Political Discussions
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT IFTAR DINNER
Posted by caspergirl35 • 9/11/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Barack Obama, muslim, obama, President, press release, ramadan
These are just a few comments make by Barack Obama at a special dinner and party at the white house for the muslim special occasion -- Ramadan Kareem. What do you think of this?
I want to say that I'm deeply honored to welcome so many members of the diplomatic corps, as well as several members of my administration and distinguished members of Congress, including the first two Muslims to serve in Congress
And most of all, I want to welcome all the American Muslims from many walks of life who are here. This is just one part of our effort to celebrate Ramadan, and continues a long tradition of hosting iftars here at the White House.
That is central to the new beginning that I've sought between the United States and Muslims around the world. And that is a commitment that we can renew once again during this holy season.
So tonight, we celebrate a great religion, and its commitment to justice and progress. We honor the contributions of America's Muslims, and the positive example that so many of them set through their own lives. And we rededicate ourselves to the work of building a better and more hopeful world.
full article at: www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Iftar-Dinne...
In another briefing: www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-in-Ra...
ramadan "holiday" and supporting it fully...
Why the big push on the MUSLIM religion!
User Comments
-
Um, errr because he was raised under the Muslim religion.
-
SO what? Bush was the president who started the regular holding of Iftars at the Whitehouse.
muslimrepublicans.net/Article.asp?ID=163
You can hardly blame Obama for adopting something Bush started.
Wonder what Bush's motive was? Bush a secret Muslim perhaps (by using your thought process)?
Anyway wonder what Muslim Republican's say about Obama?
"Obama to Muslims: You're not welcome" muslimrepublicans.net/Article.asp?ID=166
So, considering the position of both parties regarding Iftars at the Whitehouse, what is your problem with it? -
That is quite simple, since Obama clearly stated in a earlier speech that we are no longer a christian country.
-
We never were a "Christian country" or did everyone forget that we founded this country as a way to escape religious persecution and to worship freely?
This country has NO religion. It is a Democracy, not a Theocracy.
As for Obama celebrating Ramadan, that's fine with me so long as he recognizes other religions as well. All or none is my philosophy.
-
-
The country was partly founded on Christian principles, but no it is not a Christian country. To truly be free the founding fathers realized that they could not allow was was imposed upon them to be imposed upon others which is why we got separation of church and state and freedom in principle. The founding fathers truly believed in freedom, and gave it to humanity through our constitution. Another good example of this is the three-fifths compromise. Oh, wait... -
-
We are NOT a Christian nation. We are a Democracy, NOT a Theocracy!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; -
We are NOT a Christian nation? Why is it that the left goes to great trouble to keep pointing this out as if it is fact? What it is so wrong with God?
-
You seem to be assuming that Christian conservatives have a monopoly on God. There is nothing in Anok's neutral statement that is either against or for religion, Christianity or otherwise.
-
There's nothing wrong with God at all.
But ubnless we plan on becoming a Theocracy with one nationally recognized religion that all citizens must practice - then we are NOT a Christian country.
Nor are we a Pagan country, or a Muslim one, or Jewish one, or Buddhist one, or a B'hai one, or a Heathen one, or an Agnostic one, Not Catholic nor Protestant nor non denominational, not Mormon nor Jehovah's Witness, nor Orthodox nor eclectic, Nor covenis nor Satanist, Nor scientologist.
This country has NO religion, and does not recognize any one religion over another.
The whole "Christian country" BS was brought in with the flag waving McCarythists of the 50's to differentiate "good Americans" from "Godless Commies" during the red scare. -
i wonder what the difference between a Christian Republic and an Islamic Republic would be... o_0 -
Christianity is actually much more pacifist than Islam. That I agree can be hard to tell, and at least how I see it is that many Christians learn Christianity by word of mouth and generational traditions and less by actually reading the new testament.
-
@People...Excuse me, but you know nothing about me. Why do you attack me like this? And further, does your God condone attacking others' beliefs and religion?
-
Try turning on your sarcasm and irony detector. You might then get what People was saying.
-
Can't help it, if I turn in on, you set if off continually...
-
just because some of us are that way?
-
I was trying to think what I said that was so offensive to the guy who, on his blog, wrote, "I accept all comments whether they agree with my positions or not." And then I remembered--I said my God was bigger than his God. It was a joke at the time, trying to show the wisdom of separating church and state.
