18-24% of Americans Wrongly believe Obama is Muslim

[Buffalo Roam]

America has never been a Christian nation. We are in an economic crisis and a disastrous war in which having Muslims as friends is vital to our success. And all you want to talk about is lies about the president. Karl Rove and his proteges feed you this shit out of their fetid media anus (owned in no small part by a fabulously wealthy Saudi Arabian) and you suck it up and ask for more. They deserve nothing but a big middle finger while the adults will figure out how to fix their mistakes and put this country on the proper path again.

Now please prove that?

Every document of our founding is based on the Judao Christian ethic.

Yes, you can repeat the P.C. rewrite of our founding all you wish but the documents from the Declaration of Independence, to the Constitution, to our Law, all show the Heavy Influence of the Judao Christian ethic in the founding of the American nation.

http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/may03nl.html

Principle: Law of God forms basis of good human laws
Judeo-Christian Roots

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. (Psalms 19:7 - 8)

American Founding Ideal:

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." John Adams, February 22, 1756 (Federer, William J., America's God and Country Encyclopedia Of Quotations , FAME Publishing, Coppell, Texas, 1994, p.5)

"These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil .... This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this...

"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures ... [and] are found upon comparison to be really part of the original law of nature. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. William Blackstone (Federer, p.52)


Judeo-Christian Roots

"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." (Leviticus 25:10)

"Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbor: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord." (Jeremiah 34:17)

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14)

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)

American Founding Ideal:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams (Federer, p. 10)

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" George Washington (Federer, p.660)

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion ... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." George Washington's Farewell Address ...
......................

.........Principle: God-Given Human Rights
Judeo-Christian Roots

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:27 - 28)

"Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not covet.. (Exodus 20:13-17)

American Founding Ideal:

".that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Declaration of Independence)
.....................................

........Principle: No Corruption of Blood
Judeo-Christian Roots

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deut. 24: 6)

American Founding Ideal:

".but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." (U.S Constitution, Art. III, Section 3, Paragraph 2)
.........................

............Principle: Teaching the Law of Liberty to Next Generation
Judeo-Christian Roots

"And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. (Deuteronomy 6:7)

American Founding Ideal:

"Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges, let it be written in primers, in spelling books and in almanacs, let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation." (Abraham Lincoln, "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions", January 27, 1838)

From this sampling it can be readily seen that no nation has a closer parallel to the Judeo-Christian tradition than the United States of America.



So again tell me that America is not founded on Judao Christian Principles, and that the nation is not a Christian Nation.

 

[Alien Cockroach]

Don't let them get a breath in while fellating adoring our new commander. Suffocation is the key.

Yep. This is war.

Most career politicians have become a liability to this country.

So your argument is "everyone does it." Weak, like the rest of your bullshit.

 

[Light Travelling]

Is it that politicians are part of the same apparatus that dictate popular opinion?

If you mean the corporately funded media machine, then yes.

So, Obama is to blame for not spending more time fighting the smear campaign? The hysterical part of this is how the opposition have made much of his attending a Christian church where Jeremiah Wright gave his critical of the US, and therefore unacceptable, sermons. So, does he get a pass for that now that it's "obvious" that he was only attending in order to cover up his true Muslim identity?

So what if he is a Muslim, he is democratically elected. Either those that voted for him knew and didn’t care, or they voted without taking the proper time and interest to investigate who they were voting for. Either way, Christian, Muslim, Atheist or whatever, the guy is the legitimate president elected constitutionally by the people of the USA.

Every document of our founding is based on the Judao Christian ethic.

I agree, America was founded on being a Christian nation. We have all heard that America was founded on religious freedom, but what that meant at the time was Christian religious freedom. The early European Americans were very devout Christians who felt they were persecuted by the established Christian churches in Europe. They wanted religious freedom in America - but be very sure their idea was Christian religious freedom.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Reverend Wright’s hate sermons are virtually identical as those given by his good friend, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who followed in the footsteps of Malcolm X.

No he didn't. X wised up and converted to real Islam whereas LF is still preaching his heresies and hate speech. Funny how you're comparing Mr. Obama to Malcom X and not to other past Democratic presidents.

 

[Repo Man]

So what if he is a Muslim, he is democratically elected.

