GrimmJeeper
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Gardena, CA
shhh :eyes:5-90 said:
I missed the news.. True? Did he say this?
- Thread starter scottmcneal
- Start date
scottmcneal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- not here
SBrad001 said:Hey Scott,
It appears that with a simple Google search, that the quote is true and attributed to Obama.
Have fun with that one!
Thank you sir, i was thinking my friend was being a a$$ again.. I'm not trying to be a ass myself, just asking..
- Location
- Southern Maryland
Well the country is certainly built on Christian standards. Just look at monogamy, for example. If we were truly neutral about it we'd have polygamy 200 years ago.
All of NATO is a white christian gun club
All of NATO is a white christian gun club
Smittty9785
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- SE Portland Oregon
amen brother x2...GrimmJeeper said:im catholic
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
TRNDRVR said:
Yeah. Ron White said it best - "You can't fix stupid."
My BIL is an example of the "rock-bottom-hitting born-again." It's been eleven years, and he still tries to preach to me until I just tell him to shut up.
Whack jobs? More than a few - unfortunately, global population is too large to get rid of them (the Law of Averages will produce them, if nothing else.)
@ehall - "Christian Standards?" Probably - considering that the Judeo-Christian ethos was predominant at the time. And I can't really argue with you on your NATO comment, either.
However, isn't polygamy only common in Mormon societies and "tribal" populations? Not that I've any trouble with it, but we seem to have "evolved away" from it.
(I honestly don't have a problem with polygamy/andry/gyny - as long as everyone involved is happy and it works for them.)
Mtb Jak
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Seattle WA
..anti...christ...
KickFacer Media
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Spokane, Washington
Obamas Campaign is all about "CHANGE" Well at least that’s what he is running with!.
Many people do not like president bush "CHANGE"
Health Insurance "CHANGE"
Out Source Manufacturing "CHANGE"
Retirement and Economic "CHANGE" "CHANGE" "CHANGE"
He can't win with only the Christian vote, so he is going after every religion of the diverse country we reside in.
Every campaign takes risks sometimes with reward.
He is the nominee and has the Clinton endorsement, I do not think that a few offended Christians will damage the democratic campaign, because with every Christian turned off may be two voters that think back to the fact that America was built on immigration and diversity, not religion.
KickFacer Media
Many people do not like president bush "CHANGE"
Health Insurance "CHANGE"
Out Source Manufacturing "CHANGE"
Retirement and Economic "CHANGE" "CHANGE" "CHANGE"
He can't win with only the Christian vote, so he is going after every religion of the diverse country we reside in.
Every campaign takes risks sometimes with reward.
He is the nominee and has the Clinton endorsement, I do not think that a few offended Christians will damage the democratic campaign, because with every Christian turned off may be two voters that think back to the fact that America was built on immigration and diversity, not religion.
KickFacer Media
- Location
- Southern Maryland
It's very common in Muslim culture. In fact it's more common at the top of society since one of the rules is that you can only have as many wives as you can afford to support.5-90 said:
If we are fill-in-the-blank nation like B. Hussein said then polygamy would be legal here. It's not, and we're not.
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
KickFacer Media said:
Change for its own sake is not necessarily a good thing. Change in the right direction in. Every time we've "changed" administrations, they've "changed" things that really only "change" the way we're getting screwed.
Now, if you don't mind my asking, who is you? I find it somehow interesting that your first post is political (or a political comment, at least) and that it comes accompanied by a logo...
(And you've gone to an awful lot of effort to make your text stand out as well...)
blondejoncherokee
NAXJA Member
- Location
- sacramento
america was founded by those flleing religious persecution. if we where to say we are not accepting of all religions we would be creating a terrible hypocracy. he is just stating the obvious.
Ray H
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Falling Waters, WV
ehall said:
I challenge you to find anything in the constitution that says anything about polygamy.
http://www.constitution.org/usconsti.htm
The U.S. constitution has nothing at all to do with marriage. Our federal courts have never said "no polygamists". Its the state constitutions that regulate who gets married in their state.
No doubt the people who wrote the constitution based it upon their christian or christianish morals but they also made it clear that religious beliefs were to remain out of the business of governing. (you remember the whole church and state thing). They could'nt have written anything less christian than that.
WB9YZU
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Madison, WI
Thoughts on the Original post, and some of it's responses:
I think that if one reposts someone else's email to you, they should make it perfectly clear what the question is, and what the quote is.
The posting was poorly written. The question was in the title, and the entire quote (and nothing else) was the message. That made it appear that the message was from the original poster.
To quote someone here, and to make it abundantly clear that it is actually a quote, use the tags to quote "<quote>" and "</quote>" before and after the text to be quoted. Otherwise it is easy to read the message as though they are your own thoughts.
Include in the message the reason for your question, like "I received this via email, is this an accurate quote?". That will emphasize that you are not the one whose ideas you are presenting.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That aside, I agree with a number of posters on a few points.
The Salem witch trials were before 1776.
The Founding Fathers were by and large men of their times in that they believed in equality for Men, not Property( which Slaves were) or Women.
By 1776, the general religious outlook of the settlers was Christian, in that they believed in one God and the teachings of the Holy Bible, but that each religion was different in it's exact belief. To that extent, we were a "Christian Nation".
I believe that one has to put the very much abused "Freedom of Religion" and "Separation of Church and State" in the context of the times. One example, and the one which directly applies to the colonies, was the Church Of England. This was much more than just a religion, it was the religion in England. The King of England was also the Head of the Church Of England. So, you were either a member of the Church of England, or you were an enemy of the King, and thus an enemy of the State. England was not alone in this practice.