Still, just in case anticsrocks wants to ban me: The Jewish God is the only true one. All other Gods will bow before him in the day of reckoning! Which means this country--as well as all other countries--should be governed by laws from the Torah. None of the Judeo-Christian stuff. Only Jewish religion from now on in America! -
@People...I do not want you banned. Apology accepted.
-
-
Why not? I assume he will celebrate Christmas and he was the first president to attend Passover Seder in the White House, though the White House has had them I don't believe a president has ever attended one.
I believe he said "we are no longer "just" a Christian nation, but a nation of many other faiths as well".-
Well, I think that the problem that some have with this is that on our National Day of Prayer, which is traditionally observed by U.S. Presidents, was ignored by Obama.
-
"Traditionally"? Any idea when it started? I'm thinking the early 1950s, early Cold War days. There's nothing sacred about it. It's just something people like Billy Graham pushed for. Course to you so-called "conservatives" who are trying to reshape the country in a new image, maybe it is holy. I have no idea. But it's not a presidential obligation.
-
Obama did not ignore it here is the Presidents Proclamation www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-National-Day-...
"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 7, 2009, as a National Day of Prayer. I call upon Americans to pray in thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection for this land that we love." -
Yes, traditionally mark. Do you really not understand the meaning of the word? It is obvious that you do not believe in God, stop forcing it on the rest of us. Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 held events in honor of the National Day of Prayer. Obama chooses not to and then holds an event for a different religion. You have a problem with our country recognizing Christianity, yet embracing Islam is okay with you. How hypocritical.
Boy you really like to attack me. I guess you just go against anything I say. It must be tiresome to be constantly ready to "pounce" when I post on BC.
@poly...really, putting out a proclamation is not the same thing. -
Hmmm. More assumptions of the kind you made with Anok above. And there I wrote, www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/remarks-by-the-president-at-ifta...
-
@mark...I thought you had quit responding to my posts? Oh well, just typing an echo of crap is the same as typing crap, I suppose.
-
polybore is correct here. Even though some of us would rather he didn't, Obama heaps on the religious rhetoric:
jeffersonsmammoth.blogspot.com/2009/02/church-and-state.html -
There was also this: www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php
If the search function were any good here, you could find me on record as finding it a good speech.
-
-
anticsrocks: It's not a "Holiday", it has been pushed, especially during the Bush years by the evangelicals/Christian Right, and it was quite Bushe's thing.
It is really not the governments job to tell people how or when to pray. A national day of prayer is pretty silly. People secure in their religious beliefs do not need such a thing.
It seems perfectly appropriate for the president to acknowledge the celebrations of the different religions of the citizenry, as he has clearly done, by attending Seder and Ramadan events, as he will attend Christmas events.
If you read back to their problem, the group doing most of the complaining the inciting, those used to the Bush ways this in a way are people who need to keep their nose to themselves. Many, even some religious leaders,thought it was inappropriate for a president of a country full of people who may or may not pray to be so involved in the whole prayer day thing. But the particular group of religious right got used to it (those that formed National Day of Prayer Task Force), the and seeing as Obama has no intention of playing their game, they go on a ridiculous rampage - again.-
wp
-
@cooper...you may wish to ignore how El Presidente picks and chooses which religion he wishes to celebrate, but that doesn't make it any less obvious to the rest of us.
@timetheif...I'm not sure who you are talking to. I am not a "right wing retrograde nincompoop." Unless you are making a personal attack...was that your intent?
Bottom line, America was and is a Christian nation. It is a melting pot, to be sure, but at its heart, we are a Christian nation. Sorry if that offends cooper and timetheif who must not like to admit that our Founding Fathers were Christians and that our FOUNDING DOCUMENT, i.e. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE states that we get our rights from our Creator. Now since our Founding Fathers weren't Muslim, Buddhists or anything other than Christians, logic dictates that they were referring to God. If that is too much or too complicated to follow, then I feel sorry for you. -
I have made no personal attacks. I have called no individual a name. If any blogger chooses to self identify with what I have said below, then maybe those individuals ought to listen to their conscience, and become ethical bloggers or find another pursuit to dedicate their time to.
America is not now nor has it ever been "a Christian nation". -
Antics - many of our founding fathers were actually deists - not outright Christians.
In any case, we are NOT a Christian nation. If we were, everyone would have to be Christian. Christian beliefs would be law, and it would state not that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion - but that the government shall make laws based on the Christian religion.
Our founding fathers were also white men. Does that make this country a white male nation?
Nope. -
"you may wish to ignore how El Presidente picks and chooses which religion he wishes to celebrate, but that doesn't make it any less obvious to the rest of us."
