Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Especially since I did not vote for the guy, think he is incompetent, and pray he does not win re-election.


Exactly. You can defend a person on one or even a few issue's and still not be a fan of them or their policies. Politics as well as Religion are complicated subjects and should not be painted with broad brush strokes of labels.
quote:
Originally posted by AWillowBreeze:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Especially since I did not vote for the guy, think he is incompetent, and pray he does not win re-election.

Exactly. You can defend a person on one or even a few issue's and still not be a fan of them or their policies. Politics as well as Religion are complicated subjects and should not be painted with broad brush strokes of labels.

Hi Willow,

Obama has been painting with a broad Islamic brush since the day they put him into office. And, his bowing in servitude to the Saudi king is evidence of who he serves.

Just my thougts.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1_-_USA_Flag-Map_Cross-Hands_1d
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by AWillowBreeze:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Especially since I did not vote for the guy, think he is incompetent, and pray he does not win re-election.

Exactly. You can defend a person on one or even a few issue's and still not be a fan of them or their policies. Politics as well as Religion are complicated subjects and should not be painted with broad brush strokes of labels.

Hi Willow,

Obama has been painting with a broad Islamic brush since the day they put him into office. And, his bowing in servitude to the Saudi king is evidence of who he serves.

Just my thougts.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Bill..I believe you have made your opinions of Obama quite clear. Please consider the context of the previous comments. The broad brush i was speaking of was in response to your post about disturbing "A NEST OF "OBAMA" HORNETS!" and in agreement with themax & b50m's replies. When You are outnumbered in opposing views on any subject you just as clearly with such statements lump anyone with an opposite view of your own in the Pro-Obama/Athiest or otherwise broadly labelled camp rather than allow for the idea of individuality.
quote:
Originally posted by BFred07:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
One of the more truly cretinous nutterances from Bill Gray--from above:

"I wonder if that applies to Christians having Christian churches in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries? How about a public reading of the Bible and a call to Christian prayer on the streets of Saudi Arabia -- will they allow that now? No, we would be jailed and likely executed for such offenses against Allah. How far are we going to bend to accommodate Obama's Muslim friends?"

Bill--NOW GET THIS___

What is or is not allowed in Saudi Arabia re freedom of worship is not relevant to what is or is not allowed in these United States. What we can show the Saudis and all the rest of the Islamic world is that we are not hypocrites. We DO permit freedom of religion and we do not use government to advance or suppress one religion over another, notwithstanding the repeated declarations by wingers like you who really would have no objection to installing the institutions of Christianity into civil government. "This is a "Christian Nation," they insist, despite all the evidence of history and contemporaneous immorality that argue against such a proposition.

It is about the First Amendment, Bill! All those public Muslim observances you described are not the exclusive province of Islam. Christians can and do enter public venues such as the Mall and Capital Hill to parade and speechify and celebrate their beliefs. Two Christian preachers spoke long and loud at a "Tea Party" public courthouse rally near here a few months back, with no objection from civil authorities. Public school students rally around their flagpoles every spring in this country to sing hymns, pray, and celebrate Christian beliefs.

It's about the FIRST AMENDMENT, Bill. It does not discriminate!


I am all about having freedom of religion, the only way we can insure freedom of our own religion is to help insure that others have the freedom to worship as they see fit too. Because of that I say let them build the mosque, just loosen up some zoning laws and quit telling me where a Church can be built.
I don't know if Obama is a muslim or not, I hope he's a Christian but that is not much of my concern.
Bill, who cares what Saudi Arabia does about religion when it comes to how we handle religion? This is America; we are not supposed to be looking to other countries for how to handle our affairs.
For those who might want to imply that this is not a Country founded on Christian principles I will refer you to the U.S. Supreme court, in the unreversed case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 437 (1892), held that “this is a Christian nation.” Since this has never been reversed, the decision still stands. I think if the U.S. Supreme court says we're a Christian nation then we must be a Christian nation.


The statement made in the case cited above does NOT equate to any decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that the United States is, under the Constitution, a Christian nation. It is not a "decision" of the court. The court did NOT hold that this nation is a Christian nation. The actual decision rendered concerned the matter of whether a church could import an alien to become its minister. The DECISION of the court was that a church could indeed do this, and could do it without violating a particular act of Congress prohibiting the importation of "any alien....to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States." In writing the decision of the court, Justice
Brewer did indeed state the following:

"If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. [B]These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?"

Judge Brewer's reference to the "unofficial declarations" and the to the "mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation" do NOT amount to a decision of the court. What the judge wrote is a "dictum," and dicta (plural form) do not constitute opinions. This is explored more fully in the link below, which is an analysis of the faulty logic and distorted legal analysis of Judge Brewer's decision by "David Barton (The Myth of Separation, pp. 47-51) and others of the Religious Right" who inappropriately exploit the Judge's statement in the attempt to give it a legal effect it does not possess. Barton is a deceptive analyst, whose best-known work, "The Myth of Separation" is frought with misleading explications of the nature of the church-state relationship under the Constitution of this nation. Read below and see just how he and others distort the opinion in Church of the Holy Trinityv. U.S., and try to avoid being led into the error that Barton has propagated. No competent Constitutional lawyer would construe Brewer's dictum as a "decision" or "opinion" of the Court.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg7.htm
Last edited by beternU

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×