messenger of change he promised every he was.

No politician ever lives up to the rhetoric of their campaign. Getting elected is about capturing the imagination of the unwashed masses better than your opponent, playing the media better, getting more mindshare.

An election is less like voting to decide the course the country will take for the next while and more like competing advertising campaigns between Coke and Pepsi to see who will sell more drinks next quarter.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by photon

What do you expect him to do? With respect to this specific issue, I thought this wasn't a federal thing?

And if he is an evangelical Christian as you say, you do want him to bring his beliefs into his job and change the constitution to define marriage to be between one man and one woman?

I never wanted to make any kind of discussion about Obama's policies or actions or inactions, I don't follow politics close enough to talk about that meaningfully.

My only point was to contrast Obama vs Palin. While Obama may change his wording depending on who he's talking to (he's a politician), I don't recall him outright saying he will change the constitution to make marriage just between a man and a woman.

I haven't heard or read anything from Obama that would indicate to me that he lets his religious beliefs, whatever they are, influence his politics.

Palin was the opposite.

I get this vibe from Harper too.. while I guess one could say that he hasn't touched same sex marriage issues because of the minority government, I really do think that if he got a majority he would still leave it alone, despite his (presumed) personal beliefs.



No politician ever lives up to the rhetoric of their campaign. Getting elected is about capturing the imagination of the unwashed masses better than your opponent, playing the media better, getting more mindshare.

An election is less like voting to decide the course the country will take for the next while and more like competing advertising campaigns between Coke and Pepsi to see who will sell more drinks next quarter.

Evangelical Christians do not necessarily oppose gay marriage.

My problem with Obama was that he was specifically elected on the idea of change. It was his moto. He has done nothing yet.

Gay marriage would be a good starting point.

My problem with your argument was that you were essentially making things up about the conservative candidates and ignoring actual facts about Obama. Partisanship at it's worst. This leads only to irresponsible government.

At the very least Palin makes her intentions clear. I don't know what is worse someone who does something I don't like. Or someone who tells me they will do the opposite but fails to do so.

I don't like Palin (although she would have been vice Prez, so I'm not sure why she is the main focus of the debate as nobody ever seems to mention Mr. Bidden), but Obama is quickly proving himself to be no different.

In other words: The proof is in the pudding.

[photon]

Originally Posted by blankall

Evangelical Christians do not necessarily oppose gay marriage.

Not necessarily, but a much higher percentage of them do compared to the general population. I know, I used to be one. Just check the major publications and sites that represent evangelicals and their response to Obama's proclamation.

Originally Posted by blankall

My problem with Obama was that he was specifically elected on the idea of change. It was his moto. He has done nothing yet.

He hasn't "done nothing", he's been president. If you want to get into a discussion about what kind of change you expected and what kinds of things have been done so far you can have that with someone else, as I've already said I'm not interested in that and it's not my point.

Originally Posted by blankall

Gay marriage would be a good starting point.

I already asked, what is he supposed to do about that? Isn't it a state issue?

Originally Posted by blankall

My problem with your argument was that you were essentially making things up about the conservative candidates and ignoring actual facts about Obama. Partisanship at it's worst. This leads only to irresponsible government.

I haven't made anything up, please point out what I made up. How have I been partisan when the point I'm making doesn't have anything to do with party politics? I wasn't aware that I was forming the next government?! This doesn't make much sense.

Originally Posted by blankall

At the very least Palin makes her intentions clear. I don't know what is worse someone who does something I don't like. Or someone who tells me they will do the opposite but fails to do so.

I don't like Palin (although she would have been vice Prez, so I'm not sure why she is the main focus of the debate as nobody ever seems to mention Mr. Bidden), but Obama is quickly proving himself to be no different.

In other words: The proof is in the pudding.

*sigh*

I'm not trying to talk about what you keep discussing. I give up, I've tried to make my point a bunch of times, but I failed, so I give up.