The idea of "Freedom of Religion" was so that you were able to follow your own Religious beliefs without fear of governmental interference (Example: The Spanish Inquisition was the King of Spain's attempt to stamp out Muslim and Jewish influences in Spain by making everyone convert to Roman Catholicism.).
The idea of "Separation of Church and State" was simply to separate the functions of Church, and that of the State due to the abuse of power by the King which affected both Church and State.
Neither idea was intended to be used as a club to repress people you don't agree with the way they are today, but to separate the State from the Church and to allow more freedom to practice whatever religion you wanted as long as it was not harmful to society.
I think that if one reposts someone else's email to you, they should make it perfectly clear what the question is, and what the quote is.
The posting was poorly written. The question was in the title, and the entire quote (and nothing else) was the message. That made it appear that the message was from the original poster.
To quote someone here, and to make it abundantly clear that it is actually a quote, use the tags to quote "<quote>" and "</quote>" before and after the text to be quoted. Otherwise it is easy to read the message as though they are your own thoughts.
Include in the message the reason for your question, like "I received this via email, is this an accurate quote?". That will emphasize that you are not the one whose ideas you are presenting.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That aside, I agree with a number of posters on a few points.
The Salem witch trials were before 1776.
The Founding Fathers were by and large men of their times in that they believed in equality for Men, not Property( which Slaves were) or Women.
By 1776, the general religious outlook of the settlers was Christian, in that they believed in one God and the teachings of the Holy Bible, but that each religion was different in it's exact belief. To that extent, we were a "Christian Nation".
I believe that one has to put the very much abused "Freedom of Religion" and "Separation of Church and State" in the context of the times. One example, and the one which directly applies to the colonies, was the Church Of England. This was much more than just a religion, it was the religion in England. The King of England was also the Head of the Church Of England. So, you were either a member of the Church of England, or you were an enemy of the King, and thus an enemy of the State. England was not alone in this practice.
The idea of "Freedom of Religion" was so that you were able to follow your own Religious beliefs without fear of governmental interference (Example: The Spanish Inquisition was the King of Spain's attempt to stamp out Muslim and Jewish influences in Spain by making everyone convert to Roman Catholicism.).
The idea of "Separation of Church and State" was simply to separate the functions of Church, and that of the State due to the abuse of power by the King which affected both Church and State.
Neither idea was intended to be used as a club to repress people you don't agree with the way they are today, but to separate the State from the Church and to allow more freedom to practice whatever religion you wanted as long as it was not harmful to society.
Last edited:
- Location
- Bakersfield, CA
TRNDRVR said:
So, what about us Christ believing but not wack job religious and not bottom hitting yet born again Christians?
Are we OK?
I always wonder why some are compelled to insult as soon as a religious topic comes up. And the insults can go both ways.
I strongly believe in the Christ of Christianity, and I strongly believe that this country was partially founded on moral principles that were derived from Chritianity, and I strongly believe that our country has always intended to protect anyone's religious freedom. While I would like to think that this is a Christian nation, it certainly is not. Because of the shear volume of church goers in the past, that argument could have been made, but as some have said we are really a free country, free to believe or not to believe in whatever we choose. Of course, I also strongly believe that taxes, attorneys, career politicians, and radical environmentalists are gradually removing our freedoms.
From my own personal perspective, I think Obama's comment is unfortunate, but it certainly is true and I would not take issue with it. Now, that doesn't go for some comments that I've heard his wife has made. They are certainly VERY liberal when it comes to positions on American pride and patriotism......from the impressions I've come to.
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
100% total insecurity.Goatman said:
Pretty much the same reason so many born againers preach like they do.
Two types of people who are so much alike they can't stand each other.
- Location
- Torrance, CA
I've always phrased it as we're not a Christian nation but a nation of (mostly) Christians, is that changing? Perhaps, don't know, I don't run the numbers.
And this is coming from heathen scum!
And this is coming from heathen scum!
Ray H
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Falling Waters, WV
Goatman said:So, what about us Christ believing but not wack job religious and not bottom hitting yet born again Christians?
Are we OK?
I always wonder why some are compelled to insult as soon as a religious topic comes up. And the insults can go both ways.
I strongly believe in the Christ of Christianity, and I strongly believe that this country was partially founded on moral principles that were derived from Chritianity, and I strongly believe that our country has always intended to protect anyone's religious freedom. While I would like to think that this is a Christian nation, it certainly is not. Because of the shear volume of church goers in the past, that argument could have been made, but as some have said we are really a free country, free to believe or not to believe in whatever we choose. Of course, I also strongly believe that taxes, attorneys, career politicians, and radical environmentalists are gradually removing our freedoms.
From my own personal perspective, I think Obama's comment is unfortunate, but it certainly is true and I would not take issue with it. Now, that doesn't go for some comments that I've heard his wife has made. They are certainly VERY liberal when it comes to positions on American pride and patriotism......from the impressions I've come to.
EVERYONE, pay close attention.
I am not religious, I do not believe in christ.
Goatman, very nice and respectful post. I agree with you 100%, carry on.
EVERYONE, see how easy it is to get along? Two people, completely opposed in their religious beliefs discussing something respectfully and without walking on each others faith, or lack of.
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
Thats because you and Goatman are both secure in your beliefs and don't give a rats ass what someone else believes in. Some here should take some lessons.Ray H said:
