(04-07-2009 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2009 10:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I'm not a very partisan person. But I can and have listened to both of these youtube videos. All I have to say is WTF, he didn't flip flop, he just reworded what he said the first time. Both statements conveyed the same message, which is, this nation is not a nation that is based off of any one religion, but it is a mixture of the hearts and minds of all types.

I agree.

There's enough wrong with Obama without trying to stretch things like this--and this is a definite stretch.

There is a clear difference in what he said, dictated by his audience. And, by "difference", I do not mean to imply inconsistency. To the American audience, his message was intended to be inclusive and to indicate that policy needs to be respectful to everyone. To the foreign audience, his message was intended to (correctly) indicate that America is founded on principles that can be separated from any single religion and the government itself is secular. His intent is to indicate the American government itself is non-threatening to Muslims.

Granting this was Turkey, which is secular in the French model, but to Muslim audiences he'd probably be better received in the long run indicating (falsely) that America is governed by Christian Law (whatever that may be). In that sense, they would know that it is the same as what most Muslim nations are, and, given the time and ability to make enough converts or babies to make the population of America majority Muslim, that they would then enjoy the same privilege of making America governed by Muslim law. I think that is the reason that Muslims in America (by my perception) largely supported the same agenda that the religious right did in elections in 2000 and prior. Obviously, events and the movement of large amounts of ordinance in certain directions has probably changed that.

the founding of the Nation was Judeo-Christian, that much is obvious. They were thinking from a Judeo-Christian worldview, which came from William Blackstone who was the primary influence on the Founders. Its in the Declaration of Independence on just where we get our rights from.

Most of the State Constitutions at the time, went as far as Declaring Jesus Christ explcitily God. Then of course Washington is litered with it in all the buildings and monuments from the time they started building the place.

This has nothing to do with the fact they also beleived in Liberty of Concisounes and Religious Liberty, which is true Biblical Christianity as well. true biblical Christians use to fight wars against imposter(and evil) Theocracy nations like Catholic Spain for example..


[the very first congress employed on the US Taxpayer dime a Preacher to open congress with. Which they still do to this day. There is nothing Secular about this.


Smart secularist/atheist tend to just claim its Natural Law and it just exist, with no source of Authority. Instead of recognizing its actual origins, and how beleif in Natural Law would make them Irrational in combination with their Materialist philosophical worldview.


As for Obama, I can't tell if he's talking mainly about modern America or what, he's vague.

(04-08-2009 12:10 AM)Paul M Wrote:  I would say this is a Christian nation and I believe the overwelming majority would agree.

I'm not a Christian.

Same here. I'm not a Christian but believe this is a Christian nation. And like you I'm not demanding that the country change to accomodate my beliefs, I accept it for what it is.

(04-08-2009 02:27 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-07-2009 08:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-07-2009 07:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  .... how in the FVCK have the Muslims helped shape this country?

They showed us that revenge is a good thing. I feel good when I hear that terrorist scumbags are dead.

You feel good when ANY Muslim is dead-terrorist or not.

This is absolutly not true. I feel safe when my enemies can no longer hurt me. These days a group of our enemies consist of a Muslim minority who would like to see us all dead and have succeeded thousands of times. Once they've attacked us or are known to be planning attacks I think the threat against us should be elminated. Do you?

ever wonder just where the "Father of the Constitution", James Madison got his idea to divide the Government into 3 branches?

at the Constitutional Convention he read Isaiah 33:22, The Perfect Governor, and cited it as the source for our 3 branches of Govt.


“For the LORD is our judge, [judicial]
the LORD is our lawgiver, [legislative]
the LORD is our king; [executive]
He will save us.”



What they don't, nor any biblical christian, should support is a State enforced/mandated Religion like has plagued the past and what the Muslims would do if they could here.

That is not Religious Liberty

.

I honestly don't believe that there is such an Animal as 'Religious Liberty', simply because 'Religion' is a Self Perpetuated Prison that encloses even the most open minded and indoctrinates them into a Closed Society of Hate and Paranoia.

Radical Islam is a prime example - - you are either 'Their Kind of Islamist' or you are DEAD - - no Gray area what so ever and NO Tolerance.

I am a Christian, but I am not Religious nor do I want to be.

Shariah Muslims are Devoted to a Religious Prison that is aimed at being Pious rather than to be Humble and accept Life of all Human Beings as important.

Just like "Torture" pisses people off and usually makes them what they were not before they were Tortured, so Radical Fundamentalist Insane Religion incurs the exact same affect/effect on its Victims.

.