Anticrocks:
It seems you are doing the picking and choosing. The President celebrated Easter, they followed him to church and then the usually after service egg hunt etc. I believe they dined in private as a family on Easter, the holiday they personally celebrate.
It is not common for a President to attend the Seder, though there is usually one in the White House Presidents typically do not host or attend them, Obama did. I didn't hear any complaints about that. And only brief press coverage. He then did the same for Ramdaden. I am not clear on your picking and choosing claim. Can you explain it further because looking at the facts that are out there I don't see much of a basis for you claim.
The founding father's were not all Christian, and "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Made specially so that what happened in England (with one religion taking the title of official religion)
"The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion". This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams." -
@cooper...Please, to throw up the Tripoli letter as proof? Every sound scholar knows the truth behind that letter. To take one phrase out of it, out of context and not even using original punctuation is lazy and cherry picking. Let me educate you. This is rather lengthy, I do hope you read it.
"Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.
Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.
This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," and by John Adams as "rational." A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:
The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.
Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:
Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown – general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!
Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:
The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours.
Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.
Adams' own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation. "
@cooper, Anok and timetheif...
America not a Christian nation?
America is very much so a Christian nation. It is absurd to think otherwise.
"Over the past several years, President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that America is not a Christian nation. He asserted that while a U. S. Senator, 1 repeated it as a presidential candidate, and on a recent presidential trip to Turkey announced to the world that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” (He made that announcement in Turkey because he said it was “a location he said he chose to send a clear message.”) Then preceding a subsequent trip to Egypt, he declared that America was “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world” (even though the federal government’s own statistics show that less than one-percent of Americans are Muslims.
The President’s statements were publicized across the world but received little attention in the American media. Had they been carried here, the President might have been surprised to learn that nearly two-thirds of Americans currently consider America to be a Christian nation and therefore certainly might have taken exception with his remarks. But regardless of what today’s Americans might think, it is unquestionable that four previous centuries of American leaders would definitely take umbrage with the President’s statements."
When El Presidente said we are a Muslim nation, he was using his most powerful foreign policy tool - appeasement.
Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) said the following:"In what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world."
One of our Founding Fathers and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said: "With us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it."
So you see, our nation which is the original "American experience" was founded on Christian and Biblical principles and to say that we are a Christian nation merely reaffirms the fact that America was founded, shaped and grew under the influence of Christianity. Thusly, wallbuilders.com says this -
"This definition was reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for generations 12 but is widely ignored by today’s revisionists." -
We ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION.
The very FIRST amendment our founding fathers made was to clearly point out that our government will NOT recognize any one religion over another - that includes Christianity!!!!!
The Tripoli papers clearly state that we are NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION. It's not conspiracy!
The fact that the founding fathers used colloquial terms such as "in the year of our lord" does NOT make the US a Christian country.
Our constitution FORBIDS IT.
Now get over it! -
@Anok...so you are right and TWO Supreme Court Justices are wrong? Or did you even read my post due to its length?
Justice David Brewer and Cheif Justice John Marshall said...
"Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world."
One of our Founding Fathers and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said: "With us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it.""
I am well aware of what the First Amendment to our Constitution says:
First Amendment, freedom of speech and religion – 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.
As for the Tripoli letter, that has been discounted by many reputable scholars due to the author of the letter and the fact that George Washington never even saw it, nor approved it. Need I dig up the proof of that, as well?
Or maybe you are right and John Adams was wrong?
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
Or maybe you are right and John Quincy Adams was wrong?
"In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity."
Or Charles Carroll, another Founding Father and signer of the Declaration of Independence:
"Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He had conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation and on myself in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 89 years, and to survive the fiftieth year of independence, adopted by Congress on the 4th of July 1776, which I originally subscribed on the 2d day of August of the same year and of which I am now the last surviving signer."
Don't you see, Anok that America was founded on Christian principles? Why is it a bad thing to say that we are a Christian nation? In an Islamic nation, if you even attend a Christian church, you will be taken into custody and tried for a crime. In America, if you attend an Islamic church you are not taken into custody, you are not charged with a crime for doing so. That does not happen in America BECAUSE of our First Amendment and BECAUSE we are a Christian nation.
We are a Christian nation, now YOU get over it! -
well, John Marshall certainly did his best to rewrite the constitution through activism, but i don't see how this coincides with modern conservatism.
-
@Anticsrocks I have to agree with the majority here. America has never been a "Christian" nation. I am sorry but there are just to many essays, books, speeches written by our founding fathers themselves who say that America is not a Christian nation. They have believed in God, but they did not believe in theology or dogma. Hence why voodookobra is correct in saying that many of our founding fathers were deists.
