When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JustADude
15 years ago
Remember all the grief and anguish over the Huckabee ad with a cross in the background?
Oxford Dictionary for audacity: Boldness, Confidance, combined with recklessness, venturesomeness, open disregard of decorum or morality, efforntrey, shamlessness, unblushing insolence.
It fits perfectly.
I can’t believe this guy.
Aye Chihuahua
15 years ago
Yes, I remember the Huckabee issue and the grief he received over a cross that was not really a cross but a bookcase.
This is really a cross.
I’m waiting for the lefty howling any minute now.
Waiting, but not holding my breath.
Still waiting…..
Something must have held them up…..
They should be along any minute now……
Hellloooooo……
Anyone here????
Sky?
Doug?
Stevie?
Any minute now…
Consistency and intellectual honesty demand that they step forward and say something regarding this issue.
Kathie: Obama does have a church goers deficit. Just like putting on the flag pin when it’s convenient, he pulls out the old rugged cross to suit his needs.
What I found really interesting (sorry I didn’t mention it in the post) was the he was going to “go out and do the Lord’s work.”
so what side is obama really on? oh, yeah, his side is the only one that matters. i hope he isn’t elected, he makes me want to be sick. he is an arrogant piece of crap who will stop at nothing to pander to the american people.
Machiavelli
15 years ago
You must be kidding me! BHO “doing the Lord’s work???” Given the church he went to, I’m more than a little nervous over what his and Jeremiah “God damn America” Wright’s version of the “doing the Lord’s work” is…
So, this was put out by the Kentucky Democrats it looks like; looks like they still believe BHO has cracks in his facade that need to be shored up. My educated guess is that Hillary will sweep the remaining primaries (with the possible exception of Oregon). Given that the results of Florida and Michigan are still being ignored by the DNC; who are increasingly desparate to annoint BHO as their messiah. Every MSM pundit and their uncle is trying to call BHO the winner, and talking about Democratic Party unity. After having the gaul to complain about conservative talk radio, liberals aren’t complaining much about every other outlet kissing BHO’s feet.
Kevin
15 years ago
Sorry if this is off-topic, but out of curiosity (sincere curiosity – not trying to get under anyone’s skin)… in an election between Obama and a atheistic-Fred-Thompson*, who would get your vote?
*That is, a candidate who took the exact same line as Fred on all foreign, domestic, and economic policy issues. On social matters, let’s say he was a propenent of outlawing elective abortions, felt people should always be free to express their religious views (yes, even in a professional capacity while working for the government), and took his lack of belief in deitites no further than what basic integrity would demand (e.g. not completing his inaugural address with “So help me God”; omitting “under God” when reciting the pledge; etc.).
On one hand, it seems like I’ve stacked the deck to a ridiculous level: of course any reasonable person would vote for the atheist FT in this situation. On the other hand, I must wonder if the denizens of this blog think like Pat “I’d like to say to the citizens of Dover, if there is a disaster in your area don’t turn to god; you just rejected him from your city” Robertson, and figure electing an infidel president might anger your god, and that 4 years of Carternomics + terrorist-appeasement + (… all the other crap there is to fear from Obama…) might be preferable to the outrage of your god.
BarbaraS
15 years ago
Well, im answer to your question I don’t let religion enter into the equation. After all, the Constitution strictly forbids it. And I am wary of zealots of any kind. But then again, there are people who think a president has to be deeply religious in order to function. He does not. He needs to put the welfare of the American people first, last and foremost. That would be his job.
Obama is so false. He is not a Christian but a black separatist. His church believes that Jesus was black. That God is black. Therefore, he does not worship Jesus the Jew but a fantasy in his own mind. He will probably win over some people with this ploy. I hope not because he would be a disaster as president. He is a disaster as a senator and he would be a disaster as dogcatcher. Oh, I forgot, muslims won’t touch dogs will they? My bad.
When the media gets snarky about republican cadidates using religion the republican need to ignore them and not cave to them. After all, it doesn’t matter what the republican say they will get snark. This is how the media gets their power. Everyone caves to them.
BarbaraS, I’m not trying to be snarky, but where does the Constitution ‘forbid’ any association with religion?
Aye Chihuahua
15 years ago
Kate,
There is a provision in the Constitution that there be no religious test as a requirement or qualification for holding any federal office.