Religious Liberty is not enforcing a religion on anyone, broadly speaking. Not banning religions, etc. The 1stAmendment is only about the Feds establishing a State religion(a la the Church of England) and forcing people to worship it, and it only.

Take this badass from history, the Puritian Oliver Cromwell(who did not ideologically beleive in Kings/Monarch, much like the Founders here), he basically despised the Catholic Church as it stood during his day, especially the forces within it in Spain, ireland, etc. he was completely opposed to forced religion.

at the time, Jews for example were forbidden from England. Once he got power, he changed that and many Jews love him to this day....and Cromwell had some pretty strong views on his religion vs. others.


He's a Lion of history, "Warts and All", ever wonder why in Jamaica, as one example, they speak English instead of Spanish? It was his "Western Design" Foreign Policy targeted against the Evil Empire of his day: The Spaniards under the Inquisition, his forces ran them off at "Runaway Bay" and they fled to Cuba(where they of course speak spanish today).

I read this article the other day(I'm giong to Jamiaca soon so its sparked my interest). They had a political dispute there, this was cited:

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2...sure4.html

Quote:Cromwell led what was essentially an authoritarian military dictatorship in Britain between 1653 and 1658 and pushed a slave-based British Empire. He was nonetheless a champion of liberty of conscience and freedom of worship, championing religious liberty causes which brought him no political gain but stood to damage his economic, political and diplomatic interests. Our new Charter of Rights must carefully guard the Cromwellian ideals of religious liberty.

There he is, "warts and all",

Cromwell also led what was a pretty Libertarian Government for the most part, given the times he lived in. His views on that are Biblical, which is a related subject.

(04-08-2009 10:50 AM)GGniner Wrote:  Religious Liberty is not enforcing a religion on anyone, broadly speaking. Not banning religions, etc. The 2nd Amendment is only about the Feds establishing a State religion(a la the Church of England) and forcing people to worship it, and it only.

Take this badass from history, the Puritian Oliver Cromwell(who did not ideologically beleive in Kings/Monarch, much like the Founders here), he basically despised the Catholic Church as it stood during his day, especially the forces within it in Spain, ireland, etc. he was completely opposed to forced religion.

at the time, Jews for example were forbidden from England. Once he got power, he changed that and many Jews love him to this day....and Cromwell had some pretty strong views on his religion vs. others.


He's a Lion of history, "Warts and All", ever wonder why in Jamaica, as one example, they speak English instead of Spanish? It was his "Western Design" Foreign Policy targeted against the Evil Empire of his day: The Spaniards under the Inquisition, his forces ran them off at "Runaway Bay" and they fled to Cuba(where they of course speak spanish today).

I read this article the other day(I'm giong to Jamiaca soon so its sparked my interest). They had a political dispute there, this was cited:

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2...sure4.html

Quote:Cromwell led what was essentially an authoritarian military dictatorship in Britain between 1653 and 1658 and pushed a slave-based British Empire. He was nonetheless a champion of liberty of conscience and freedom of worship, championing religious liberty causes which brought him no political gain but stood to damage his economic, political and diplomatic interests. Our new Charter of Rights must carefully guard the Cromwellian ideals of religious liberty.

There he is, "warts and all",

Cromwell also led what was a pretty Libertarian Government for the most part, given the times he lived in. His views on that are Biblical, which is a related subject.

I saw your point just after I hit the Post Button.

I see the side you are talking about where "Freedom to Practice Religion Shall Not Be Infringed" equates to Religious Liberty which is valid in all respects.

I was looking at it from a different angle than you intended.

.

GGNiner - I'm not really interested in having this debate again here. Needless to say I disagree, and SMN, Paul - once again you guys suck at being non-Christian.

It is abundantly clear that the US Government is secular. There is room for debate as to whether that means that the wall of separation between church and state that Jefferson referenced (he did not invent the phrase but referred to a previous source) is an invention of Jefferson or something that reflected the will of the American people of the time and the Constitutional convention. But, there is no room for debate for anyone that has any desire to retain credibility over the fact that the US Government is secular in nature and serves no religious purpose or function. That is in stark contrast to even the moderate Muslim states outside of Turkey and Indonesia, and even starker contrast to the Islamic ideals of states like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Everything that is debated in the United States with regard to separation of church and state is trivial nuance in comparison to the gulf between the systems of government here and in Islamic states. We are debating things like church prayer, not whether Jews must wear a yellow Star of David on their sleeves. I believe that was an actual law under the Taliban - it exempted non-Muslims from some of the religious laws and was promoted as something that provided a service to non-Muslims (the Nazis may have put it on the sleeve while the Taliban may have preferred the breast, but I think they both used yellow).