- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,575
- Reaction score
- 6,767
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
What part?
Could there be a more uninformed, harsh, and just plain wrong statement than what you posted here??? I think not.
Because it's not an issue to me and I don't care whether he is or not or where he was born. That's the least of the country's problems.
sometimes no word is enough to express what l feel .:roll:
a fundamental lack of understanding the first amendment.Okay, I'll bite. What part of her post that you quoted do you think is so wrong?
Leading Republicans on Thursday insisted that America's leaders must do more to defend Christian values at home and abroad, blaming President Barack Obama for attacks on religious freedom as they courted religious conservatives expected to play a crucial role in the next presidential contest.
Read more of this article here: http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-obama-must-defend-christian-values-192212780
If these guys had said that Obama must defend America's 1st Amendment values they would have had my and a lot of other peoples support.
I don't believe that this will win many elections for them.
BTW: if anyone can point out where it says in the U.S. Constitution that defending Christian values is the presidents job, I'd like to see it.
This sounds like a bunch of far right religious malarkey to me.
"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP
Cruz highlighted what he called failures in the Obama administration that allowed attacks on Christians abroad, particularly in the escalating violence across Iraq.
"Christians are being persecuted in stunning numbers. They are being stoned. They are being tortured," Cruz said, calling for Obama to stand up for Christians in prison in Iran and Sudan. "We need leadership in America."
Sure in the GOP version, where abortion is banned, being gay is a capital offense and women, Muslims, blacks, Latinos, and Jews are denied the vote.
Maybe its just me, but I don't believe religious views should be part of politics. That just creates problems because apparently there are many Gods and many religions, so who is to say what religion reigns supreme? Separation of church and state.....religious zealots have no place in congress. We need rational thinkers, not emotional reactors.
`
If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
If you're an evangelical christian, everything looks like Obama.
part of the 1st amendment is religious protections. that would include christian values.
This has nothing to do with what values the politicians in the OP were calling to be defended. They were specifically call for Christian values, and only Christian values to be defended, over all others. There is no evidence that values that we uphold, such as condemning genocide or trafficking in persons or oppression of others, or promoting equality is only being defended when it is not Christians or that other values that are not general values like these are being defended over Christian values that have nothing to do with our nation's values. We are defending religious freedoms for all, but not all religious freedoms should be defended if those religious views involve killing or imprisoning people for reasons that violate values that are more important to us as a nation.
The religious right's power probably peaked in the 80's and has slowly been ebbing since then. My response to government and religion has always been government needs to stay out of religion. But government needs to ensure all people can practice their religion and worship in according to their religion anywhere and whenever they want.
`
I read someplace in the New Tea Party coloring book version of the US Constitution that presidents must defend Christian values as opposed to the Constitution itself.
And if you are Obama, you needs George Stephanopalous to remind you what your religion is:
Really? You're going with that? :lamo
A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of an unconscious ("dynamically repressed") subdued wish, conflict, or train of thought guided by the ego and the rules of correct behaviour. They reveal a "source outside the speech". The concept is thus part of classical psychoanalysis.
Slips of the tongue and of the pen are the classical parapraxes, but psychoanalytic theory also embraces misreadings, mishearings, temporary forgettings, and the mislaying and losing of objects.
I guess you never heard of the Freudian slip.
.
I really think they were calling for Christian values to be INCLUDED. Maybe you should reread the OP.
Millions, many millions around the world, are Muslim too. You think numbers makes a religion righteous?
And this is the problem. You are talking about you here but seem to think that all Christians or at least most Christians behave this way. It simply isn't true. Plus, you seem to believe that arguing against Christianity is the same as not following the Golden Rule. That again isn't true. A person can share their feelings about why they do not believe in a certain religion without being disrespectful.
So you feel your philosophy would be the same as it is now if you were born in Afghanistan, North Korea, or India?First of all, I never said Christians are only found in the US. I mentioned the US because it is US politicians calling for other US politicians to defend Christianity (despite Christianity not needing anymore defending than any other faith, in general). We, as a country, do not live by "Christian values". Many of us live by values, some which happen to be found within the Christian religion, as those values are also found within other religions and even just philosophies around the world.
Second, calling yourself a Christian is the only way for others to determine if you are Christian or not. Otherwise, there would be no true Christians, since everyone falls short. We don't know what's in a person's heart. But the only thing that really says whether a person is a Christian or not is that they believe that Jesus is the way to reach Heaven or know God. That is it. Bad Christians are still Christians. You don't get to discount them just because you don't want to be associated with them.
I guess you never heard of the Freudian slip.
Freudian slip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And if you think the Rev. Wright's church was 'Christian' I have some swamp land, er, real estate I'd like to sell you.
That may well be and certainly ancient Greeks made great contributions to the world, but a religious doctrine wasn't among them. The poor, as has been mentioned, were treated rather shabbily and there was certainly no place in the afterlife for them.No it isn't. Many of the ideals we use came from other cultures that existed prior to Christianity, including Ancient Rome and Greece. Intelligent people added to those ideals, working to make a country that was truly for all people. But belief in Christianity did not cause those beliefs.
The biggest thing that seems to lead to the values of freedom and rights for common people is not Christianity or any other religion for that matter. It is reason, and groups of people who are being treated differently for what they believe in, or how they look, or what class they were born into, and don't like it. Once people start using reason to think through things, they come to realize that there is no reason why a single person or a small group of people should have power over other people and be treated better. Eventually, this reasoning, along with human compassion, leads to looking at the other side as well and seeing how other people should not be treated worse just due to things such as the color of their skin or their gender.
republicans claim to want to bring democray to the other parts of the world but they hate to see it in USA
So you're fine with Obama being considered a Muslim Kenyan?
Certainly we can judge that some religions are preferable to others, just as we can with any philosophies.
Kenyans insist he was born in Kenya, but that is not important to me.
a fundamental lack of understanding the first amendment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?