If you like, The Age of Reason is an excellent book that explains the views of its author, Thomas Paine, with regards to religion and deist philosophy. -
I think this is painting with a broad brush. SOME were Christians. Some were nondenominational Deists. Some were Masons. Some were Unitarians, some were Quakers. Some were Jews. All those who had a significant role in framing the government however were humanists, regardless of denomination. Thus we are guaranteed the Rights of Mankind
-
Ironically, those Enlightenment roots are all too often neglected by the right in this country, which seems only to remember human dignity belonging to certain people, not all people.
-
Justice David Brewer and Cheif Justice John Marshall said...
His opinion. He feels we are a Christian nation - too bad he is/was wrong! A lot of people "think" and "feel" this is a Christian Nation. Thankfully opinions are not facts.
As for the Tripoli letter, that has been discounted by many reputable scholars due to the author of the letter and the fact that George Washington never even saw it, nor approved it. Need I dig up the proof of that, as well?
yep - please provide your argument that a document from our country is a fake.
Or maybe you are right and John Adams was wrong?
Yes, Adams felt that the principles of Christianity helped frame our country. He did NOT state that we are a Christian country. Again, he "felt". OPINION.
Or maybe you are right and John Quincy Adams was wrong?
Hmm, same person, same religious beliefs. He is stating his OPINION.
It should also be noted that, at that time there were not so many known and practiced religions other than Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. So under what other context would they give thanks and praise and credit?
Or Charles Carroll, another Founding Father and signer of the Declaration of Independence:
Yes! He thanked his religious icon for the gifts he has received. So do Academy Awards winners. Are the Academy Awards a Christian shindig?
But you made a good point against your own argument:
An Islamic nation would throw you in jail if you worship any other belief. Why? Not because of their scary mean religion- but because they are a THEOCRACY. Stating that a nation is Islamic is stating that the government is ruled by ONE RELIGION. That is what an Islamic Nation means...
If we were a Christian Nation, we too would be living in a Theocracy! And depending on who wrote the laws - much like country we waged war on we too would be imprisoned for worshiping anything other than Christianity.
And a particular brand, at that.
Stating that we have freedoms because we are a Christian nation is a lie and a half, and goes against historical fact.
Christianity waged more wars and burned, killed, and tortured more people in the name of Christianity and in the name of forcing people into worshiping Christianity than any other religion in history.
No my friend - some of the founding fathers were Christian, but they were fighting against a country that was a Christian Nation - and a Christian Nation that killed people for being the wrong type of Christian, never mind any other religion!
They wrote, in the Constitution that their government WOULD NOT DO THAT!
therefore, we are NOT a Christian Nation! -
@Anok...I have to leave for an appointment, so I will reply to you in length later today.
But John Adams and John Quincy Adams were NOT the same person. LOL, they are father and son!
Boy Scout Motto: Be Prepared. -
Okay, let me preface my remarks with the caveat that saying America is a Christian nation is by no means the same as America being a Theocracy. It would seem that those on the left and those who detest religion lump the idea that we were founded on Christian beliefs and principles, which makes us a Christian nation, in with the idea that we cannot be a Christian nation because we are a Democratic Republic and not a Theocracy. The two are totally and starkly contrasted from one another. Yet every time someone says we are a Christian nation, there is a chorus of protestation from the left that, "WE ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION!!! GET OVER IT!!!" But when Obama wrongly said we are the biggest Muslim nation in the world, I heard no chorus of similar protests from the left saying, "WE ARE NOT A MUSLIM NATION!!! GET OVER IT!!" Isn't that odd? It seems to be more fun to demonize the Christians in this country than it is to say anything about, or to the Muslims. Now I am not advocating attacking any group, and to use a phrase from Obama, "Let me be clear" about that.
The idea that the United States of America was founded upon the ideals of Christianity does not threaten me in the least - nor should it threaten anyone else. It is a fundamental truth that we live in a Christian nation that is not a theocracy. It is because of the fact that our Founders saw the results of theocracies that led them to build upon Christian ideals, and resist setting the precedent of establishing a national religion. That is why it is in our founding documents. But to sit and pick apart opinions, ideals and philosophies of the very men who founded our great country, just because you despise religion is very disingenuous.
