Well if some here can't see a difference among Evangelical Christian churches, they are missing the point. Palin's group thinks American soldiers are god's soldiers and mix up patriotism with religion, while Obama's church questioned the United States role. Well they don't really question it they condemn it, a huge difference.
Some here may get the impression that I don't like born again Christians, that's not true but there are a lot of their churches that throw in a bunch of poppycock bull to go along with their experience.
I've never heard Obama throw gays under the bus although I can understand him not mentioning the subject before the election.
Well if some here can't see a difference among Evangelical Christian churches, they are missing the point. Palin's group thinks American soldiers are god's soldiers and mix up patriotism with religion, while Obama's church questioned the United States role. Well they don't really question it they condemn it, a huge difference.
Some here may get the impression that I don't like born again Christians, that's not true but there are a lot of their churches that throw in a bunch of poppycock bull to go along with their experience.
I've never heard Obama throw gays under the bus although I can understand him not mentioning the subject before the election.
So I take it you've canvassed both Churches? Which ones do they belong to btw?
I think the Palin/Bush camp used their religious beliefs to justify their actions. To characterize their evangelical beliefs as promoting war, but to characterize Obama's as being against it is totally ridiculous.
The great thing about religious beliefs, is they can be used to justify just about any action.
For the record. Sarah Palin is a non-denominational Christian. She doesn't adhere strictly to any one set of Christian beliefs, and she most certainly doesn't believe in these armaggedon prophecies you attribute to her.
George W Bush is a member of the Methodist Church. The Methodist Church explicitly rejects all forms of war and states that war is incompatible with Christianity.
Obama is a full blown evangelical. Of the three political figures in this debate, his religions views are by far the strongest and by far the most in line with those you attribute to the Republicans.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Okay, I know some of those hardcore evangelists, and while they are really dimwitted, IMO....none of the ones I know advocate openly to kill innocent people.
Especially not in the line of what those terrorist sympathizers were.
Yes, some do openly talk about the end of the world, but they've been doing that since Moody, Chick and others started brainwashing the masses with their ignorant spiel.
There are a lot of people like that in the US, and even some in Canada....and I don't see them as dangerous. None of their neighbors do either.
So I take it you've canvassed both Churches? Which ones do they belong to btw?
I think the Palin/Bush camp used their religious beliefs to justify their actions. To characterize their evangelical beliefs as promoting war, but to characterize Obama's as being against it is totally ridiculous.
The great thing about religious beliefs, is they can be used to justify just about any action.
For the record. Sarah Palin is a non-denominational Christian. She doesn't adhere strictly to any one set of Christian beliefs, and she most certainly doesn't believe in these armaggedon prophecies you attribute to her.
George W Bush is a member of the Methodist Church. The Methodist Church explicitly rejects all forms of war and states that war is incompatible with Christianity.
Obama is a full blown evangelical. Of the three political figures in this debate, his religions views are by far the strongest and by far the most in line with those you attribute to the Republicans.
Wow, you don't remember Obama's minister saying "God damn America".
I go by what comes out of Palin's mouth, as to her beliefs and she doesn't seem to be too shy about mixing her religion with patriotism. I've spent sometime with this brand and each church has their own way of doing things and seem to go by the self name of 'Christian' while inviting roving preachers, who have some real way out there ideas but because they are speaking for the Lord, their ideas are accepted with little question. I don't know how you come to believe Palin doesn't believe in Armageddon.
As for Bush, so he's a member of the Methodist Church and it looks good on his resume, he doesn't follow their teachings, so I'd guess he gets his religious influence from some where else.
The implication, as I took it, from the original post in this thread, is that Islam is not a "religion of peace". It's my opinion that the "religions of peace" are few and far between, but I don't see much of a difference between that religion and the rest of them.
Nah, I actually wasn't trying to imply that. I was just laughing at the people in the victures - as in, way to get your message across. I'm certain, that be it the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the Koran, you can find "evidence" to sustain peace or war.
Wow, you don't remember Obama's minister saying "God damn America".
I go by what comes out of Palin's mouth, as to her beliefs and she doesn't seem to be too shy about mixing her religion with patriotism. I've spent sometime with this brand and each church has their own way of doing things and seem to go by the self name of 'Christian' while inviting roving preachers, who have some real way out there ideas but because they are speaking for the Lord, their ideas are accepted with little question. I don't know how you come to believe Palin doesn't believe in Armageddon.
As for Bush, so he's a member of the Methodist Church and it looks good on his resume, he doesn't follow their teachings, so I'd guess he gets his religious influence from some where else.
So let me get this straight..... Your logic is this: Obama is a member of a church that openly advocates violence towards its enemies (in this case white America), but his religion obviously encourages pacifism and is A-okay in your books.
Bush is a member of a church that specifically denounces violence, but it is his religioius beliefs that are responsible for him advocating war and his church membership should be denounced at all costs....
Your logic is making my head hurt....
Here is the reality of the situation. Both are politicians. Both say whatever they think will get them votes. The majority of Americans are religious. Both are guilty of using religion to attempt to win votes. Bush's religious views are not the root of his problems....him being a politician is.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Obama is a full blown evangelical. Of the three political figures in this debate, his religions views are by far the strongest and by far the most in line with those you attribute to the Republicans.