In other words, office holders are not required to adhere to a certain religion.
Article VI, Section III
Kevin
15 years ago
Before I start, for some reason this line seemed really, really funny:
“Therefore, he does not worship Jesus the Jew but a fantasy in his own mind. ”
Moving on though – Barbara, as others have pointed out, there is nothing in our constitution which forbids you from voting for officials based on their religion (or race, or gender, or fashion sense). All the Consitution says is that Congress cannot enact laws which have a discriminatory effect on candidates or voters on grounds of religion/gender/race/etc..
Another thing that strikes me, an atheist, during this election is kind of a deep irony (especially rich in in this particular blog post). To me, it seems like Conservative Christians have finally done it – over the last 20 years, they’ve brought religion so much to the forefront of politics that campaigns and debates are now more focussed on bible verses, church attendance, whether the candidates are True Christians, and pictures with crosses in the background than, well, anything to do with the candidiates’ ability to run the country. And now these same Conservative Christians are complaining about it!
Isn’t this type of election season exactly what you all wanted?
From the blog:
All I can say is that it takes some nerve. Since most Obama’s most ardent disciples are among the first to screech “separation of church and state” should ANY GOP leader even mention God in a sentence.
What a load of hyperbolic drivel. I’m certainly not a disciple or even supporter of Obama, but I am pretty quick to “screech ‘separation of church and state'” when appropriate. I had no problem with FT “mentioning God” whenever / however he chose. On policy issues that matter, I was rooting for him all along, and was actually excited to cast my vote in that direction. I suppose, had he been going beyond mentioning God into pushing for laws requiring mandatory prayer to Jesus in public schools, that might give me a little pause. Any religious objection I’d ever voiced about Huckabee was not him “mentioning God in a sentence”, but rather was fueled by concerns that he seemed likely to be a proponent of policies and laws that infringe on the rights of non-adherents of his religion. Hopefully the crowd here is sophisticated enough to appreciate my somewhat nuanced stance on the issue…
Remember all the grief and anguish over the Huckabee ad with a cross in the background?
Obama has Audacity
Oxford Dictionary for audacity: Boldness, Confidance, combined with recklessness, venturesomeness, open disregard of decorum or morality, efforntrey, shamlessness, unblushing insolence.
It fits perfectly.
I can’t believe this guy.
Yes, I remember the Huckabee issue and the grief he received over a cross that was not really a cross but a bookcase.
This is really a cross.
I’m waiting for the lefty howling any minute now.
Waiting, but not holding my breath.
Still waiting…..
Something must have held them up…..
They should be along any minute now……
Hellloooooo……
Anyone here????
Sky?
Doug?
Stevie?
Any minute now…
Consistency and intellectual honesty demand that they step forward and say something regarding this issue.
Considering the ‘church’ he’s been praying in, fear shoots up my leg. :/
Many people in WV thought Obama was a Muslim. I think that is why the cross? Image change.
Kathie: Obama does have a church goers deficit. Just like putting on the flag pin when it’s convenient, he pulls out the old rugged cross to suit his needs.
What I found really interesting (sorry I didn’t mention it in the post) was the he was going to “go out and do the Lord’s work.”
Picture comes out the same day as the perfect endorsement was given to him:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement_2
so what side is obama really on? oh, yeah, his side is the only one that matters. i hope he isn’t elected, he makes me want to be sick. he is an arrogant piece of crap who will stop at nothing to pander to the american people.
You must be kidding me! BHO “doing the Lord’s work???” Given the church he went to, I’m more than a little nervous over what his and Jeremiah “God damn America” Wright’s version of the “doing the Lord’s work” is…
So, this was put out by the Kentucky Democrats it looks like; looks like they still believe BHO has cracks in his facade that need to be shored up. My educated guess is that Hillary will sweep the remaining primaries (with the possible exception of Oregon). Given that the results of Florida and Michigan are still being ignored by the DNC; who are increasingly desparate to annoint BHO as their messiah. Every MSM pundit and their uncle is trying to call BHO the winner, and talking about Democratic Party unity. After having the gaul to complain about conservative talk radio, liberals aren’t complaining much about every other outlet kissing BHO’s feet.