Yes, America is a Christian nation and no, America is not a theocracy. Iraq is now a democracy, but it is still a Muslim nation. Why? Because the majority of her citizens are of that faith. Does that make Iraq a theocracy? No. So this argument that America is not a Christian nation is really more about the left asserting their beliefs upon the majority of us rather than espousing the truth. -
When did Obama declare we are a Muslim Nation?
Furthermore, Islamic countries have one religion declared as their national religion - while they may (or may not) be accepting Democracy as we know it, at this time they are still deeply a Theocracy in that they have a declared national religion, their government still declares, uses, and publicly supports one religion, and their laws are still based on their religion and religious doctrine.
If we are a Christian Nation then why isn't Christianity declared as our national religion?
For example: Iceland is a Monarchy that has Christianity declared as the national religion. Granted, they don't actually care what you practice, and the declaration is more for tradition - but they are as close to a "Christian Nation" as you can get without being a theocracy.
Furthermore, some of the founding fathers were Christians - others were deists and as Agit pointed out Masons. FreeMasons must declare a belief in a deity or "creator" but it does not need to be Christian, and many of them are not.
Since many of the founding fathers and presidents after them were Masons, and they founded the country on the principles of the FreeMason creed (which they did, if you know what the creed is) then by your logic, we are a FreeMason Nation!
Or, we are a Democracy, with a government that absolutely 100% does not and is not allowed to support one religion over another. There is no National religion here. And there never will be, if the constitution is honored.
That means we are NOT a Christian Nation. -
Well Antics, the question begs then; What the [he]ck does this have to do with the acknowlegement of such by government. If the intention is anything other that the institutionalization within hte public sphere, IT SIMPLY DOESN'T MATTER!!!
-
@Anok...did you even read my post? By your reply it seems you didn't.
@Agit8r...I think my reply speaks for itself. I submit the same to you, did you even read my post?
Those that shout to the tops of their lungs, "WE ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION," equate the label of "Christian Nation" with "Theocracy." The label Christian Nation goes to the founding of our country and the principles used to found and to create the civil society or moral order. "Theocracy" goes to the type of governing utilized to run said nation.
Big difference there.
And Anok, we are a Christian nation no matter how many times you put it in all caps otherwise. -
"When did Obama declare we are a Muslim Nation?"
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/03/obamas-muslim-nation-comment-spark...
And he even got this wrong...big surprise there.
He said the United States has 7 million Muslims.
blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/from-the-fact-check-desk-president...
"When asked where the president got the 7 million figure, the White House said the CIA World Fact Book was the source. But the CIA World Fact Book on its web site says the U.S. Muslim population is 0.6 percent of the 307 million population, putting the number of Muslims in the U.S. at 1.8 million."
Which would rank us not even in the top 50 countries in the world in that regard. Now I know what you are going to say - he wasn't speaking to religion, he was speaking to population.
If that is true, then he wants it both ways. The majority of Americans are Christian of one denomination or another, yet he says we are no longer a Christian nation. He ignores the numbers. Then he turns around and says we are one of the biggest Muslim nations in the world. He bases this on the number of Muslims living in the United States.
So on one hand, he says we aren't a Christian nation even though the numbers are against him. Then he tries to use the number of Muslims (even though he quoted inaccurate statistics) to say we are one of the biggest Muslim nations in the world.
-
-
IMO Anok is right on: This country has NO religion, and does not recognize any one religion over another.
The whole "Christian country" BS was brought in with the flag waving McCarythists of the 50's to differentiate "good Americans" from "Godless Commies" during the red scare."
What part of America is NOT just a Christian nation do these right wing retrograde nincompoops fail to understand? The founding fathers recognized they could not allow was imposed upon them in Europe and the UK to be imposed upon others and that's why the principle of separation of church and state was embedded in the constitution and amendments.
I'm sick of hearing the chorus of un-American dogs barking in the manager. Most of all I'm sick of seeing the bulls*te that is blogged by those, who get free hosted blogspot blogs, cover them with advertising, form click fraud groups, and fill them with unethical misleading crap aimed at creating controversy where none ought to exist. Are they journalists? Not by a long shot.
IMO political bloggers have an obligation to themselves and to their readers to explore and research topics as fully as possible prior to writing and publishing.
* Investigate the background;
* Get the whole story;
* Learn about all sides of the issue;
* Seek out competing points of view;
* Read what the experts have to say;
* Get the facts straight;
* Do not falsify facts, do not present a few facts as the whole story, do not present tentative findings as firm conclusions;
* When using evidence, be sure not to take quotations out of context, not to juggle numbers or statistics, and not to present unusual cases as representative examples. Use sources of information that are objective and qualified and link to them appropriately;
* Employ valid reasoning bu avoiding such fallacies as making hasty generalizations, asserting causal connections where none exist, using invalid analogies, and pandering to passion or prejudice.
