PDA

View Full Version : Obama invokes Jesus more than Bush



FlaGator
06-09-2009, 08:43 AM
This must really upset the spiritually bankrupt on DU.


He’s done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy. The references serve at once as an affirmation of his faith and a rebuke against a rumor that persists for some to this day.

As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches — something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity.

In his speech Thursday in Cairo, Obama told the crowd that he is a Christian and mentioned the Islamic story of Isra, in which Moses, Jesus and Mohammed joined in prayer.

At the University of Notre Dame on May 17, Obama talked about the good works he’d seen done by Christian community groups in Chicago. “I found myself drawn — not just to work with the church but to be in the church,” Obama said. “It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.”

And a month before that, Obama mentioned Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount at Georgetown University to make the case for his economic policies. Obama retold the story of two men, one who built his house on a pile of sand and the other who built his on a rock: “We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” Obama said. “We must build our house upon a rock.”

More than four months into the Obama presidency, a picture is emerging of a chief executive who is comfortable with public displays of his religion — although he has also paid tribute to other faiths and those he called “nonbelievers” during his inaugural address.

Obama’s invocation of the Christian Messiah is more overt than Americans heard in the public rhetoric of Bush in his time in the White House — even though Bush’s victories were powered in part by evangelical voters.

“I don’t recall a single example of Bush as president ever saying, ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ,’” said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian group Family Research Council. “This is different.”


The whole story is here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090609/pl_politico/23510_1)

megimoo
06-09-2009, 09:38 AM
This must really upset the spiritually bankrupt on DU.



The whole story is here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090609/pl_politico/23510_1)I don't see them so much as bankrupt but as scattered and confused!

noonwitch
06-09-2009, 10:53 AM
Waiting for Wilbur....

Gingersnap
06-09-2009, 11:10 AM
Obama's references to Christ don't matter in the same way as a conservative's would because Obama is not perceived as a genuine believer. He's just used Christianity as a networking and image tool.

Now, the man may be utterly devout privately but that's his public Christian image: a poser.

None of his followers believe that he would actually make any decision based on Judeo-Christian principles so his references are empty and without moral implications.

Rebel Yell
06-09-2009, 12:15 PM
Do they count every time he uses the word I?:rolleyes:

wilbur
06-09-2009, 12:23 PM
Obama's references to Christ don't matter in the same way as a conservative's would because Obama is not perceived as a genuine believer. He's just used Christianity as a networking and image tool.

Now, the man may be utterly devout privately but that's his public Christian image: a poser.

None of his followers believe that he would actually make any decision based on Judeo-Christian principles so his references are empty and without moral implications.

Bingo.

Bush's religious belief was troublesome, simply because it appeared genuine.

thinker
06-09-2009, 12:25 PM
Are you saying it was troublesome to you, or troublesome in the general sense? o.O

wilbur
06-09-2009, 12:32 PM
Are you saying it was troublesome to you, or troublesome in the general sense? o.O

In general, the more it looks like someone actually relies on religious belief/philosophy to make real world decisions, the more troubling it is... especially so for the highest office in the land.

Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that presidents, whether they are religious or not, have to pretend to be.

Odysseus
06-09-2009, 03:18 PM
Bingo.
Bush's religious belief was troublesome, simply because it appeared genuine.


In general, the more it looks like someone actually relies on religious belief/philosophy to make real world decisions, the more troubling it is... especially so for the highest office in the land.
Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that presidents, whether they are religious or not, have to pretend to be.

Okay, so let me get this straight: It's better if the president is a hypocrite who lies about belief in religion for political gain, rather than for him to be a believer who is motivated by a genuine commitment to his faith?

Here's why this is wrong. Regardless of the nature of a president's beliefs, a president who routinely lies about them cannot be believed on anything. If he claims that the economy is improving, can you trust him? If he promises a clean administration without lobbyists, then reverses himself and fills his cabinet and sub-cabinet positions with tax cheats, lobbyists and radicals, what is his word worth? Can you believe his promise that he will return GM and Chrysler to the private sector when (if) they are solvent? Can you look at the pattern of dealership closings that he directed and assume that the preponderence of closures in Red states, especially among those dealers who gave money to his political opponents, was motivated by economic need rather than a corrupt decision to take the opportunity to reward his cronies and attack his opposition? Will his health care reform accomplish what he says that it will, and if not, does he have another agenda? What will he do when his ambitions butt up against the Constitution? Is your property, your job, your very life and the lives of your family safe in his hands?