Sorry if this is off-topic, but out of curiosity (sincere curiosity – not trying to get under anyone’s skin)… in an election between Obama and a atheistic-Fred-Thompson*, who would get your vote?
*That is, a candidate who took the exact same line as Fred on all foreign, domestic, and economic policy issues. On social matters, let’s say he was a propenent of outlawing elective abortions, felt people should always be free to express their religious views (yes, even in a professional capacity while working for the government), and took his lack of belief in deitites no further than what basic integrity would demand (e.g. not completing his inaugural address with “So help me God”; omitting “under God” when reciting the pledge; etc.).
On one hand, it seems like I’ve stacked the deck to a ridiculous level: of course any reasonable person would vote for the atheist FT in this situation. On the other hand, I must wonder if the denizens of this blog think like Pat “I’d like to say to the citizens of Dover, if there is a disaster in your area don’t turn to god; you just rejected him from your city” Robertson, and figure electing an infidel president might anger your god, and that 4 years of Carternomics + terrorist-appeasement + (… all the other crap there is to fear from Obama…) might be preferable to the outrage of your god.
Well, im answer to your question I don’t let religion enter into the equation. After all, the Constitution strictly forbids it. And I am wary of zealots of any kind. But then again, there are people who think a president has to be deeply religious in order to function. He does not. He needs to put the welfare of the American people first, last and foremost. That would be his job.
Obama is so false. He is not a Christian but a black separatist. His church believes that Jesus was black. That God is black. Therefore, he does not worship Jesus the Jew but a fantasy in his own mind. He will probably win over some people with this ploy. I hope not because he would be a disaster as president. He is a disaster as a senator and he would be a disaster as dogcatcher. Oh, I forgot, muslims won’t touch dogs will they? My bad.
When the media gets snarky about republican cadidates using religion the republican need to ignore them and not cave to them. After all, it doesn’t matter what the republican say they will get snark. This is how the media gets their power. Everyone caves to them.
Barbara S said: “Oh, I forgot, muslims won’t touch dogs will they?”
You must have heard about this story of the Somali student who threatened to kill the service dog for a disabled student teacher.
Those wonderful Somali Muslims that we have saved from famine in their home country!
BarbaraS, I’m not trying to be snarky, but where does the Constitution ‘forbid’ any association with religion?
Kate,
There is a provision in the Constitution that there be no religious test as a requirement or qualification for holding any federal office.
In other words, office holders are not required to adhere to a certain religion.
Article VI, Section III
Before I start, for some reason this line seemed really, really funny:
“Therefore, he does not worship Jesus the Jew but a fantasy in his own mind. ”
Moving on though – Barbara, as others have pointed out, there is nothing in our constitution which forbids you from voting for officials based on their religion (or race, or gender, or fashion sense). All the Consitution says is that Congress cannot enact laws which have a discriminatory effect on candidates or voters on grounds of religion/gender/race/etc..
Another thing that strikes me, an atheist, during this election is kind of a deep irony (especially rich in in this particular blog post). To me, it seems like Conservative Christians have finally done it – over the last 20 years, they’ve brought religion so much to the forefront of politics that campaigns and debates are now more focussed on bible verses, church attendance, whether the candidates are True Christians, and pictures with crosses in the background than, well, anything to do with the candidiates’ ability to run the country. And now these same Conservative Christians are complaining about it!
Isn’t this type of election season exactly what you all wanted?
From the blog:
All I can say is that it takes some nerve. Since most Obama’s most ardent disciples are among the first to screech “separation of church and state” should ANY GOP leader even mention God in a sentence.
What a load of hyperbolic drivel. I’m certainly not a disciple or even supporter of Obama, but I am pretty quick to “screech ‘separation of church and state'” when appropriate. I had no problem with FT “mentioning God” whenever / however he chose. On policy issues that matter, I was rooting for him all along, and was actually excited to cast my vote in that direction. I suppose, had he been going beyond mentioning God into pushing for laws requiring mandatory prayer to Jesus in public schools, that might give me a little pause. Any religious objection I’d ever voiced about Huckabee was not him “mentioning God in a sentence”, but rather was fueled by concerns that he seemed likely to be a proponent of policies and laws that infringe on the rights of non-adherents of his religion. Hopefully the crowd here is sophisticated enough to appreciate my somewhat nuanced stance on the issue…