And, if any political blogger can't adhere to that code of ethics, then find another way to make an income offline because you have zero credibility with anyone who has a brain in their head.-
Okay, timetheif...present your facts. I laid out what I thought in the post above, but just in case you are unable to scroll up, I will repost.
"Bottom line, America was and is a Christian nation. It is a melting pot, to be sure, but at its heart, we are a Christian nation. Sorry if that offends cooper and timetheif who must not like to admit that our Founding Fathers were Christians and that our FOUNDING DOCUMENT, i.e. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE states that we get our rights from our Creator. Now since our Founding Fathers weren't Muslim, Buddhists or anything other than Christians, logic dictates that they were referring to God. If that is too much or too complicated to follow, then I feel sorry for you." -
@ anticrsrocks, Very well put
Edited to: I think I will just move... -
The Declaration of Independence refers to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." As if this does not signify a break from the laws of the Christian Nation States (as it was intended to) the subsequent writings the authors of that document show a thorough disapproval of the state-sponsored religion of feudal europe.
-
Many religions (if not all) believe in a creator. The documents did not specify or limit to yours. Thank god. -
"Many religions (if not all) believe in a creator. The documents did not specify or limit to yours."
Which is why I said, ...our Founding Fathers were Christians and that our FOUNDING DOCUMENT, i.e. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE states that we get our rights from our Creator. Now since our Founding Fathers weren't Muslim, Buddhists or anything other than Christians, logic dictates that they were referring to God.
They were referring to a Christian God. They did not want a state sponsored religion, but that does not mean that our Founding Fathers thought of America as an atheist nation. -
The Declaration was Authored by Jefferson (A Deist--hence, "Nature's God") and edited by Adams (Unitarian) and Franklin (Deist).
The language was probably not controversial with those who signed the document, because it was largely a formality (as military action was already underway) and was likely intended as propaganda for the intellegentsia of European royal courts (Voltaire et al). -
Jefferson was not the deist scholars like to claim him to have been. He was a practicing Christian with very strong religious beliefs.
"I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.
I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.
The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses."
Additionally -
"...Jefferson was instrumental in establishing weekly Sunday worship services at the U. S. Capitol (a practice that continued through the 19th century) and was himself a regular and faithful attendant at those church services, not even allowing inclement weather to dissuade his weekly horseback travel to the Capitol church.
(The fact that the U. S. Capitol building was available for church on Sundays was due to the Art. I, Sec. 7 constitutional requirement that forbade federal lawmaking on Sundays; and this recognition of a Christian Sabbath in the U. S. Constitution was cited by federal courts as proof of the Christian nature of America. While not every Christian observes a Sunday Sabbath, no other religion in the world honors Sunday except Christianity. As one court noted, the various Sabbaths were “the Friday of the Mohammedan, the Saturday of the Israelite, or the Sunday of the Christian."
And to top it all off, Jefferson signed his Presidential documents "In the year of our Lord Christ."
All this information is from wallbuilders.com -
Here is that quote in context:
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."
This is of course his gentle manner, written to his Christian friend and fellow Republican Benjamin Rush. Dr. Rush (who was once called upon to treat Citizen Genet) to had some rather interesting beliefs of his own. Rush was a vegetarian and was instrumental in Humane Societies concerning themselves with the wellbeing of animals, because he believed that they would also be resurrected.
I was greatly amused at his signing of what is clearly form-letter as evidence of his faith.
as to his establishing worship service, I know nothing of this, only that it seems contradictory to his statements on executive activism
lonestar.texas.net/~mseifert/rush.html -
It is reported that Jefferson signed all his Presidential documents in that manner.
You should peruse wallbuilders.com, it is a fascinating site. -
"the _________ day of _________ in the year of our Lord Christ" is clearly printed on a press so that old guy with gimpy wrists didn't have to burden themselves every time they signed something. Are you really not able to tell the difference between the printing, and Jefferson's chicken-scratched "eighteenth"? Really?
Of course now I'm sure that such form letter will be held up further proof of religious establishment -
So if it is a "form letter," who do you think approved that wording? Or do you just think that Jefferson had nothing to do with that?