Here's a better video showing just how wrong you are.
Check out from the two minute mark on.
Here's a better video showing just how wrong you are.
Check out from the two minute mark on.
I can't listen to it at work. I'll have to get back to you. However, I doubt there is anything in this video that would prove Obama belogns to a church full of pacifists.
Uh, where does Rev. Wright advocate violence against white amerca. He's saying what's happened and his interpretation on why it happened. Your lack of comprehension is amazing.
I can't listen to it at work. I'll have to get back to you. However, I doubt there is anything in this video that would prove Obama belogns to a church full of pacifists.
I can't say if they're exactly pacifists, but the minister is speaking out against the wrongs that the American government has done. We can argue whether the American government was wrong in each case, but he is arguing for justice, not some blind mouthings from some insane nut-bar who believes they are doing god's work by enabling or at least not getting in the way of Armageddon.
Sure politicians will say a lot of things to get them elected but Palin's saying that the new Health Plan will bring about death panels for the elderly, takes the cake. Even Bush wouldn't stray into that country, he'd have one of his right wing groups or buddies say it. That brings me back to my original idea, that Palin is more dangerous than any of these placard carrying idiots. How many deaths will happen if the health plan is defeated compared to how many deaths will these parade goers cause? Politicians have power not to just enact legislation but also to influence people and with this power comes responsibility. Palin is completely irresponsible and could cause a lot of pain and death with her little gamesmanship.
So if the pastor is so right, why did Obama throw him under the bus?
Because he'd never get elected, if he didn't. It's not always a good idea to speak your mind as Wright did. Wright should have used some common sense and kept a low profile, at least until the election was over.
I can't say if they're exactly pacifists, but the minister is speaking out against the wrongs that the American government has done. We can argue whether the American government was wrong in each case, but he is arguing for justice, not some blind mouthings from some insane nut-bar who believes they are doing god's work by enabling or at least not getting in the way of Armageddon.
Sure politicians will say a lot of things to get them elected but Palin's saying that the new Health Plan will bring about death panels for the elderly, takes the cake. Even Bush wouldn't stray into that country, he'd have one of his right wing groups or buddies say it. That brings me back to my original idea, that Palin is more dangerous than any of these placard carrying idiots. How many deaths will happen if the health plan is defeated compared to how many deaths will these parade goers cause? Politicians have power not to just enact legislation but also to influence people and with this power comes responsibility. Palin is completely irresponsible and could cause a lot of pain and death with her little gamesmanship.
So a pastor who admits to hatting white America, speaks out against the actions of a government that he sees as representing white America.
Because he'd never get elected, if he didn't. It's not always a good idea to speak your mind as Wright did. Wright should have used some common sense and kept a low profile, at least until the election was over.
So you're saying Obama still agrees with Pastor Wright?
Considering he attended his church and called him a close friend and mentor for over 20 years.
So a pastor who admits to hatting white America, speaks out against the actions of a government that he sees as representing white America.
PErhaps he has his own political agenda?
Where does he say he hates white America?
He hates some of the actions that the government has done, particularly their treatment of natives and blacks and their foreign policy which interfered against self determination. He mostly rails against the Republican's government though.
And yeah, everybody has an agenda and Wright seemed to be angling for some position in Obama's government, still I agree with what he said, it just wasn't very smart to say it.
Obama's an intelligent man, he said he didn't agree with everything Wright said but I guess he still found him worthwhile. Nothing wrong with that.
But he still threw him under the bus.
Considering the guy was as family friend for over 20 years, why didn't Obama just try to say that just because the guy says certain things he disagrees with, doesn't mean he has to cut off all ties with him.
Considering the guy was as family friend for over 20 years, why didn't Obama just try to say that just because the guy says certain things he disagrees with, doesn't mean he has to cut off all ties with him.
I mean, we all disagree with our closest friends.
But he didn't. He threw him under the bus.
At first that's what Obama did but Wright wouldn't shut up, so it's a cruel world at times.
You have some misconceptions about Obama. On the night of his election he threw gays under the bus. He refused to say even a word agaisnt the anti-gay marriage bills in California.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
If you think that Obama is not a fundamentalist Christian in every sense of the word, you are kidding yourself. He has always beeen extremely vocal about his Christian beliefs and his attendance at church (although he did distance himself from his former pastors racist beliefs). Obama has constanly and consistently spoke of the church as a pillar of the community. What separation from church and state are you talking about?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
As for zero percent chance of election for saying you go to church, this is ridiculous. Do you have any idea what percentage of the US population is evangelical? Saying you go to church is almost a prerequisite for running. Both Hillary and Obama made sure to ham that up on many many ocassions. States like New York may be fairly agnostic, but these states are the exception and aren't swing states.
To win an election you need to be able to convince the swing states to vote for you. Many of these have a strong Christian voting base.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
Just because your left wing sites that have spent the last 10 years spouting crap about republicans don't focus on this, doesn't make it untrue.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
Obama is a politician like any other. Anyone who is expecting real change from him, will be sadly dissapointed.
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.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Here's a better video showing just how wrong you are.
Check out from the two minute mark on.
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.
