I was thinking all of Presidents in the past attend a Church,I notice this President doesn't go. I know before he was elected he when and I know the trouble that church brought him. So what is your thought.
Obama has stated that he and Michelle like to attend church in DC but find their presence disrupts services thanks to all the extra security surrounding them, so they reserve church attendance in DC for major occasions and attend services at Camp David when they are visiting there. Obama also has his chaplain send him a devotional every day.
I was just going to add this, but you said it well. he spoke about it on the matt lauer interview this past week. probably if he did go, then people would criticize him for his choice of church. for some, he can do no right and it will always be this way for every president.
If that's true then in my book it is possibly a good sign that he doesn't go to church... I thought, for a start, he was being CRITICIZED not too long ago for his PARTICIPATION in a certain church. Either way, I consider it a bloody insult to imply that churchgoers are better in some way than non-churchgoers. I have an entire extended family of upstanding, upright, moral members of society who do not go to church.
Whether it is a minority opinion or not is neither here nor there. Truth is not decided based on majority rule. The truth is that the implication that my family, who are agnostics, are somehow less moral than someone who goes to church is outrageous. Period.
Either way, if you hadn't noticed I was AGREEING with your basic point. But I won't be wasting any more time on you. I'll just bide my time till you get banned... again.
how does it matter ..it is his personal choice..isn't it?...yes how he runs country is of course matter of public scrutiny but how he manages his faith is simply his personal matter...thats what i think about it...
Well, what kind of percentage do you require to have a "great" majority?
And, given the nebulosity of "spiritual" stuff, what constitutes a conviction that "religion determines the quality" of a person as opposed to just the quality of the person? I'd love to know what you base that claim on.
So you are saying that 85% of Americans believe that religion determines the quality of a person? Meaning, that only 15% of people in America believe that a person's actions and history matter more than the affiliation that person may have with some religion or another regardless of how devout or loose?
Not only do I find that preposterous and suggestive of a mindset that may be entirely beyond reason, rendering this conversationi pointless, I can't fathom where the data comes from that informs such a bold and broad-brushed judgment laid upon an entire populace of unique individuals.
85% of Americans consider faith somewhat or very important in their lives. Things that are important to people tend to influence their decisions, no?
"a summer 2007 poll by the Forum and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that almost seven-in-ten Americans agreed with the statement, "It's important to me that a president have strong religious beliefs."
the article is very interesting. the survey only encompasses 35,000 americans aged 18 and over. it shows there are great changes in religion in america. here is one of the findings.
"The Landscape Survey confirms that the United States is on the verge of becoming a minority Protestant country; the number of Americans who report that they are members of Protestant denominations now stands at barely 51%."
here's another interesting one for those who preach their way is the only way"
"Most Americans also have a non-dogmatic approach when it comes to interpreting the tenets of their own religion. For instance, more than two-thirds of adults affiliated with a religious tradition agree that there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their faith, a pattern that occurs in nearly all traditions."
What difference does it matter where I got my numbers from? I tell you, then you have two choices- think either that is not one you agree with therefore give no credit to or that their is some political agenda behind it therefore giving no credit to it.
So, there is no rational answer to give you, because you can twist is to however you suit. Therefore, where I get my information is from due diligent research.
No individual poll or survey was used. A Collective of information was gathered, to gain a rational and sane conclusion.
You can spout about 12% of American are Atheist or whatever. But, until you collectively look at the whole and not just those surveyed, you will not get an accurate number.
Most surveys are driven by the agenda of those who want to convey a specific message through the media. For what reason? It isn't to pass knowledge or understanding, but to spread fear or ignorance.
That was not what Sab Oh's claim was. His comment was in response to mine, where I said: Religion does not determine the quality of people. In fact frequently it does quite the opposite.
To which he then replied: The great majority of Americans disagree with you.
And then he went on to pull out his 85% number. The point was not whether there is a large percentage of Americans that are religious, or so affiliated. His claim, based on my question, was that 85% of Americans feel that religion is what determines the quality of a person. I went on to seek clarity, asking if there is any credit given to a person just being a quality person, you know, as in actions and deeds rather than where they spend their Sunday mornings, to which he wriggled away talking about how some report said that ALMOST 7 out of 10 (so "almost" 70%, not 85) feel that "religion is somewhat to very important in their lives."
That is hardly support for the claim that 85% of people believe religion is what determines the quality of people. In fact, it is nebulous, has percentages that are not only not specifically what was given (suggesting that these numbers are being pulled out of the old backside region) but that rely on terms like "almost" and "somewhat" to keep the claim from becoming entirely empty.