The United States has one ultimate check on the power of our government, and that is the Constitution, which defines its powers and forbids it to act beyond them, but that document is dependent on the honor and integrity of those who must execute the duties that it defines. Without that integrity, the Constitution might as well be printed in perforated rolls of soft, absorbent sheets.

wilbur
06-09-2009, 05:20 PM
Okay, so let me get this straight: It's better if the president is a hypocrite who lies about belief in religion for political gain, rather than for him to be a believer who is motivated by a genuine commitment to his faith?


Its not ideal... but its all reality will allow for at the moment. Surrendering the highest office in the land to nothing but those 'with a commitment to faith' is the worst of the options.

A commitment to faith is one of the greatest of character flaws a president can have.

FlaGator
06-09-2009, 06:14 PM
Its not ideal... but its all reality will allow for at the moment. Surrendering the highest office in the land to nothing but those 'with a commitment to faith' is the worst of the options.

A commitment to faith is one of the greatest of character flaws a president can have.

Sounds like the real answer to thinker's question is that it is more troublesome to you than people in general. He was elected twice by a majority greater than 50 percent who knew of his proclivity to rely on his faith for guidance. I think if we asked around your view would be in the minority on this site. Before you introduce "others sites" that you feel will dispute this, I would like to point out that we aren't on other sites.

thinker
06-09-2009, 06:35 PM
A commitment to faith is one of the greatest of character flaws a president can have.


Really? I could have sworn having the capacity to lie under oath (Bill Clinton), complete paranoia (Richard Nixon), absolute trust in ones' friends, despite prevailing evidence (Grant), or the total inability to do anything (Carter) were all worse character flaws.

Moreover, it's a character flaw at all to share a belief system held by the vast majority of the citizenry of the country you lead?

You, sir, are a shining example of why I reject ideological liberalism. It's nothing more than elitism wrapped in concern wrapped in inanity.

CueSi
06-09-2009, 07:15 PM
Really? I could have sworn having the capacity to lie under oath (Bill Clinton), complete paranoia (Richard Nixon), absolute trust in ones' friends, despite prevailing evidence (Grant), or the total inability to do anything (Carter) were all worse character flaws.

Moreover, it's a character flaw at all to share a belief system held by the vast majority of the citizenry of the country you lead?

You, sir, are a shining example of why I reject ideological liberalism. It's nothing more than elitism wrapped in concern wrapped in inanity.

QFMFT!

~QC

MrsSmith
06-09-2009, 07:17 PM
Its not ideal... but its all reality will allow for at the moment. Surrendering the highest office in the land to nothing but those 'with a commitment to faith' is the worst of the options.

A commitment to faith is one of the greatest of character flaws a president can have.

A commitment to God is the most necessary quality in any leader. Pres. Obama's lack thereof is one of his greatest flaws.

Lars1701a
06-09-2009, 07:23 PM
Really? I could have sworn having the capacity to lie under oath (Bill Clinton), complete paranoia (Richard Nixon), absolute trust in ones' friends, despite prevailing evidence (Grant), or the total inability to do anything (Carter) were all worse character flaws.

Moreover, it's a character flaw at all to share a belief system held by the vast majority of the citizenry of the country you lead?

You, sir, are a shining example of why I reject ideological liberalism. It's nothing more than elitism wrapped in concern wrapped in inanity.

OMG the world must be coming to an end I agree with this tool ^^


I feel dirty I must go shower. :(

Lars1701a
06-09-2009, 07:24 PM
Its not ideal... but its all reality will allow for at the moment. Surrendering the highest office in the land to nothing but those 'with a commitment to faith' is the worst of the options.

A commitment to faith is one of the greatest of character flaws a president can have.

You just posted this excretion just to start a flame war? You cant really believe this?

thinker
06-09-2009, 07:26 PM
OMG the world must be coming to an end I agree with this tool ^^


I feel dirty I must go shower. :(

You don't have a clue on this planet, Lars; that's already been proven, repeatedly.

Perhaps if you took the time to read what I post, you'd realize that. Until then, keep sticking your head as far between your posterior clefts as you possibly can.

thinker
06-09-2009, 07:28 PM
A commitment to God is the most necessary quality in any leader. Pres. Obama's lack thereof is one of his greatest flaws.

You base this supposed lack on what, exactly, MrsSmith? I know you don't like him, and I know he doesn't believe in your particular brand of the faith, but that doesn't make him uncommitted to God.

Lars1701a
06-09-2009, 07:31 PM
You don't have a clue on this planet, Lars; that's already been proven, repeatedly.