He isn't a Muslim. There is no good reason to think he's anything other than what he says he is, which is a Christian who takes it about as seriously as the overwhelming majority of self described Christians in the US. My point, which was apparently not made well enough, is that his detractors made much of his attending a Christian church which had a pastor who said things they did not like. Now they seem to be forgetting that he was attending a Christian church.

Either those that voted for him knew and didn’t care, or they voted without taking the proper time and interest to investigate who they were voting for. Either way, Christian, Muslim, Atheist or whatever, the guy is the legitimate president elected constitutionally by the people of the USA.

Nothing I've said implied otherwise.

 

[spidergoat]

Now please prove that?

From the Treaty of Tripoli

 

[Repo Man]

The Democrats'—and Obama's—error has, as it turns out, to attempt any bipartisanship at all. McConnell's sentiments are hardly new; apparently, it's been his plan the whole time.

I'm reminded of this September 2008 Poorman:

For their part, the Democrats never really got the hang of the whole “opposition party” thing. It was always sad seeing them try to work constructively with people whose only core political value was “fuck you, you fucking Democrats”. It was sad, and it didn’t do anybody any good, except for making David Broder moist with bipartisan joy. Leaving motivations and fancy-shmancy policy analysis aside, how much better off we would be as a country – and how much better off the Democrats would be as a party – if every policy proposal of the Bush administration was met with a hearty “fuck you, just because” and no bill could come out of committee without $5 billion dollars for the George W. Bush Eats A Fucking Dumpster Full Of Dicks Every Day Foundation, dedicated to exploring how President George W. Bush manages to perform his duties with his mouth quite full of a motley assortment of dicks. Childish, cynical, petty, yes; but imagine the result! No Iraq War. No shitty appointments. Hearings every time Dick Cheney farted without explicit Congressional authorization. Every state would have 14 Democratic Senators. Barack Obama would be ahead by 78% in every poll. And – perhaps most importantly – we might have an answer to the question which has vexed poets and philosophers for centuries, to whit: just how much dick does George W. Bush really eat? (SPOILER: a metric fuckload.)

http://thepoorman.net/2008/09/26/the-universe-returns-to-its-natural-order/

I hate the idea of sinking to their level, but what else is there to do?

 

[joepistole]

Now please prove that?

Every document of our founding is based on the Judao Christian ethic.
.

Your post was accompanied with a lot of nonsupporting junk - which is not atypical of your posts. Please post something that supports your position. Where is your proof buffalo roam?

Two, most of the founding fathers were Free Masons. And while Free Masons do believe in God and most of the founding fathers were Christian, the basic principal in Free Masonry is that each man has the freedom to choose their own religion or no religion at all and free of state mandates or interference. That is why we have a seperation of Church and state.

Free Masons recognize the fact that God can be worshiped in more than one religion. This has caused Free Masons to be vilified by many religious leaders throughout history. But none the less, it is one of the foundations upon which free masonry is based.

And as Ice pointed out to you, it is put to writting in the Treaty of Tripoli:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

 

[iceaura]

. The early European Americans were very devout Christians who felt they were persecuted by the established Christian churches in Europe.

Only a small fraction of the early European Americans fit that description.

Most of them appear to have treated the local church, if any, as a social center and community organization, without displaying many signs of being devout. The denominations of Europe sent missionaries, as if to China or Africa, and found it useful to hold "socials" etc.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gentutor/churches.html

Colonial church membership was relatively low--rarely higher than a third of adult New Englanders and as low as five percent of adults in the South. Yet there was a relatively regular participation during the colonial period in religious activities and rather high church attendance. A study of diaries, missionary reports sent back to England, and other fragmentary evidence suggests that in 1700 as many as half to three-fourths of the colonists attended some kind of religious service with some regularity.

 

[nirakar]

Really and what about?

20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ under the supposed former Black Muslim, member of the Nation of Islam, The Rev. Wright ?

1984, Wright, one of the inner circle that traveled with Farrakhan to visit Libyan strongman Col. Muammar Khadafy.

July 22, 2007, church bulletin, Hamas manifesto;

http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/TUCChamasColumn072207.jpg

Reverend Wright’s hate sermons are virtually identical as those given by his good friend, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who followed in the footsteps of Malcolm X.



Obama’s plagiarism of a speech delivered by Nation of Islam leader Malcolm X

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU​

Yes, and more, so why wouldn't there be questions about what Obamas true beliefs are.

