As I understand it, Mr. Obama is a Muslim. I may be wrong, but I don't believe there has ever been a non-Christian U.S. President, has there?
I understand that the freedom of religion prohibits the discrimination of a candidate based on their faith, and that the separation of church and state should apply, naturally.
I just find it interesting how this point is hardly even raised (at least not that I've heard). Is this not even an issue among all of the Obama supporters? Are they even aware of it?
They aren't aware of it because it simply isn't true, as has been shown by numerous articles in just about every major news source. Either you aren't paying attention, or you are making some kind of backhanded attack on the man. Do it here again, and you'll be watching through the windows. I wanted someone else to win the Democratic nomination, but regardless of who becomes any party's nominee, I will not let anyone attack any political figure because of religion or lack or it, because of skin color, because of what used to be called a mixed-race marriage, or fathering or adopting a a child of another race. I hope my position is crystal clear because this is the only time I will say it. Further comments like this by anyone will be deleted and the poster barred from the site. -------- To answer your final question, several of the Founding Fathers were Deists. There is ample evidence that neither Washington nor Jefferson embraced Christianity. Neither John Adams and his son believed in the divinity of Christ. James Monroe was probably a Deist. Frankly, only a handful of US Presidents were, in any real sense of the words, practicing Christians.
Posts: 16615 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
You understand incorrectly. Whether Mr. Obama is a Muslim or not does not in itself affect my decision to vote (or not to vote) for him, but it does for many people. That is unfortunate, truly. However, making false statements like these are irresponsible and inflammatory and should be left to the garbage world of e-mail hoaxes.
Dorian summed things up quite nicely in his answer but I add to that: if a non-Christian person had been elected to the presidency (since the deist days), he has simply remained quiet about his actual beliefs and towed the God-line just as he is expected to. Can you imagine a candidate admitting that religion makes no difference in ones’ ability to lead the country? Can you imagine if an openly practicing Wiccan or a Buddhist sought the White House? Or an admitted homosexual? Anarchy, that’s my guess. Ignorant, foolish, uneducated anarchy.
Until the masses are better informed, the candidates have a far better success rate pretending to be good practicing Christians, whether they are actually Christian or not -or good or not, for that matter.
Posts: 4384 | Location: Rochester, NY, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Frankly, only a handful of US Presidents were, in any real sense of the words, practicing Christians.
"In any real sense of the words, practicing Christians " That seems highly unlikely in a country where so many people now attend church regularly. Did people not do so in the C19 and C20 ? How do you define "practicing" here ,if not by church attendance ?
Valor D's post, whether faux naif or not, was about Christian or non-Christian.In the context 'Christian' would mean only raised as a Christian and not having forsworn that faith in word or conduct. A Christian then need be no more than British Christians who do no more than one of 'hatch, match and dispatch' at a Church,if that, but still put themselves down as 'Christian' on a census form or survey. By that standard, how many of your Presidents were not Christian?
You have had over 40 Presidents. How many took a Christian form of oath on taking office and how many affirmed or took a non-Christian oath?
For myself, I must have a very low opinion of the knowledge and understanding of Americans.Past American political campaigning has been conspicuous by covert and overt appeals to prejudice, the feeding of misinformation and the reliance on innuendo. There were people who thought 9/11 was the reason for invading Iraq. The country is the native home of 'conspiracy theory'. This is the country that has problems teaching its children evolution and has a serious candidate for President who doubts it.
Given that, it seems quite appropriate to think Obama is Muslim (by any definition) whatever story is put out by the media. It's the kind of belief that many Americans have had before, have still (without asking Governor Huckabee) and persist in, on the flimsiest of fact or no fact at all . Cannot that thinking come into play ?Why,some believed swift boaters (If that's not true then Hussein is my middle name).
There's the rub! How can one tell whether ignorance is feigned or sincere? In view of past practice and/or recent history can one risk giving the benefit of the doubt??? Until it's too late to undo the damage???
I'm not sure that Valor's questions or remarks were meant to be an attack on Obama or not. I think his point was that neither Obama's name, race, nor education seem to be issues to the voting masses whatsoever. We've come very far from September 11, 2001.
Can you imagine in the months immediately following the terrorist attacks, and then the invasion of Iraq, that anyone in the US would have even fathomed that in 2008 we'd be supporting an African American, who had some Muslim background, (however slight), and whose name was 'Barack Hussein Obama' (rhymes with Osama), as a presidential nominee?
I would have said "Never gonna happen!" But Mr. Obama certainly may have my support this election. Perhaps Valor is just wondering something like "How quickly we forget."
Religion was certainly an issue in the JFK campaign, when nobody thought a Roman Catholic was electable. With Romney gone (for now) we don't know if a Mormon is electable, but it sure generated a lot of pundit fodder. Can anyone seriously believe that Senator Obama of Illinois could be a muslim but that everybody's ignoring it? Get real!
Hate to sound pessimistic, but I don't think a Jew or a Muslim would stand much of a chance in a high-profile national election (granted, Lieberman was Gore's running mate in 2000) -- and an atheist, to borrow a line from Johnny Carson, hasn't got a prayer!
