Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Since so many people here are against religion in government, I thought this might be interesting.

Quotes from the President (taken from the article):

And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself

Obviously we'll ignore for the moment that the President is taking this command out of context, and that the assertion that Jesus is God is likely to offend a lot of people.

And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required

Also, lets ignore the context of this parable. Because if you read the whole parable, or even the whole verse, or even the language of the sentence, it is inconsistent with his message.

And when I decide to stand up for foreign aid, or prevent atrocities in places like Uganda, or take on issues like human trafficking, it’s not just about strengthening alliances, or promoting democratic values, or projecting American leadership around the world, although it does all those things and it will make us safer and more secure. It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these — for the poor; for those at the margins of our society.

To answer the responsibility we’re given in Proverbs to 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.

I like this one. Unabashed use of government resources to further biblical teachings. Where's the "wall of separation between church and state*" Barry?

I'll take that one completely out of context too.

A Western leader relating his actions to other aspects of Western culture? Surely not...
He's speaking rhetorically, it's what he does for a living. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Joey wrote:A Western leader relating his actions to other aspects of Western culture? Surely not...
He's speaking rhetorically, it's what he does for a living. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Also, as I recall, every US politician ever uses God as an excuse/motivation/reason for everything. That's kind of par for the course over there,
given how much more seriously they take religion.

I don't think acknowledging that your religion influences your actions means you cannot believe in a certain level of seperation between the state and organized religion.

If your level of acceptable influence is never, not at all, no mention of anything than, yeah, you would be against this. But there are a lot of different levels on the scale of what you believe should happen in government with regards to religion.

That is a masterly argument to shut down foreign aid, the best I've seen.

biccat wrote:Since so many people here are against religion in government, I thought this might be interesting.

Quotes from the President (taken from the article):

And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself

Obviously we'll ignore for the moment that the President is taking this command out of context, and that the assertion that Jesus is God is likely to offend a lot of people.

And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required

Also, lets ignore the context of this parable. Because if you read the whole parable, or even the whole verse, or even the language of the sentence, it is inconsistent with his message.

And when I decide to stand up for foreign aid, or prevent atrocities in places like Uganda, or take on issues like human trafficking, it’s not just about strengthening alliances, or promoting democratic values, or projecting American leadership around the world, although it does all those things and it will make us safer and more secure. It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these — for the poor; for those at the margins of our society.

To answer the responsibility we’re given in Proverbs to 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.

I like this one. Unabashed use of government resources to further biblical teachings. Where's the "wall of separation between church and state*" Barry?

I'll take that one completely out of context too.

You are surprised that a US politician has misconstrued the bible?

Most base their careers on it...

The religious portions of the speech are not speaking of any aspect that christianity has a sole claim to. Fortunately one does not need religion or the same religion as above to have similar morals and want to help others in need. If an ideology has some shared "space" with religions on grounds of helping people should the ideology be also barred from politics? The POTUS is talking about helping others, not like he is saying god told him to goto war...

biccat wrote:
...and that the assertion that Jesus is God is likely to offend a lot of people.

Who, Christians that don't know what the Trinity is?

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
...and that the assertion that Jesus is God is likely to offend a lot of people.

Who, Christians that don't know what the Trinity is?

More like Orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc.

biccat wrote:Since so many people here are against religion in government, I thought this might be interesting.

You were wrong. It's a really, tired, boring old argument, that's been dragged up in one form or another for a very long time.

There is nothing wrong with making an argument that draws upon the moral teachings of one's religious upbringing. There certainly isn't anything wrong with mentioning God in a speach.

There is a problem with some religious sects who believe that their faith is the only faith of any value, and seek to enshrine the belief in law. These people have close ties to the Republican party, including prominent members such as Michelle Bachmann, and that is why the Republican party draws criticism on seperation of church and state.

Lordhat wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
...and that the assertion that Jesus is God is likely to offend a lot of people.

Who, Christians that don't know what the Trinity is?

More like Orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc.

Any non- Christian, or non-orthodox Christian, offended by the concept of the Trinity would already have been offended long before this speech, especially if living in a country that is predominantly Christian.

Policy proposals based on nothing more than religious doctrine are, by and large, restricted to Christian conservatives in the US - gay marriage opposition, "intelligent design," prayer in public schools, stem cell research opposition, abstinence-only sex eduction, etc. What biccat seems to be doing here is saying, "See! See! The left does it, too!"