Perhaps if you took the time to read what I post, you'd realize that. Until then, keep sticking your head as far between your posterior clefts as you possibly can.

Take your anti-douche pills because I agreed with you, sorry I pointed out you are a tool does not mean you have to get snippy. :p


So just because I dont always agree with means I dont have a clue? well I will remain clueless. Have a nice day Dick. :)

FlaGator
06-09-2009, 07:32 PM
You don't have a clue on this planet, Lars; that's already been proven, repeatedly.

Perhaps if you took the time to read what I post, you'd realize that. Until then, keep sticking your head as far between your posterior clefts as you possibly can.

Be nice. I foresee you and Lars being best friends one day. :eek:

thinker
06-09-2009, 07:35 PM
I play nice when I don't get cussed at and intentionally misread ^_-.

@ Lars, it has nothing to do with you having to agree with me - it has everything to do with you failing to admit when you're wrong (not politically, as in misjudging a person), refusing to accept that things posted on a discussion board are up for discussion, trying to frame me as your favorite sock puppet, etc.

On that note, I've had better days, reprobate, but the thought is appreciated. You half brained weasel :D

Lars1701a
06-09-2009, 07:36 PM
Be nice. I foresee you and Lars being best friends one day. :eek:

Dont bet on it. :D


I wont kiss his ass.

Lars1701a
06-09-2009, 07:38 PM
I play nice when I don't get cussed at and intentionally misread ^_-.

@ Lars, it has nothing to do with you having to agree with me - it has everything to do with you failing to admit when you're wrong (not politically, as in misjudging a person), refusing to accept that things posted on a discussion board are up for discussion, trying to frame me as your favorite sock puppet, etc.

On that note, I've had better days, reprobate, but the thought is appreciated. You half brained weasel :D

Here is the thing monkey boy I am not wrong. :D

thinker
06-09-2009, 07:38 PM
Dont bet on it. :D


I can't read and understand English.
----------------------------------------------------------------

thinker
06-09-2009, 07:39 PM
Here is the thing monkey boy I am not wrong. :D

See prior comments, troll.

Odysseus
06-09-2009, 07:53 PM
Its not ideal... but its all reality will allow for at the moment. Surrendering the highest office in the land to nothing but those 'with a commitment to faith' is the worst of the options.

A commitment to faith is one of the greatest of character flaws a president can have.
Thinker pretty much nailed this, but I'll point out that honest believers (Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, etc.) have a better record in office than cynical manipulators (Nixon, Clinton and now Obama). The critical issue isn't belief. I'd vote for an honest man or woman who believed in the tooth fairy if they understood economics, foreign policy and the Constitution and governed as such, over a slick hustler who'll say anything, believes in nothing but his own ambition and power and governs the way Obama is governing. When you look back on this administration, you're going to be really embarrassed that you didn't speak out against him.

Really? I could have sworn having the capacity to lie under oath (Bill Clinton), complete paranoia (Richard Nixon), absolute trust in ones' friends, despite prevailing evidence (Grant), or the total inability to do anything (Carter) were all worse character flaws.

Moreover, it's a character flaw at all to share a belief system held by the vast majority of the citizenry of the country you lead?

You, sir, are a shining example of why I reject ideological liberalism. It's nothing more than elitism wrapped in concern wrapped in inanity.
As they say in the gunnery tables, "Target! Cease fire!"

wilbur
06-09-2009, 09:14 PM
Really? I could have sworn having the capacity to lie under oath (Bill Clinton), complete paranoia (Richard Nixon), absolute trust in ones' friends, despite prevailing evidence (Grant),


That right there is a form of faith. I'm glad we agree its a character flaw ;)



or the total inability to do anything (Carter) were all worse character flaws.

I didnt say 'commitment to faith' was worse than any of those... though that would depend just how strong the commitment is, and to what belief system. I did not defend Clinton, or Obama, or even state a preference for any of them over any other president.. not relevant.

My comparison was simply between 'a commitment to faith', and a 'pragmatic pretense of faith'. All other things being equal between two men, I would say the man with the pragmatic pretense of faith has a better character.



Moreover, it's a character flaw at all to share a belief system held by the vast majority of the citizenry of the country you lead?


Just b/c its a character flaw that most share, does not make it any less a character flaw.



You, sir, are a shining example of why I reject ideological liberalism. It's nothing more than elitism wrapped in concern wrapped in inanity.

Thanks?

CueSi
06-09-2009, 09:25 PM
All things being equal , I'll take a Honest Jew or Wiccan over a Fake Christian for POTUS any day.

~QC

thinker
06-09-2009, 09:34 PM
That right there is a form of faith. I'm glad we agree its a character flaw ;)

Faith in fallible human beings does not compare to belief in a higher power. I know it's difficult for an atheist to grasp that; but please, by all means, try. God doesn't lie, cheat, or steal.


I didnt say 'commitment to faith' was worse than any of those...


A commitment to faith is one of the greatest of character flaws a president can have

Sounds to me like you just enjoy the sound of your keyboard going at high speed...because you didn't really leave yourself much room here, did you?

Your original statement equated a commitment to faith as a cardinal sin for one in higher office...that implies there are few, if any, worse. Are you prepared to say that I named them all just off the top of my head? Can you even name all the other "character flaws" you feel are worse?

Perhaps you should go ahead and admit you put your foot in it on this one, because it'll be a lot less painful than trying to dig yourself out of the hole you're in with the pitiful little spade you left yourself with.


I did not defend Clinton, or Obama, or even state a preference for any of them over any other president.. not relevant.

I went out of my way to be non party specific...all of those are far worse than a commitment to faith, (and had far greater consequences in the real world sense) and I dare you to say otherwise. Extremely relevant. Don't dodge the question.


My comparison was simply between 'a commitment to faith', and a 'pragmatic pretense of faith'. All other things being equal between two men, I would say the man with the pragmatic pretense of faith has a better character.

A bald faced liar has a better character than the man humble enough to admit that he is not the highest power in the universe? See original comment on why ideological liberalism is bogus.


Just b/c its a character flaw that most share, does not make it any less a character flaw.

So now you're saying that faith in any form is a character flaw? No wonder you don't like the average American... beyond that, you're prepared to state that it's a moral failure to believe in a higher morality? Do you even know the definition of the words you're flinging around?


Thanks?

Hey, progress. You're thanking me for showing you what a screwed up piece of work you are, so you must realize that you're in need of serious help =).

Now you just need to go get it.

MrsSmith
06-09-2009, 10:01 PM
You base this supposed lack on what, exactly, MrsSmith? I know you don't like him, and I know he doesn't believe in your particular brand of the faith, but that doesn't make him uncommitted to God.
If he were committed to God, he would at minimum have some clue of the New Covenant with Christ. He quotes OT verses with the same ignorant "gotcha" attitude of every leftist atheist. If he were committed to God, he couldn't be in favor of the deliberate murder of millions of God's children every year. If he were committed to God, he'd listen to Him instead of tossing out His Son's name as some kind of passcode. If he were committed to God, his own party would disown him.

thinker
06-09-2009, 10:15 PM
If he were committed to God, he would at minimum have some clue of the New Covenant with Christ. He quotes OT verses with the same ignorant "gotcha" attitude of every leftist atheist.

You're not qualified to judge on his attitude. Bluntly, until you can say you ever were even neutral on him, you're unable to offer judgements as to his shades of meaning, because otherwise you'll always take him in the worst possible light. Just sayin'.


If he were committed to God, he couldn't be in favor of the deliberate murder of millions of God's children every year.

Link to where he's ever said he's personally in favor of abortion? I'm not in favor of it, but I'm not in favor of making it illegal, either.


If he were committed to God, he'd listen to Him instead of tossing out His Son's name as some kind of passcode. If he were committed to God, his own party would disown him.

Parts of them have - just check out the DUmpster poll.

None of that counts as evidence, Smith. Just your opinion, which is fine, but hardly strong enough to try and say he doesn't believe in a higher power with any authority.

Gingersnap
06-09-2009, 10:18 PM
My comparison was simply between 'a commitment to faith', and a 'pragmatic pretense of faith'. All other things being equal between two men, I would say the man with the pragmatic pretense of faith has a better character.

Character? No. Political insight. Maybe. I think by definition that a man or woman who plays on the ideals of others while not sharing those ideals is superficial and facile at best and is hypocritical and manipulative at worst.

Either way, that individual is not one most of us would willingly admit into our own circle of friends. Why would we admire or trust a leader with such a quality?

PoliCon
06-09-2009, 10:25 PM
Said it once - I'll say it again:


The left finds the thought of Christianity conscientiously practiced frightening.

PoliCon
06-09-2009, 10:26 PM
Character? No. Political insight. Maybe. I think by definition that a man or woman who plays on the ideals of others while not sharing those ideals is superficial and facile at best and is hypocritical and manipulative at worst.

