Did Obama ever claim he wasn't a muslim? Like official: swearing with his hand on the bible.
That would be the only way to prove he is not a muslim.
That would be the only way to prove he is not a muslim.
18-24% of Americans Wrongly believe Obama is Muslim
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
Well now why should he have to swear on the Bible that he is not a Muslim? He has said he was a Christian. He attended a Christian church for decades. So why should his word and actions not be enough?
And who cares what religion he practices? This is another witch hunt I am sorry to say.
Last edited:
I don't think he would have gotten so many votes if he had publicly stated he is a muslim. Apparently it was already an issue he wasn't completely white.
Luckily he was a man, because otherwise he would have not had stood a chance.
LOL, perhaps. But I don't think Obama was plotting to be president from childhood. He was raised by his grandparents who were Christian and they raised him as a Christian. He married a Christian. I don't know how much more Christian radical right wingers would have him be.
I'm sure these 'christian' people will condemn jesus for being a jew as well if he would still be alive.
Do you have any basis for that statement, or are you just trying to be funny?. Jews are more popular in the US than Catholics and Mormons. In fact, as many people hold unfavorable views of Protestantism (which is the religion of the majority of Americans) as Judaism.
Time Magazine Poll said:
If you took that statement seriously, you would then use the symptom - its nature, its origin, and its furtherance - to diagnose the illness.madanth said:
Because there is nothing vague, generally applicable, "everybody does it", common humanity, etc etc about that belief. It's specifically promoted and encouraged and abetted, it's factionally held, it's a defined thing with traceable sources and identifiable causes.
And in them will be found good candidates for the roots of the crisis, if you regard it as a symptom of that crisis.
It seems that Jesus said some things back then that are rather unpopular with modern christians.
That might indicate that the 'modern' christian will few Jesus unfavourably when they are confronted with his authority. Which will lead to the incomfortable situation where the modern christian will be forced to condemn jesus as a heretic, or abandon their current lifestyle. Or do you think something like greed can have a place in Jesus' kingdom? I would think that the modern christian must be a very optimistic person when they think that following their own interpretation of jesus' teachings equals following this teachings.
So what would a modern christian do when confronted with jesus? He will see him as a freak. Give him a label: terrorist, hippie, take your pick.
And they will ignore him, lock him up, marginalize him.
Isn't it obvious?
Oh, come on, Joe, that one's easy: Instead of going to an urban Chicago church with a black minister who expresses bitter disappointment with various aspects of American society, he should have attended a southern megachurch with a white minister who screamed for genocide against Islam, or preached that Hurricane Katrina was God's revenge against America for not hating gays enough.
And instead of discussing his Muslim cultural heritage when touring in the Muslim world, he should preach Chrisian supremacy.
Really, it's obvious, when you stop to think about it.
Joepistole said:
Oh, come on, Joe, that one's easy: Instead of going to an urban Chicago church with a black minister who expresses bitter disappointment with various aspects of American society, he should have attended a southern megachurch with a white minister who screamed for genocide against Islam, or preached that Hurricane Katrina was God's revenge against America for not hating gays enough.
And instead of discussing his Muslim cultural heritage when touring in the Muslim world, he should preach Chrisian supremacy.
Really, it's obvious, when you stop to think about it.
Yeah, you hit the old nail on the head.
Very good points, Jesus was a bit of a socialist.
Matthew 19:23-24 (King James Version)
" 23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
Right wing extremism does seem a bit incongruous with Christian teaching. And the issue of wealth is but one of many inconsistencies between Republican and Christian doctrine as written in the Gospels.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
And exactly what does that have to do with the founding principles of America, there were 59 signers who ratified the Declaration of Independence, and it's Principles, and the vast majority of those, including the Free Masons were Christians, and upstanding members of their Churches.
There were 5 men who wrote the Declaration of Independence;
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert R. Livingston, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin,
Robert R. Livingston, Benjamin Franklin, being the only Free Mason.
If the Declaration of Independence didn't agree with those 50 other Christians and their Principles, guess what? they would not have signed it, remember these were Men of Principle, and They were pledging their Word Honor and Bond to each other in this Great Document, the Declaration of Independence was not only a Declaration of Independence, it was a oath, a contract, between all 59 of the Signers to sever ties with the King, and England, to forge a New Country.
The wording of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers all are written from a Judeo Christian perspective.
The funny thing is that you are right, on one point, Judeo Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of America, the Revolution, but it has everything to do with the Laws that the Country is based on, and that is the basis for a Nation, it's Laws.
And the most brilliant part of those laws was to keep the Government Mute as to religion......
The I Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yes;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
But also, and this is where our liberal friends fail;
"prohibiting the free exercise thereof";
But the foundation of our Law and Constitution are absolutely based on Judeo Christian principles.
The Politics of Islam: Mosque, State, and Nationhood
The Politics of Islam: Mosque, State, and Nationhood. Because Muhammad was both a religious and a political leader, the relationship between politics and ...