I think the big difference is that Obama's clearly pandering. I very much doubt Obama cares one way or another what Jesus said about anything, but knows that there are plenty of people in the US who do, thus...pandering.

Seaward wrote:Policy proposals based on nothing more than religious doctrine are, by and large, restricted to Christian conservatives in the US - gay marriage opposition, "intelligent design," prayer in public schools, stem cell research opposition, abstinence-only sex eduction, etc. What biccat seems to be doing here is saying, "See! See! The left does it, too!"

Yeah, and it’s a very old, boring argument he’s trying to make. And it’s worth pointing out the origins of intelligent design come directly from the court banning the teaching of the bible in school.

I think the big difference is that Obama's clearly pandering. I very much doubt Obama cares one way or another what Jesus said about anything, but knows that there are plenty of people in the US who do, thus...pandering.

Not so much pandering as trying to frame the argument. It’d be pandering if he believed people would hear it and be excited at his Christian references, and vote for him just on the strength of that. Instead, Obama is trying to frame each issue in religious terms, to reduce the ability of his opponent’s to criticise him on religious grounds. The left has avoided religious references for a long time, and ceded the ground to people who call themselves Christian all the time but embrace polices that aren’t very Christian at all.

And I think Obama does care what Jesus thinks, as he is, afterall, a Christian.

The GOP frames itself as the "Political Party of the Bible", wanting to return the country to it's "Christian" roots, Christian family values, etc...

But when it comes to taking care of the poor, they always want to look the other way.

So I don't really see anything wrong with pointing out the double standard by the GOP there.

d-usa wrote:The GOP frames itself as the "Political Party of the Bible", wanting to return the country to it's "Christian" roots, Christian family values, etc...

But when it comes to taking care of the poor, they always want to look the other way.

So I don't really see anything wrong with pointing out the double standard by the GOP there.

When Jesus returns he will be arrested crossing the border from mexico and if he somehow makes it intot he country he will be thrown into an asylum under the belief tht he is a crackhead...

I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.

Especially when their argument is, essentially, "It's OK when the guys I like do it, it's not OK when the guys I don't like do it."

I just don't understand how someone could be so wrapped up in another country's politics, to the point that they're willing to throw away any intellectual honesty to defend the politician they favor.

I've really appreciated the comments in this thread, mainly for the mental gymnastics and Republican bashing.

sebster wrote:
And I think Obama does care what Jesus thinks, as he is, afterall, a Christian.

As opposed to a Muslim Marxist, as he has been labelled in the past (despite those two things being pretty much incompatible.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.

Especially when their argument is, essentially, "It's OK when the guys I like do it, it's not OK when the guys I don't like do it."

I just don't understand how someone could be so wrapped up in another country's politics, to the point that they're willing to throw away any intellectual honesty to defend the politician they favor.

I've really appreciated the comments in this thread, mainly for the mental gymnastics and Republican bashing.

I have to admit, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here. So far I've seen very little of that; what I have seen is the point made that Obama is playing on his faith (as all US politicians are wont to do in one form or another) and the difference between that and openly using your religious doctrine as the be-all and end-all of any political argument, as some extreme minorities in the US do.

biccat wrote:I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.

Sort of like all those conservatives who were howling for Clinton's blood over the Lewinsky scandal yet find themselves supporting Newt "Harem-King" Gingrich today, eh?

As opposed to a Muslim Marxist, as he has been labelled in the past (despite those two things being pretty much incompatible.)

Not Marxist, but I'll just leave this here.

Seaward wrote:

biccat wrote:I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.

Sort of like all those conservatives who were howling for Clinton's blood over the Lewinsky scandal yet find themselves supporting Newt "Harem-King" Gingrich today, eh?

Sort of. Except the conservatives supporting Gingrich tend to be Americans. And the Clinton scandal had more to do with abuse of office than it had to do with Clinton's sexual activities.

So, actually, if by "sort of" you mean "not at all," then yes.

biccat wrote:I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.

Especially when their argument is, essentially, "It's OK when the guys I like do it, it's not OK when the guys I don't like do it."

I just don't understand how someone could be so wrapped up in another country's politics, to the point that they're willing to throw away any intellectual honesty to defend the politician they favor.

I've really appreciated the comments in this thread, mainly for the mental gymnastics and Republican bashing.

The Bible contains 10 commandments, such as "Thou Shalt Not Steal".