Posts: 1900 | Location: U.S. | Registered: 06-03-02
Valor D wrote,"As I understand it ,Mr Obama is a Muslim"
You,as a supposed neutral Site Administrator,responded with " Either you haven't been paying attention or you are making some kind of a backhanded attack on the man...
Do it here again and you'll be watching through the windows...
I hope my position is chrystal clear because this is the only time I will say it...
Further comments like this by anyone will be deleted and the poster will be barred from the site". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Me thinks thou overreacted big time ,dg.
Kind of like pounding a thumbtack in with a sledgehammer...no???
All you had to do was give the man the correct answer ...which you probably already knew.
I gave you credit for having more class than that,dg.
In light of the e-mail campaign (can we call it a 'campaign'? Is it a 'viral campaign'?) on this misconception, DG's reaction is maybe more understandable.
Of course, though, we ought to give Valor the benefit of the doubt, and assume it was just an innocent question, and not part of some republican conspiracy to somehow "innocently" mention Islam or race whenever Obama's name comes up.
The bit about Obama being a Muslim is getting rather frustrating. I agree that DG's reaction was understandable, and I took it not as an attack on Valor D but as a backlash against the entire misguided notion of Obama's religion.
Onto the main subject...
One can be raised with Christians as parents. One can go to church with his or her Christian spouse and join in the worship. Onc can do say their prayers every night and a blessing at every meal. One may do all of these things, do good works, have high morals, and call themselves Christian without ever making the personal commitment to Jesus Christ as his or her Lord and Savior.
Religious affiliation is not in and of itself sufficient. IMHO.
Only Jimmy Carter is listed as born again in the Wikipedia reference. The biblical reference for this is John 3:3. A short explanation of being born again is here.
Most Presidents have been affiliated with a Christian church. Only one, that I know of, has professed to be born again.
Posts: 7617 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
Originally posted by frankvan: "Religious affiliation is not in and of itself sufficient. IMHO."
Not SUFFICIENT for what???
It reads to me that coldfuse is saying that one's religious background is not sufficient justification for a slam of any kind. I agree because of this: I was raised Catholic, but today I am so far removed from that faith that I shouldn't be praised or ridiculed in any way because of my exposure to it. Neither should Obama. (I'm just worried that many will make their decision, (both nay's and aye's), based solely on his skin color, but that's another show).
Originally posted by frankvan: "Religious affiliation is not in and of itself sufficient. IMHO."
Not SUFFICIENT for what???
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," said Jesus (John 3:3).
If you truly follow Christ, then you will believe his words. Simply being affiliated with a Christian church is insufficient to call yourself a Christian. IMHO.
Jimmy Carter is the only President I know of who has professed to being born again.
Perhaps I was not clear.
Posts: 7617 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
No British Prime Minister has been non-Christian. In fact, every single one, over the three hundred years plus that we've had one, has been a Protestant of one kind or another. The nearest to a non-Christian was Benjamin Disraeli,who was born into the Jewish faith. His ambitious parents had him baptized a Protestant Christian.Tony Blair served while a Protestant but has since converted to Roman Catholicism. He may have waited because the Prime Minister is required to advise the Queen on her choice of Archbishop of Canterbury,the senior archbishop of the Church of England, its spiritual leader and head of the Anglicans On the other hand, he never confessed to anything when in office,so perhaps he's making up for that now From 1672 to 1829 no Catholic was allowed to be a Member of Parliament.
If we applied the coldfuse 'born again' test we'd have the impossibility of finding a Briton, let alone a politician Few of our politicians regularly attend a place of worship and none would ever make that a matter of public notice (quite the reverse,if anything).
I can't picture anyone considering voting for Obama, then deciding not to on the strength of that chain-mail. Possibly people already looking for reasons not to vote for him might seize on it, but not anyone genuinely undecided.
Originally posted by newnickname: Possibly people already looking for reasons not to vote for him might seize on it...
I believe that about sums it up.
The only current link I know of between Obama and Islam is the close relationship between Obama's pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan just received the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer award.
Posts: 7617 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
I can't picture anyone considering voting for Obama, then deciding not to on the strength of that chain-mail. Possibly people already looking for reasons not to vote for him might seize on it, but not anyone genuinely undecided.
Judging from tonight's Texas "debate" you are to vote against Obama because he steals someone else's telling phrase. That's from a candidate who would never stoop so low or be so dishonourable as to steal any of his
Following this I could hear all those judges who say to counsel , in a world weary tone," Mr __ , is that your best point ?" shortly followed by "I hear what you say. Shall we get on ?"
My post was sincere. I had heard that the reason Mr. Obama would not salute the US flag was because it's against the Muslim faith to do so. Apparantly, I was misinformed. At no time was I trying to be discriminatory in any way. I was simply curious. Guess maybe I'd better find elsewhere to ask questions which I don't know the answers to, based on DG's heated response.
And, just for the record, I AM a Democrat. Therefore, I have no reason to bash a Democratic candidate. Nor am I any kind of racist. Both the best man at my wedding and my first born's Godfather were both black, FYI.
On the other hand, he never confessed to anything when in office,so perhaps he's making up for that now 
Few of our politicians regularly attend a place of worship and none would ever make that a matter of public notice (quite the reverse,if anything).