This is what wallbuilders.com has to say about that "form letter." -
"Following is an original document in our possession, signed by Thomas Jefferson on September 24, 1807. This document is permission for a ship called the Herschel to proceed on its journey to the port of London. The interesting characteristic of this document is the use of the phrase "in the year of our Lord Christ." Many official documents say "in the year of our Lord," but we have found very few that include the word "Christ." However, this is the explicitly Christian language that President Thomas Jefferson chose to use in official public presidential documents."
Further, modern revisionists like to claim that proof of Jefferson's secularism is that he supposedly founded the University of Virginia as the nation's first secular school. This too, is a false assumption, because it was a non-denominational school, not a non-religious one.
"It was in 1818 that Jefferson and the Visitors first released to the public their plan for the new University. As already noted, Jefferson announced that the school would be trans-denominational and that religious instruction would be provided to students by the Professor of Ethics. But Jefferson also took additional steps to ensure that religious instruction would occur.
For example, he directed the Professor of Ancient Languages to teach Biblical Greek, Hebrew, and Latin to students so that they would be equipped to read and study the “earliest and most respected authorities of the Christian Faith.” 38 Wanting the writings of those Christian authorities and “the writings of the most respected authorities of every sect [denomination]” 39 to be placed in the university library, Jefferson asked James Madison to prepare such a list for the library. 40
In September 1824, Madison returned his list to Jefferson in which he included the works of the Alexandrian Fathers (the early Alexandrian church fathers included Clement, Origen, Pantaenus, Cyril, Athanasius, and Didymus the Blind); Latin authors such as St. Augustine; the writings of St. Aquinas and other Christian leaders from the Middle Ages; and the works of Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Socinius, and Bellarmine from the Reformation era. Madison’s list also included more modern theologians and religious writers such as Grotius, Tillotson, Hooker, Pascal, Locke, Newton, Butler, Clarke, Wollaston, Edwards, Mather, Penn, Wesley, Priestley, Price, Leibnitz, and Paley. 41
In addition to the religious instruction by the Professor of Ancient Language, Jefferson succinctly stated that he had personally arranged the curriculum so that religious study would also be an inseparable part of the study of law and political science. 42 It is clear that Jefferson took numerous steps to secure religious instruction as part of academic studies.
But Jefferson not only sought to ensure that students would study about God, he also made provision for them to worship God. In the early planning stages of the University, he had stipulated “that a building...in the middle of the grounds may be called for in time in which may be rooms for religious worship”; 43 later, he specifically ordered that in the University Rotunda, “one of its large elliptical rooms on its middle floor shall be used for...religious worship” and that “the students of the University will be free and expected to attend.” 44 (emphasis added).
Clearly, the modern claim that there was no Christian curriculum at the University of Virginia is demonstrably false not only by Jefferson’s own writings but also by those of University Visitors such as James Madison." -
we're getting a bit personal, aren't we?
-
i knew that Jefferson knew French, Greek, and Latin... I didn't realize he knew Dutch...
-
-
I find it ironic how when one user above made a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek comment about his god being better than someone else's, it got deleted, but those arguing that this is a Christian nation and only a Christian nation have free reign. Put differently, one guy who questioned intolerance got that comment deleted. And those who promote intolerance are free to continue. Very nice.
And the comment to which I referred contained no personal attacks, unlike some of the others here. Lovely.
Then again, one of the main themes of this board has become intolerance, though, to its credit, the BC staff has deleted some of the most worst stuff, such as the openly racist thread accusing Obama of being a racist.
But now blasphemy is forbidden?!-
I'm shaking my head ... again.
Perhaps as the BC Advocates program is being developed, Admin will consider converting this moribund (stagnant: not growing or changing; without force or vitality ) forum into one that features a completely different array of topics. If so, the result may be promoting a completely different array of BC member blogs in various niches. -
Ah...the quintessential leftist utopia....everyone agrees with the far left loonies and no one quibbles.
-
The politics board was an experiment. It hasn't gone very well. This has nothing to do with topics or ideology but rather its lack of integration into the navigation structure of the overall site. It's hard to move between the main boards and here. And they have no plans of changing that, as BC has gone through new versions while leaving this deficiency intact.
I am wondering if the segregation of politics from the main board even fulfilled one of its original purposes, that is, to relieve the pressure of hot-button topics on the main boards. I've spent less time there over the past year, but when I go, it seems that the same topics appear there anyway. The only difference is that they move faster because there are many more participants. Yeah, it looks like a failed experiment to me. But it might be able to work if they did something about their navigation set-up. Seems like they need something that makes any political discussions accessible to all who are hanging out on the boards. Otherwise this is just a little ghetto.