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/blis_politics.htm
Islam: Politics vs. Religion
Mosque & State
The relationship between mosque and state in Islamic tradition is very complex. It isn't enough to say that they are completely intertwined, but they aren't really separate either. For Christians, there has always been a distinction between church and state. But this is not the case in Islam.
Dar al-Harb vs. Dar al-Islam
A crucial distinction made in Islamic theology is that between dar al-harb and dar al-islam. To put it most simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to God is observed, and where peace and tranquility reign.
All very dramatic, bold big print and all. But not relevant and worse, not true. I suggest you look at Turkey, an Islamic state. But at the same time a democracy.
Two, you obviously do not know your history. Because for most of Christian history there was no seperation between church and state. The Catholic church reigned over soverign princes. It was the Church who gave the Christian princes the right to reign.
And of course you are forgetting or ignorant of the fact that the Catholic Church has ruled its own lands for more than a thousand years. I don't suppose you have heard of the Papal States? Time for some history lessons buffalo roam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Now joe, nice try on spin, but, that is the point, they were mostly Christian, maybe a few deist, but the majority, Christian Men with decidedly Judeo Christian Principles.
And who said He wasn't a Free Mason, at some time in His life?
This is what I posted;
Strawmen, joe?, I can't hold a candle to you on creating strawmen.
Please, verbatim, show where in the Constitution it states that there is a separation between Church and State.
So you are a traveler? and where do you seek your knowledge, from the east?
joe, again show me where I ever stated that Free masons were exclusively Christians?
The Free Masons, we are talking about were the Founding Fathers, and they were decidedly Christians, and again I bow to your ability to bring in straw men when you get hammered with facts,
Now joe, it was you who claimed that most of the founding fathers were Free Masons.
And I just destroyed that by naming the 20 Free Masons out of the 95 Men who wrote and signed our founding documents.and number show that most of our Founding Fathers were not Free Masons.
Now for you continuos use of this old Straw Man;
Lets see exactly where the Constitution make a Seperation between Church and State, verbatim.
The only thing that is in the Constitution, on religion is the requirement;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
So joe are you a traveler from the west coast to the east to get your fine knowledge?
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
joe, I suggest that you look at Syria, Sauda Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan, Malaysia, Tunisia, Somalia, Libya, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, .......yes joe many a Muslim States where the Religion is the State, and the State is the Religion.
And what about the Paple States?, I didn't realize that we were discussing them?
And when did we start on the European Monarchies?
More Strawmen joe?
When did I ever state that there wasn't a close tie between religion and state in Europe?
Just more Strawmen from you joe.
Now joe, show one law of our Constitution that isn't predicated on Judeo Christian Ethic, or principle, yes, show how our laws are not directly based on the Ten Commandments, and show who were the mythical majority that you referenced as being Free Masons who wrote the Founding Documents of our Nation.
95 Judeo Christian to 20 Free Masons, that is not most, that is not even a majority.
A couple of things mr. buffalo roam, you as ususal are very long on accusations and short on proofs.
Where have I ever used a strawman? One example would be sufficient. Two, show me a case of spinning on my part. The spin accusation is a subsitute on your part for your inability to prove your claims. Failure on your part to prove your claim is not spinning mr. buffalo roam.
And you correctly cited the Constitution, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of free exercise of religion. Now how do you reconcile that with you position on the Islamic community center?
Who said that there were not Islamic states where religion and state were combined? I pointed out to you that it was not always the case. You made the blanket claim that with Islam state and government were always intertwined.
I proved your claim false. Pakistan by the way is a democracy...not a theocracy. Libya is a fascist state...not a theocracy. Malaysia is a constitutional democracy. Islamic law is an option for Muslims and is applied only to family law else English common law is the basis for law.
So even using your own examples, you have been proven wrong. I suggest you look at the CIA Factbook and do a little research before you make these grandiose and false claims.
We started on this when you made the absured and false claim that there had always been a distinction between church and state in Christiantiy. And that is a blatently false claim...reflecting a high level of ignorance.
LOL, where is the strawman buffalo roam? Fact is, you got caught with your fingers in your mouth again.
"For Christians, there has always been a distinction between church and state. But this is not the case in Islam." - buffalo roam
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2608355&postcount=112
Another example of your ignorance of the term "strawman" or more chaff on your part. Because there is no strawman here. This a great example of your desperate attempt to divert attention from the fact that you are indeed wrong again.
You are the man making the claim that our Constitution is based on judeo-christian laws. You prove it. The fact is our Constituton was an effort to create a new form of government. It was not intended to be the body of ruling law mr. buffalo roam as you are making it out to be. It was intended to construct a government from which laws could be crafted.
Your self proclaimed constitutional scholarship is failing you. Because you have failed to recognize the purpose of the document.
Our body of laws (not the document creating our government) was based on English common law. The same basis for law as practiced in Malaysia by the way...fancy that.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Blanket claim, yes joe another straw man, I bow to the master, what is the basis of the State of Pakistan? it was formed as a Muslim State independent of India, it's very founding was for Muslims and Islam, and yes you are right when it comes to the 1956 Constitution, Islam was only a Official Religion, now fast forward to 1973, and the New Constitution, and the 1980 addition, Chapter 3A;
Check your history joe.