Either way, that individual is not one most of us would willingly admit into our own circle of friends. Why would we admire or trust a leader with such a quality?

The left prefers a man of as dubious and fickle in character as they are. They call it "keeping it real."

Odysseus
06-10-2009, 12:15 PM
That right there is a form of faith. My comparison was simply between 'a commitment to faith', and a 'pragmatic pretense of faith'. All other things being equal between two men, I would say the man with the pragmatic pretense of faith has a better character.
A "pragmatic pretense of faith" in free market capitalism, strong national defense, competence and integrity got Obama elected. Since then, we've seen none of it. Now that unemployment is approaching double digits, our enemies are passing around nuclear technology like notes in a high school study hall, the administration is staffed with tax cheats who claimed that the tax code was so complex that they couldn't help making errors that garnered them hundreds of thousands of dollars, but still claim to be able to run the parts of government that administer and create it, we're about to see economic condictions that will make the Carter years look like the Reagon recovery, and may even surpass the Great Depression.

People who lie to acquire power do so because they value power over integrity. They will only tell the truth when they are so powerful that it cannot be taken away, and by then, the truth will be that you can't do anything about it.

The left prefers a man of as dubious and fickle in character as they are. They call it "keeping it real."
It's not that they are fickle, in fact, they are quite consistent. The left wants power. They distrust religion because deference to a higher power means that they aren't the final arbiter of life. They hate free markets because the want to plan economies. They loathe individual liberty and advance group rights because groups are easier to control than individuals. They undermine families because the ties between husband and wife and parent and child are stronger than the ties between serf and master.

It's all about power.

MrsSmith
06-10-2009, 06:14 PM
You're not qualified to judge on his attitude. Bluntly, until you can say you ever were even neutral on him, you're unable to offer judgements as to his shades of meaning, because otherwise you'll always take him in the worst possible light. Just sayin'.


I am qualified to comment on his complete ignorance of Christianity. Someone who is "committed to God" doesn't talk like a leftist atheist and use ignorant "gotcha" statements. I've seen the speech, so there is no question of his words.



Link to where he's ever said he's personally in favor of abortion? I'm not in favor of it, but I'm not in favor of making it illegal, either.

"I'm not in favor of it, but I'm not going to make it illegal when a mother chooses infanticide."

"I'm not in favor of it, but I'm not going to make it illegal for a man to hit his wife."

Those are both just as "intelligent" as your statement. :rolleyes:




Parts of them have - just check out the DUmpster poll.

None of that counts as evidence, Smith. Just your opinion, which is fine, but hardly strong enough to try and say he doesn't believe in a higher power with any authority.

Speaking of "just your opinion," thinker... :rolleyes:

thinker
06-11-2009, 12:02 AM
I am qualified to comment on his complete ignorance of Christianity. Someone who is "committed to God" doesn't talk like a leftist atheist and use ignorant "gotcha" statements. I've seen the speech, so there is no question of his words.

Respectfully disagreed. You and he see the world through a different lens, and you judge him for it. That's your prerogative, but it doesn't make you right, or an impartial judge; therefor, no, you are NOT qualified to offer that judgement as any kind of evidence; only as an opinion.



"I'm not in favor of it, but I'm not going to make it illegal when a mother chooses infanticide."

So by that logic, I assume you're saying that Reagan and Bush Senior and Junior were both of the same opinion? Since none of them outlawed abortion either? Obama couldn't "make" abortion illegal if that was his sole purpose as President; that's not one of the powers of the Presidency, and you darn well know it.

Moreover, how does making abortion illegal halt it? Since abortions were regularly performed in this country while it was still illegal. I'm against abortion; I don't support criminalizing it, for various reasons.


"I'm not in favor of it, but I'm not going to make it illegal for a man to hit his wife."

Way to try and marginalize the position with a statement that's completely ungermane to the discussion...it's not currently legal to engage in domestic violence in this country; beyond that, there's no advocacy group or movement within the culture that says (openly) that it's okay. Abortion is not going to go away because we make it illegal again; it's only going to go away when persuasion, not force, wins. Using the sort of statements you made above to try and blur the issue ignores the very basic realities that surround the abortion debate; seeing as how I know you're well acquainted with said intricacies, that's rather disappointing.


Speaking of "just your opinion," thinker... :rolleyes:

The original post you made meets no standard of evidence you care to name. That's blunt, hard, fact. Please, go ahead and illuminate what standard you believe it meets.