So, respectfully, I suggest that Sab Oh is NOT correct, and that you might have missed the first part of the conversation, Cags, thus leading to believe he had a point there. I hope this clears that up.
Although, honestly, if I *were* a church-going (or where-ever going) person...I REALLY wouldn't want that to be a matter for public consumption. That's a personal feeling though...and politically no good so perhaps not what's going on here.
This is true. But I also don't think it should be such a big deal(ETA: for the President). I think an Atheist could run the country as well as a Christian - as well as Muslim, Jewish person, Hindu, Buddhist...whatever...The point is they'd be human AND a politician...LOL.
Obama is a politician first and a Muslim/Christian second. As a politician he doesn't want to offend either side so he stays away from any religion. He has a history of catering to the Muslim ideology. But while seeking political office here he found it expedient to attend a "Christian" church. If the Martians landed and took over he'd join the Martian Brotherhood of Universal Wisdom. The vast majority of politicians are godless.
Oh for crap's sake! Religion is not a part of a democratic, pluralistic society. The founders separated church and state for a good reason: millenia of religous wars and corruption, just like now. Beside, you don't bully people into a faith, and faith is an ongoing and very personal thing. People either believe, or they don't. Whatever your numbers, subtract the bigots, the haters, the liars, the hypocrits, and you will not have many "upright" religious types left. Do you still call these people "Christians"? Can't people be undeclared believers? Most religions are more like political parties than groups trying to be good people. Check your figures again, and not on Faux. People are leaving religions in droves because religions do not really represent what they say they believe. We will know they are (fill in the blank) by their love.
I see it this way: Obama is redefining the meaning of "individual rights." So if he wants to be a Muslim and not attend a Christian church -- that's his right. If he does attend church, he'll upset his brothers in the Middle East. The way he snubbed Israel recently was classic. Terrorists 1, Infidels 0.
Whether a president goes to church or doesn't, I really don't care. Where I'd knock points off is if a president only goes to church because he thinks that's what will keep an approval rating up. More point off from me if a president were to talk too much about going to church and what he believes. That's something I think a president needs to primarily leave out of the business of being a president.
With any luck he will be like all the other people in public office in America and just goes along with religion because he has to. Not too many heads of industry or Government are allowed to be without a religion in the USA. One of the things about America that others laugh about.
There's no law against atheists running for office. If an atheist isn't "allowed" to serve in public office, it's because the people don't vote for him or her in enough numbers. It's one of the pitfalls of living in a Democratic Republic. Would you prefer to force an atheist politician on unwilling voters?
No, it's just stupid to put that out as a litmus test on people as if that proves whether they're worthy or not. You're basically saying this is a Christian Democracy, and HELLO! That's no Democracy at all! There are all kinds of people who live here. It's not a monopoly. And if it is, that needs to c-h-a-n-g-e.
During the election campaign Obama was crucified for going to his church in Chicago. Now the same mentally challenged people are castigating him for allegedly not attending church. You people are shameless.
He and the First Lady prefer the Chapel at Camp David. They are saving us money by not going to church. Do you realize the logistics for that and the inconvenience to the church when a President attends? He gets much advice from religious leaders and many Christians on all sides of the political spectrum are praying for him and Michelle. I see no problem with this. It is only a problem with others, deal with it. IMO
So what! What makes a good person is not determined by someone going to church or any religious or holy places. I have witnessed some very unsavory people who because in their beliefs, think that they have the right to say and do whatever they feel like to other fellow humans. What gives you the right to judge and criticize any one? You do not show a morel higher ground just by going to church. Religion is the cause of all the evil. Religion does not allow tolerance with people that do not conform to your way of thinking. You would be better of going to church to find peace and not to claim a higher ground just because you choose to go there.
I also heard an interview with a man who worked with Obama back in his community organizing days. He said there was a ghetto in Chicago that no body would dare go into...except for Obama. He went in there and helped the tenants organize for better living conditions. There is something really special about him...something intangible,can't put your finger on it. He can't be rattled.
My people don't play. And you don't want to mess with Black Christians. If you make them angry, they gonna hurt you. They gonna send you to God in some instances. The fact that they may hurt or destroy...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … ogyny.htmlThis:"Donald Trump holds one core belief. It’s not limited government. He favored a state takeover of health care before he was against it. Nor is it...
It appears to me that the torture issue, as Frank Rich observed in today's NY Times, is "bigger" than Obama. Rich's Op-ed provides a concise summary of where the issue currently stands. In my opinion, Obama...
After THUMPING Clinton in Monday night’s debate, Trump headed to the sunshine state for a YUGE RALLY in Melbourne, Florida. (National poll has Trump 46.7% and Clinton 42.6%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/ )...