You did? really and exactly where? sorry but the states you mentioned above are Sharia State, Muslim States, Islamic States.
Again joe,
Really and exactly where did I make such a claim, joe you are locked in this blatantly foaming at the mouth straw man mode.
Now are we talking about Protestant or Catholic, there is a major difference between the two.
joe the only obtuse person here is you, as you keep changing the focus, the debate here was about the fact that the Founding Documents of our Country are based on the Judeo Christian Ethic, our Constitution and our Law.
Firmly in your corner, the PC corner, and you have been shown to have your head firmly up your 4th point of contact.
More Straw Men and I smell a lot of Herring, Red Herring joe.
joe, all you have to do is read, How about you start with the Declaration of Independence, next the Federalist Papers, then The Constitution, then read the writings of Adams, Jefferson, Washington, and the rest of the Founding Fathers.
joe then what about the;
Article VI, Clause 2
And how do you come to this self serving conclusion?
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and it's purpose is to limit the power of the federal government;
Article I sec. 8
Again if you care to do any reading, all rights belong to the people, granted by the Supreme Creator, not from State or Government, and that Creator of the vast Majority of Men who created our founding documents, was a Christian God.
Our body of laws (not the document creating our government) was based on English common law. The same basis for law as practiced in Malaysia by the way...fancy that.
Calvin's Case (1608): "The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction." In this case the judges found that “the ligeance or faith of the subject is due unto the King by the law of nature: secondly, that the law of nature is part of the law of England: thirdly, that the law of nature was before any judicial or municipal law: fourthly, that the law of nature is immutable.” To support these findings, the assembled judges (as reported by Coke, who was one of them) cited as authorities Aristotle, Cicero, and the Apostle Paul; as well as Bracton, Fortescue, and St. Germain.
^ Sir Edward Coke, The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke, ed. Steve Sheppard (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003), vol. 1, pp. 195-97.
Yes, joe, Calvin, a Christian God, the same God as Patriarchs of Judaism handed down to us.
ps: the funny thing is on one level you are correct, as the idea of Judeo Christianity had not been expressed as such in 1776---1778, but our Country and it's founding documents have a strong foundation and connection with the Christian Principles that our Founding Fathers lived and practiced during their lives.
It means that a US president was willing to sign a document that said the USA is in no way a Christian nation, and it's true. The founders were Christian, but they created a secular government. For that reason, no special consideration need be given to the Christian religion. In fact, when you assert that, you are going against Article 1 of the Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That clearly separates Church from State.
Last edited:
Your statement that there is no seperation between religion and state in Islamic countries was proven to be FALSE. Your attempt to distract from your very blatent error is very typical of you.
The fact that Pakistan seperated from India in order to form an Islamic state does not detract from the fact that it has a legal system based in English Law.
"based on English common law with provisions to accommodate Pakistan's status as an Islamic state; accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction with reservations" - CIA World Fact Book
* IJC = International Court of Justice
Two, do you know what a strawman arguement is mr. buffalo roam? If so, now is the time for you to show it. And I repeat my challenge to you to demonstrate where I have used a strawman - just one time.
I know my history mr. buffalo roam. But it is quite apparent that you do not.
It is apparent that you either did not do your homework or you are lying again. Because if you had done your homework as I previously suggested you would have found that what I posted was absoutely correct. Since your fingers seem to be impaired, I will bring some that that to you yet again.
Malaysia
"based on English common law; judicial review of legislative acts in the Supreme Court at request of supreme head of the federation; Islamic law is applied to Muslims in matters of family law and religion; has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction" - CIA World Fact Book
based on English common law; judicial review of legislative acts in the Supreme Court at request of supreme head of the federation; Islamic law is applied to Muslims in matters of family law and religion; has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction
You should not use terms you do not undestand.
Nice chaff, but Protestant and Catholic is not the issue here. The fact is that had you known your history, you would know that religion and state have been comingled in the Christian tradition just as it has in the Islamic tradition.
Seperation of church and state was a novel and distinctly American innovation to government.
AH, getting desperate I see - throw in the old personal attack as a subsitute for reason and fact. Yes, you have not proven your case that the founding documents were founded on Judeo-Christian principals.
And as previously pointed out to you, and promptly ignored by you, the Constitution created a form of government...not a body of law. You don't seem to be able or willing to understand the difference.
Our common law, is based on tradition, English Common Law. That is not the same as the Constitution. I would expect a self proclaimed Constitutional expert to know the difference.
Congress and legislatures create laws. The founding fathers created the Constitution which created our government. And as previously pointed out to you, and again promptly ignored, the Constitution was something unique drawn from many traditions including pre-Christian Greek thinking.
More of those personal attacks and more strawmen. I suggest you go look up the definition of strawman since it is obvious you have no clue as to its meaning. While you are at it, look at the meaning of "red herring" too.
All of this is non relevant nonsense intended to distract from the short comings in your arguement...in other words, chaff.