I hear Obama always talking about His Muslim Roots, and quoting the Quran, praising the beauty of the Adan in the morning and at night, and the supposed achievements of Islam,

but when do you hear Obama ever talk about His Christian roots, His faith as a Christian, the beauty of the music from what He professes as His chosen Religion,

All I have ever heard from Obama is praise about His Muslim Roots.........That He has known Islam on Three Continents........and that America is no longer a Christian Nation.

Now again why shouldn't there be questions?

Wright is a good man who happens to be Christian. Wright tells unpopular truths. That is why I love him and the people who tell you what to think hate him. Rev Wright may be a bit of a racist but so are so many Americans. Rev Wright does sometimes exaggerate and overstate but I cut people who exaggerate and overstate more slack if they are exaggerating and overstating ideas that are minimized and understated by the majority of the population and media.

There is nothing wrong with Wrights comments on Hamas that you linked to.

What Wright and Farrakhan share is black nationalism and a preoccupation with how whites have mistreated blacks. Their anger is much more reality based then than the anger from the loopy wing of the Republican party.

I believe Wright and Farakhan did go see Khadafy in 1984. Khadafy is not a boogeyman for me and he is not a very Muslim Muslim.

The part about Wright having ever been a Muslim seems to be just another made up fact circulated by the no intellectual standards, can't be bothered about truth or accuracy, right wing echo chamber. I find no time of Wright's life and no Muslim mosque or group or any other support for this story of Wright having been a Muslim. Not that it would matter if he was. The saying that Wright was a Muslim is repeated over and over by your type in the blogosphere but where and when was he a Muslim?

 

[Light Travelling]

He isn't a Muslim. There is no good reason to think he's anything other than what he says he is, which is a Christian who takes it about as seriously as the overwhelming majority of self described Christians in the US. My point, which was apparently not made well enough, is that his detractors made much of his attending a Christian church which had a pastor who said things they did not like. Now they seem to be forgetting that he was attending a Christian church.



Nothing I've said implied otherwise.

OK, understood what you were saying, I’d still make the same points, just not necessarily directed at you.

His detractors will always try to find, or make up, any negatives on him. (as will the opponents of any politician). I think Obama gets it worse than most….. lot of bigots still in America I guess. :shrug:

 

[Light Travelling]

I believe Wright and Farakhan did go see Khadafy in 1984. Khadafy is not a boogeyman for me and he is not a very Muslim Muslim.
?

He is quite moderate compared to the Iranian Ayatollah’s standards…

Gadhafi is more socialist nationalist than Islamic jihadist..

 

[Tiassa]

The Neurotic Conservative

I hate the idea of sinking to their level, but what else is there to do?

Unfortunately, there's not much. It's a symptom of neurosis, though not so heavy a neurosis that we might disqualify them from the discussion as a matter of competence. Besides, as we see around here, even on the occasions such a measure is warranted, it is decried as petty partisanship.

But the cycle of the thing is easily enough described: They demand a certain manner of dialogue, and cry that people are unfair—e.g., elitist, exclusionary, &c.—when they don't get it. When the other answers in the manner they demand, then, they complain that the other is sinking to a disdained level, and revile the cruelty and vice of it all.

The point is to always feel like a victim.

There are many reasons by which this disorder of thought might have come around. One possibility is pure greed: The years have taught conservatives that victimhood is an argumentative position more likely to arouse sympathy than the infliction of victimhood. Or, perhaps, envy: Witness the "Angry White Male" syndrome, and related complexes, by which an empowerment majority laments the discrimination it suffers because they are expecte to be (gasp!) equal to their neighbors. They want to be as "privileged" as blacks, women, and homosexuals; they want all the fawning and attention they perceive among those who are not of the oppressed class, but who will fight against oppression anyway. This latter is sort of a perverse version of the fantasy by which nearly every boy dreams of scoring the winning touchdown, or hitting the grand slam in the bottom of the ninth, on the two and two with two out. That is, they would rather be the hero. They want to be a Medgar Evers, or Martin Luther King, Jr., except without the part where they are gunned down in revenge. Perhaps it is a twist on Münchausen syndrome.

Certainly, there are more subtle routes, but those two stand out.

Nobody of generally sound mind actually wants to be viewed as a villain. Even villains, save for the sociopath or psychopath, but they often justify themselves with fantasy—they are the Nietzschean Übermensch. They are accustomed to simplistic dualisms: good and evil, God and Devil, right and wrong, self and other. It either does not or cannot occur to them, or else the sentiment is willfully pushed aside, that there can be other alternatives.