Again, I'm not talking about ideology or quality of responses here. I'm talking about numbers and diversity of participants. -
"I find it ironic how when one user above made a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek comment about his god being better than someone else's, it got deleted, but those arguing that this is a Christian nation and only a Christian nation have free reign. Put differently, one guy who questioned intolerance got that comment deleted. And those who promote intolerance are free to continue. Very nice."
So now it is okay to attack someone or their belief system as long as you are attacking Christians? That attitude is par for the course from what I have seen from that person's comments here on BC... -
No one attacked your belief system. No one attacked Christianity per se.
-
People was making a point. People didn't attack anyone or anything.
-
-
My question was why the big push on the Muslim religion but then I just read two of his press releases where as we going to supply weapons to ...
"I hereby find that the furnishing of defense articles and defense services to the Economic Community of Central African States will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace."
"I hereby find that the furnishing of defense articles and defense services to the Maldives will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace."
Two muslim, buddist, islam nations...
That is what I am questioning, why is Obama so willing to go over the top to help give these other countries weapons and then say it will promote world peace.
as antirocks said...mmmmm because he is Muslim-
Except antics was just being silly; he was kidding. You, however, appear to believe it. (And you appear to think there would be something wrong with being Muslim.)
And who says he is "go[ing] over the top"? Since when do we give nations aid based on the religion of their citizens? Providing military aid is all about reason of state, the national interest, politics. -
"Two muslim, buddist, islam nations"
how's that again? -
as antirocks said...mmmmm because he is Muslim
Christianity is a religion based on conversion and all Christians, including Obama, are self-professed. It's a very common practice for Christan to give their children biblical names found in the Tanakh (Old Testament). But the names their parents choose to give them is no grounds upon which to proclaim they are are Jews, is there? Unless or until as adults they choose as adults to adhere to and profess any faith they are without religion. Likewise there is no grounds upon which to proclaim that Obama's given names at birth define him as being a Muslim, for as an adult he embraced and professed Christianity.
From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite." Today, the word "bigot" is defined as: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot
Consequently, I believe those who rely on the kind of innuendo based on given names at birth to intimate that Obama is a Muslim, when he says he is a Christian, are not credible people. To me they appear to be bigots. -
If he were a secret muslim, that should be no problem. Because Islam is based on Judeo-Christian traditions. Helllllo!
-
-
caspergirl35.......... did you even bother to research why that occurred? I am not sure still if you are just a propaganda machine or if you are really just blissfully unaware of how things work.
The Maldives:
Dr Ahmed Shaheed their Foreign Minister and Hillary Clinton have been discussing trade, investment and development assistance. The US suspended the Maldives from eligibility for the GSP in 1995 due to concerns about the country’s human rights record, the lack of labor rights. They have come a long way since then.
The Secretary of State was recently in Central Africa as well. Much of these changes relate to State Department recommendations based on Clinton's work with these countries over the summer. As well I imagine, as on the security reports the White house recieve every day. Much if it is economic, as economics are a major factor in security.
A little research brings this up.
Speaking of arms to Muslim countries:
--------
US Ramped Up Arms Supplies to Repressive Regimes in 2005, a majority of U.S. arms sales to the developing world also went to regimes defined as undemocratic by our own State Department. .
We have always sold either directly, or indirectly, through other countries to Muslim regimes, though in general people don't understand that. The last year of Bush's regime our arms sales increased by 50 percent and our share of world weapons sales also rose to more than two-thirds.
Somali - No one complained when we started selling them arms under Bush. I am just confused as to why, if a president who gets security reports daily on the world, and economic recommendations from the state department, decides it is on our best interest to allow arms now to be sold to these particular countries, for either economic or security reasons, people can make it look like something that has not gone on in that presidential office forever.
It is very easy to take a line of information and make it into something it isn't, but it might be better to look get to the root of it. It might make more sense then. Though it wouldn't be such good propaganda and sound bites for vicious but ill-informed bloggers to bandy abut the internet.
US Ramped Up Arms Supplies to Repressive Regimes in 2005, a majority of U.S. arms sales to the developing world also went to regimes defined as undemocratic by our own State Department.
We have always sold either directly, or indirectly, through other countries to Muslim regimes, though in general people don't understand that. The last year of Bush's regime our arms sales increased by 50 percent, and our share of world weapons sales also rose to more than two-thirds. Much of it to Muslim nations. No one complained then. Did you?-
well of course! Islam is based on Judeo-Christian traditions, so it has to be good
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