Does that mean theft should be legalised in the USA owing to the separation of state and religion?

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.

Especially when their argument is, essentially, "It's OK when the guys I like do it, it's not OK when the guys I don't like do it."

I just don't understand how someone could be so wrapped up in another country's politics, to the point that they're willing to throw away any intellectual honesty to defend the politician they favor.

I've really appreciated the comments in this thread, mainly for the mental gymnastics and Republican bashing.

The Bible contains 10 commandments, such as "Thou Shalt Not Steal".

Does that mean theft should be legalised in the USA owing to the separation of state and religion?

(Looks at W-2 form and the amount of money the government just took from me)
Wait, theft isn't legalized now?

Frazzled wrote:

As opposed to a Muslim Marxist, as he has been labelled in the past (despite those two things being pretty much incompatible.)

Not Marxist, but I'll just leave this here.

He's taking the bad without noting the good, but he does make some points.
Also, yeah, the point I was making was that Marxism and Atheism are supposed to go hand-in-hand, or so I'm told.

biccat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

biccat wrote:I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.

Sort of like all those conservatives who were howling for Clinton's blood over the Lewinsky scandal yet find themselves supporting Newt "Harem-King" Gingrich today, eh?

Sort of. Except the conservatives supporting Gingrich tend to be Americans. And the Clinton scandal had more to do with abuse of office than it had to do with Clinton's sexual activities.

So, actually, if by "sort of" you mean "not at all," then yes.

Before the "abuse of office" aspects came to light - if they ever did, and ultimately I don't consider lying under oath about getting head to be the end of the world, which is one of the many reasons I'm not welcome at Focus on the Family prayer breakfasts anymore - I don't recall conservatives taking a calm, collected, non-gak-flipping view of the fact that Clinton was getting it from someone other than his wife. That might be what social conservatives like to pretend in retrospect, but the "Think of the children!"-style outrage was non-stop.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:He's taking the bad without noting the good, but he does make some points.

You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:The Bible contains 10 commandments, such as "Thou Shalt Not Steal".

Does that mean theft should be legalised in the USA owing to the separation of state and religion?

According to some, yes.

I'd address your point in more detail, but I suspect you're just here to drop a one-liner and then avoid engaging in any discussion until you've got another witty one-liner to throw in.

biccat wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:He's taking the bad without noting the good, but he does make some points.

You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life.

I would agree. After all, with all that Preacher said, the US also did a hell of a lot for others; I'll just bring up the Marshall Plan as an example, or the graves in France where you'll find some of the US war dead from the second world war.
Truth is, no country or thing can be totally good or totally evil. That only happens in early comic books and old disney movies.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

biccat wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:He's taking the bad without noting the good, but he does make some points.

You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life.

I would agree. After all, with all that Preacher said, the US also did a hell of a lot for others; I'll just bring up the Marshall Plan as an example, or the graves in France where you'll find some of the US war dead from the second world war.
Truth is, no country or thing can be totally good or totally evil. That only happens in early comic books and old disney movies.

Except for the Dark Realm that is Liechtenstein...

Frazzled wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

biccat wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:He's taking the bad without noting the good, but he does make some points.

You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life.

I would agree. After all, with all that Preacher said, the US also did a hell of a lot for others; I'll just bring up the Marshall Plan as an example, or the graves in France where you'll find some of the US war dead from the second world war.
Truth is, no country or thing can be totally good or totally evil. That only happens in early comic books and old disney movies.

Except for the Dark Realm that is Liechtenstein...

We don't talk about that. It's bad luck to talk about that.

biccat wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:He's taking the bad without noting the good, but he does make some points.

You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:The Bible contains 10 commandments, such as "Thou Shalt Not Steal".

Does that mean theft should be legalised in the USA owing to the separation of state and religion?

According to some, yes.

I'd address your point in more detail, but I suspect you're just here to drop a one-liner and then avoid engaging in any discussion until you've got another witty one-liner to throw in.

In other words you don't have a good counterpoint.

I'm pretty sure Jesus would not have been a big fan of granting the Romans more power and authority to collect taxes which then filtered through Rome's bureaucracy could have been used to care for the poor and needy.

I would be willing to bet he was advocating individuals searching their hearts and deciding to help others because it was a good thing vice because some tax collector backed by a century of sword armed troopers forced you to give and then parsed out the money as they saw fit.