Over time, though, the conflict that arises when one acts like a villain, but refuses to be identified as such, can become so great that an array of ego defense mechanisms are deployed against unpleasant reality.

But Freud also describes a "slow return of the repressed", in which an individual's behavior more and more comes to resemble, over time, the very behavior they are trying to repress, and a whole new complex of ego defense mechanisms are set in motion to block this conscious recognition.

Over time, the tension becomes too great, and the repressed behavior erupts in some manner more or less grotesque.

Consider, as an example, Christianity and sexuality. One might reasonably wonder how the chaste or proper can spend so much time thinking about other people's sex lives. And the answer is that they cannot. Eventually, the conflict announces itself in a voice rather quite undignified, and often embarrassing: Ted Haggard, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, countless youth pastors across the country are among the sad examples of how such stories evolve.

In considering whether to "sink to the conservative level", we must also recognize a certain tragic truth: many of them simply cannot help it. This is neurosis; they are not powerless against it, but if neuroses were easily resolved, we wouldn't live in a country with so many practicing therapeutic psychologists and other assorted counselors, nor would twenty-seven million of our American neighbors be popping antidepressants to keep the symptoms in check.

But the results of these neuroses are striking. I've argued with a conservative before who is, apparently, incapable of understanding that the difference in how we regard one man who cheats on his wife and the next has to do with whether or not the men are campaigning to screw up other people's lives according to sexual issues. That is, he looks at someone like Mark Sanford, and wonders why we might hold him in any greater contempt than someone else who cheated on his wife. Well, if one is dumb enough to get married and then cheat on their wife, that's their own damn problem. But if that one happens to make his career in part by persecuting other people for their sexual misconduct, or their very sexuality, all while appealing to sexual propriety, yes, it's a bit more significant that the one should advocate standards he is incapable of observing for himself. Really, my conservative associate doesn't get it. Or if he does, he's doing a damn good job of hiding it.

We might also consider an example that took place over the last few weeks at Sciforums. No less than three conservative advocates in a recent thread could only argue against straw men. It was very much intriguing to watch them ignore the issue over the course of, say, a hundred eighty posts; indeed, it is a curious spectacle when one of them, facing unquestionably specific reiteration of the point, responds with two separate answers: one that he found the idea so ludicrous that he never considered it seriously, and then that he didn't know what the issue was in the first place.

So ... he saw the point people were making, but didn't take them seriously, except he had no idea what point people were making.

This is a very common form of duplicity in these circles. Yet the one thing another can do that is cruel and unfounded is to juxtapose the various—and, sometimes, conflicting—statements. The poor liars and their sacred lies: as it is generally not considered a good thing to be dishonest, the one thing another should not do is point out the obvious. Calling someone something they don't want to be, and even pointing out why you think that, is so unacceptable that it is an actionable offense at Sciforums, though only enforced on behalf of conservatives. And, apparently, the dishonesty itself should not be considered an offense.

Of course, this formulation and application of rules has the effect that honest address of issues is forbidden.

So what is there to do? Well, one could retreat in to sarcasm and humor, as you have done, but that lacks elegance, and thus is not credible. Or one can take their chances pressing the truth, but this is violative, and thus not credible. Or one might start pushing the same manner of superficial argument that our conservative neighbors seem so fluent in, but this is ridiculous, and therefore not credible. Or, I suppose, one could simply shut the fuck up. This, as it cannot possibly offend our conservative neighbors, and in fact encourages them to more of the same, is therefore credible.

And for a while, to be sure, it can be a fascinating spectacle to witness, much as many enjoy "people-watching". But one thing I've found about "people-watching" is that what makes it so entertaining and, therefore, useful as a guard against ennui, is that it is almost invariably people's shortcomings, neuroses, and other personal tragedies that provide the amusement and satisfaction. After all, two businessmen quietly chatting on the sidewalk are not nearly so entertaining as a psychiatrically incompetent homeless man shouting about God or the government, or a bedraggled mother trying to control enthusiastic children, or an overburdened shopper awkwardly hauling the produce of their spree back to a car too small to hold everything. (I will note, though, that two businessmen quietly chatting can become very amusing if a local squirrel happens to cuss them out for littering. But, then, it's the squirrel, in that case, that is amusing.)

Likewise, the spectacle of the flustered conservative can be entertaining, but only for a short while. In truth, after one recognizes neurosis for what it is, and the depth thereof, such witness loses its amusement. One can, to be certain, regard them with some manner of concern and compassion, but after enduring enough of the abuse that is symptomatic of their neuroses, it becomes sickening, frustrating, and even enraging.

We should be obliged to endure that abuse, and return none of it. That is the only acceptable outcome for those so afflicted. Quite clearly, they are offended by being addressed in the same manner they regard people, so sinking to their level is ineffective. But ne'er shall it occur to them, without some extraordinary intervention, that their behavior could be likewise considered offensive. That's just slander. Or, at Sciforums, libel. And, therefore, it's simply not credible.

 

[Light Travelling]

Tiassa,
Very insightful, I like it....... thanks for taking the time to type it.

 

[Light Travelling]

From the Treaty of Tripoli

This was a specific peace treaty between two parties and not the constitution of the founding fathers. You have left it deliberately unexplained so that people will assume the latter. I think this only exuberates the weakness of your case..

 

[madanthonywayne]

No. Why should there be questions?

Are Muslims banned from becoming President? Is this in the Constitution?

Is it bad to be a Muslim? Are they not human beings?

Islam is a minority religion within Western societies and has extremist elements that periodically commit terrorist attacks which tend to give the whole religion a bad name. Is that right or fair? No. But that's reality. As a result, anti-Islam sentiment is on the rise in many Western nations, including the US. Thus, while Muslims are certainly not banned from being president, being Muslim would certainly not be a point in your favor in the current climate.

From what I've seen in the news, anti-Muslim sentiment is worse in some European countries than it is in the US:

But as elsewhere in Europe, there is a backlash here against immigration - especially against Muslim immigrants.

Further north in the town of Zwolle, the Saturday market is suddenly overwhelmed with TV cameras and onlookers. Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders has arrived on the campaign trail. He is a striking figure - in his image and his words.

He calls the Koran a fascist book and wants an end to Muslim immigration and pay Muslim immigrants to leave the country.

"We propose a full stop of people from Islamic countries because we believe we have enough Islam in Holland - that is about it," said Geert Wilders. "I have nothing against Muslims, but I believe that Islam is a totalitarian ideology and it goes against our freedom. We are fighting for the freedom of the Netherlands and Europe and that is why we are proposing that."

Political parties across western Europe - and not just the far right - have taken up the issue. In France and Belgium, impending legislation would ban the full Muslim veil in public. In Switzerland, the government has banned the building of new minarets on mosques.

I love that statement by Geert Wilders.

"I have nothing against Muslims, but I believe that Islam is a totalitarian ideology and it goes against our freedom.​

I've not heard a major US political figure (ie the head of a major political party) make that kind of statement, so it could be worse. But clearly being a Muslim would not be a political advantage right now.

 

[Alien Cockroach]

Wright is a good man who happens to be Christian. Wright tells unpopular truths.

Well, Wright is a product of his time. Speaking very generally, I have always found his particular type of preaching to be shrill and loud. However, you are correct that his church has been highly effective in its efforts to rehabilitate their area.

Although some people may chalk their actions up to faith, I consider this to be a disservice to the real virtue in their behavior. When people have it pointed out to them, in clear and outraged language, that there is something unacceptable happening in the world around them, many of them will rise to do something to effect change.

I think the real injustice against Wright was not that he was accused of spouting inflammatory rhetoric from the pulpit. Obviously, this is something he actually does. To me, the real injustice was the pretense that somehow this is a bad thing. It is the very zeal for which this man was castigated that moved his congregation to do such great things.

 

[Bells]

Islam is a minority religion within Western societies and has extremist elements that periodically commit terrorist attacks which tend to give the whole religion a bad name. Is that right or fair? No. But that's reality. As a result, anti-Islam sentiment is on the rise in many Western nations, including the US. Thus, while Muslims are certainly not banned from being president, being Muslim would certainly not be a point in your favor in the current climate.

Do you think Obama is a Muslim and apparently therefore, an extremist?

If he was a Muslim, there is absolutely nothing in your contitution to prevent him from being President. So it is really a moot point either way.

What is amusing about this is the embarrassing fact that the right who are pushing this belief (that he is a Muslim) are displaying their own bigotry. I mean we even have people like Buffalo questioning whether he is an American at all and then spouting religious beliefs he has directly copied and pasted (the whole page from a site) about the Christian foundation of the Constitution.. What he does not realise is that even that does not prevent a Muslim from being President. I mean can the extremist right in the US really be more racist and bigotted? Not only accuse him of being a Muslim, as though it is somehow a criminal act to be a Muslim, but also question whether he, a black man, is a true American? How low do they have to go?

He was deemed to be American born to run for President, in that his documents proved that he was born on American soil. Yet, we are still seeing the accusation that he is not a true American (coupled with being a Muslim) thrown about repeatedly. The reek of desperation is strong.

What your Constitution does protect is religious freedom. Now, in this instance, the man is a Christian. But in reality, he should not have to explain or declare his religious beliefs to anyone because it has absolutely nothing to do with the role of the President. His religion, even being a Christian, has nothing to do with his position as President. Nor should it.

I understand you want to look out for Obama and protect him from the accusations that he is a Muslim. No, really I do... And I saw this when I read this part of your post:

Thus, while Muslims are certainly not banned from being president, being Muslim would certainly not be a point in your favor in the current climate.​

It shines through. Brightly. It really does. Are you making a strong stance on this forum to ensure that the idiotic bigotry expressed by the far right that he is a Muslim does not permeate this forum Madant? Since you know, they are not banned from being President and all and we both know that the accusations of his being a Muslim are not only false, but also being raised, as you pointed out, to stir the anti-Muslim feelings in society?

 

[Light Travelling]

He was deemed to be American born to run for President, in that his documents proved that he was born on American soil. Yet, we are still seeing the accusation that he is not a true American (coupled with being a Muslim) thrown about repeatedly. The reek of desperation is strong.

Not to worry, in a few decades the white middle class of America will be very much a minority, and to be a true American will mean a Latin American or African American heritage. These guys are on their way out and they know it, it is the last throws of desperation of fighting a losing battle that lead them to such irrational arguments.

What your Constitution does protect is religious freedom. Now, in this instance, the man is a Christian. But in reality, he should not have to explain or declare his religious beliefs to anyone because it has absolutely nothing to do with the role of the President. His religion, even being a Christian, has nothing to do with his position as President. Nor should it.

There is separation of church and state in America, but some people only seem to apply that when it suits their own political ends…..

 

[Alien Cockroach]

Now please prove that?

Every document of our founding is based on the Judao Christian ethic.

Yes, you can repeat the P.C. rewrite of our founding all you wish but the documents from the Declaration of Independence, to the Constitution, to our Law, all show the Heavy Influence of the Judao Christian ethic in the founding of the American nation.

PC Schmee-Cee. History is a lot more interesting if you hang your agendas, and read what's there.

If you were to examine the actual structure of our government, you can tell that it represents several principles that were articulated in Niccolo Machiavelli's Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy. It is really a very interesting document, and I think that anyone who is really interested in political science should consider reading it at some time.

To dispel a widely circulated myth that even respected economics professors seem to buy into, Adam Smith did not "invent capitalism from scratch." The information that was published by Adam Smith was already there, and it was just waiting for someone to compile and discuss it in a manner that it would actually be useful for something. However, this doesn't diminish the value of Adam Smith's work. On the contrary, it really points to the central theme of my argument, here.

The founders of the USA were not motivated as much by ideology as they were by a sincere desire to create a really great nation. What got them there was not "faith in God," unless you mean that in a relatively abstract sense. It wasn't some leftist ideology. The USA was founded on sound, responsible scholarship and the hard work of dedicated men and women.

Although Adam Smith is revered for his ideas about economics, a truly in-depth reading of his work reveals something that is even more important about this man. At heart, he was a dedicated scholar. It wasn't some genius, out-of-the-blue idea that produced his magnum opus.

When you truly exceed the expectations of the norm, it is usually because you toiled and strived obsessively to make it possible. And I mean not just with passion, but with perseverance. True greatness is doing everyday hard work to a greater extent than the other guy, and that's just how it is.

By the way, these values are taught in several religions, including Islam and Christianity. If not by writ then by tradition. Therefore, if we really want to be true to the American spirit, I think we should create opportunities for people who really want to put out the effort to do something great, and we should support the scholarship of those who are there to light the way for us.