jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (24 posts)

LOL..... So much for "separation of Church and State"!

  1. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    Our dear President has succeeding in doin' it again.
    Breaking ground on pushing HIS agenda while breaking the liberal rule of "separation of Church and State" (which was never a real rule anyway, but often touted by liberals).
    Just one more case of proof that he's not really FOR the liberals, even;  but simply for HIS agenda no matter where it goes.

    His speech at the Church in DC was hugely political and rode on the wings of Martin Luther King's honor.   He even had the audacity to tout his agenda for gays and lesbians (or else use them as a crutch too...who can tell with him at this point?!)  FROM A PULPIT!    No wonder there was a "fuss" about his being allowed to speak there, as he referred to.  Any self-respecting, much less God-respecting,  person would've WALKED OUT of that Church as soon as he started his hogwash.
    But indeed I believe I also saw the "Reverend" Wright in the background sittin' on a chair....

    1. SparklingJewel profile image66
      SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      do you have a link to the speech/sermon he gave?

    2. DogSiDaed profile image60
      DogSiDaedposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So what you're saying is, you're accusing the President, the most political of people, of being political? He read a positive agenda for the general progression of America and you're annoyed because he didn't talk about god enough?

    3. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Your extremely narrow understanding of Christianity is not shared universally.

      P. S. That's a good thing.  There may be hope for that dying religion yet.

  2. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    He talked about "God" from his point of view.
    But not the true God; not Christ.  He made a point (for those who listened really) of showing that his "god" is a namby-pamby politically-correct universally-benign version, cheap imitation of the Creator Himself.

    No, I don't have a link yet.
    The "sermon" or "speech" or whatever label can be applied was only shown a while ago; doesn't seem to be on the internet yet.

    1. DogSiDaed profile image60
      DogSiDaedposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Everyone has their own opinion of god. And hence you can't really complain smile god is not literal, he is whoever the hell you want him/her to be. Obama is entitled to his god.

      Have you met christ?

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes. He is inseparable from the Holy Spirit.
        He offered me His gift of salvation, and I took it.

  3. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    What I was referring to was the ludicricity (is ludicricity a word?  hmm...lol) of the liberal agenda which usually calls for "separation of Church and State" as a way of touting gay rights, abortion, etc.
    And then the liberal President goes and makes a political speech in a Church, all the while touting some unknown religion actually (he never has the guts to just come out and say what religion he is;  but he hides within a "Baptist" Church this time.)
    BTW, it's not any type of truly Baptist church like I've ever seen, 'cause if it were they wouldn't allow him to get in their pulpit and speak crap akin to blasphemy.
    But then, it WAS apparently a Church that happily carries the label of "Black" as in pro-Black-activism and apparently always has, for....100 years or so, he said.....so Obama is using the previously-legitimate rights of the black population to help carry out his agenda.

    1. 0
      cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      smile try "ludicrousness"

  4. wyanjen profile image88
    wyanjenposted 7 years ago

    In the history of the United States there have been only two presidents who have not affiliated with a church. They've been doing this type of thing from day one. There would be a much larger outcry if he instead remained secular.

    Take "In God We Trust" off our money, then we can talk about this lol
    Actually I do own a "godless dollar". It was a mint error that left IGWT off the edge.

    Here is some reading for you:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amen … nstitution

    Speaking from a church pulpit is no different than putting a christmas tree on the White House lawn. Yes, they are activities that invoke religion, but it is not a violation of the separation of church and state.

    Liberal Atheist. smile

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this


      well...indeed....how does one break a rule that never was a rule to begin with??!! ha

      but you're in denial of it all of course, probably because you're an Obama follower??

      1. wyanjen profile image88
        wyanjenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        How is the First Amendment not considered a "rule"?

        I supported McCain, actually.
        Funny how people assume.
        I voted for Obama because I could not stand the thought of a Palin VP. I also had some doubts about McCain considering the fact that he allowed her on the ticket in the first place... He blew his own credibility with me.

        Show me the most recent president of the Untied States who did NOT speak publicly about god.
        I'm not a pres. scholar, but by my research you have to go all the way back to Jefferson. smile

        1. 61
          ATXposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You supported McCain but voted for Obama?  Neat trick.

  5. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    In "those days", it was understood that "religion" meant other denominations of Christianity.  So, no particular denomination or man-made religious organization like the Catholic Church or the Lutheran Church or even the Baptist denominations could make their particular brand into a "State" religion. 
    It also stopped "religion" (and even stopped Christianity) from mandating that people BE of any one particular belief; which is well and good, because no one should be forced by another person to believe in anything, even Christ.

    Atheism and witchcraft and a myriad of other so-called "religions" of today's times have whined about how oppressed their particular style of beliefs has been, thereby attempting to validate them as "religions" at all.

    The First Amendment has been mis-interpreted of late.
    Its purpose was not to separate the belief in God from politics.  It was simply to keep any religious organization from mandating a religion or belief system to the extent that it violated one's personal freedom.

    1. wyanjen profile image88
      wyanjenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, Brenda, no that's not the case.
      Several founding fathers were atheists. This is why many of them came to America in the first place.
      Religion meant belief in god, not which brand of christianity you like.

      How can you group atheism with witchcraft? Wicca is a legitimate religion, and Wiccans have been oppressed. They should not they not complain, because why - they are not popular enough? I'm kinda surprised... I hope you just said that to get a rise out of me lol

      If you think atheism is a religion, then this conversation is a waste of time. Sorry smile but if this is true, then you don't understand the situation. smile

      "Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson

      Peace smile

  6. theirishobserver. profile image59
    theirishobserver.posted 7 years ago

    In our discussion yesterday evening about can a man be forgiven etc etc we touched on this mix of political and religious....why does any politican need to appeal to God or suggest that God is on his side if God views us all as sinners anyway......surely Obama should just wait like the rest of us until the day of 'judgement' and see what ranking he got....up or down...

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      God doesn't view us all as hopeless sinners.

      One is either a sinner, or else a sinner saved by His grace....

  7. theirishobserver. profile image59
    theirishobserver.posted 7 years ago

    And I dont think Obama should be cuttig and pasting from Dr Kings Hub....if he done that here he would be flagged...

  8. 0
    cosetteposted 7 years ago

    well, it's a fine line. don't they swear on the Bible when they are inaugurated? and don't our founding documents mention God here and there?

  9. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    Ron, you're correct about one thing anyway.

    The Way is narrow.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      YOUR way is indeed.  Thankfully your view is only shared by an ever-dwindling minority.

      P.S. - The preponderance of the evidence suggests that no god is a part of that minority.

  10. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    Have it your way.

    Although.....there is plenty of Spiritual evidence as well as physcial evidence.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think you are confusing "wishful thinking" with "evidence."


      You are funny though - I will give you that.

  11. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    I'll take that as a compliment.  Thank you!  big_smile