One of Obama's controversial preachers, a Jeremiah Wright, made a statement about Americans clinging to their guns and religion. The statement was trying to point out racism in America, however, in light of some of the things Obama wants to do, this might be what happens if Obama gets elected.
On religion, Obama is against intelligent design, and while he states he’s a religious guy, he already quit one church for political reasons, which calls his faith into question. He also says that the founding fathers wanted a secular America and supports several things most religious people consider wrong, such as stem cell research on fetuses and abortion.
On gun control, Obama stated he wants to ban the sell of semi automatic firearms and ban the sell of any guns within five miles of a school or park, which basically consists of most of populated America. Thirdly (note the wording of my source on this is "political" so Im not sure about it), it seems that Obama want to make self defense in invalid defense in court, so if you shoot someone breaking into your house, you can’t argue self defense in court.
"On religion, Obama is against intelligent design, and while he states he’s a religious guy, he already quit one church for political reasons, which calls his faith into question..." ========================= I don't see how attending church, in it of itself, should say anything about a person's faith. Some people leave organized religion in order to maintain a more honest faith. There is nothing infallible about the various dogmas of various religious sects.
"On religion, Obama is against intelligent design..." ========================= I fail to see the relevance of this against the rest of the paragraph from where this snippet was taken. There are many religious people who are also against intelligent design. There are also religious people who believe in evolution (which pretty much says the same people are likely NOT to take a 6 day creation narrative literally).
To add...Intelligent design is not scientific. And the word "theory" means some different in common usage vs. when it is used in scientific context. A scientific theory, is one that has rational and emperical evidence to back it up, can be tested and must allow itself to be proven to be incorrect in order to be seen as a valid theory. Evolution has rational and emperical evidence in support of itself and allows itself to be tested and remains open to both revision (even radical revision). Nevertheless, it remains widely accepted in the scientific community (including religious scientists) and continues to find support. Intelligent Design, as a concept, might contain logical arguments, but its base assumptions (i.e. that there is a creator god who created the cosmos) renders it unsupportable in the scientific community. Prove the existence of [G]od via the scientific method and that would quickly change. However, no one has yet to scientifically prove the existence of any deity.
"...He also says that the founding fathers wanted a secular America and supports several things most religious people consider wrong, such as stem cell research on fetuses and abortion..." ========================= I think the real question here is over how different persons differentiate (or do not differentiate) between the concept of an embryo vs. a fetus. I am not telling you what to believe. But in the scientific context, "embryonic" and "fetal" are not one and the same, conceptually speaking.
This country was founded on if anything secularist. Several of the key founding fathers were desit and had no use for organized faith.
Deism is a belief that says god created the planet and then left, they find organized faith idiotic because they believe people are praying to what is no longer there, they also believe no god intervenes on this planet so the who this country was founding on faith is incorrect. It was founded to escape religious tyranny, the original settlers were of several faiths, and some had no faith.
“One of Obama's controversial preachers, a Jeremiah Wright, made a statement about Americans clinging to their guns and religion. The statement was trying to point out racism in America, however, in light of some of the things Obama wants to do, this might be what happens if Obama gets elected.”
I find this to be funny is that obama, when running for president, had never even mentioned altering peoples rights to have guns, and yet everyday I heard he is trying to take our guns away. I see no reason light on racism has become a bad thing.
“On religion, Obama is against intelligent design, and while he states he’s a religious guy, he already quit one church for political reasons, which calls his faith into question. He also says that the founding fathers wanted a secular America and supports several things most religious people consider wrong, such as stem cell research on fetuses and abortion.”
Intelligent design is not a science, it is an attempt to merge what they once demonized. Many religious use to call evolution heresy and against god, but as the proof mounted in favor of evolution they then said ..well okay it evolved but it was all in gods plan. No matter what any one tries to say I.D. does not offer up any proof other than you must have faith for it to be true. So quitting a church because your preacher made a statement you do not agree with is a bad thing… Hm, if anything that is the one reason to leave a church or any institution.
The founding fathers did want a separation of church and state for they did not want a repeat of what it is they escaped. Religious tyranny.
I do not think most religious people consider the constitution wrong.
He is against abortion but does say, as I agree with the government should have no say in a personal choice like abortion.
“On gun control, Obama stated he wants to ban the sell of semi automatic firearms and ban the sell of any guns within five miles of a school or park, which basically consists of most of populated America. Thirdly (note the wording of my source on this is "political" so Im not sure about it), it seems that Obama want to make self defense in invalid defense in court, so if you shoot someone breaking into your house, you can’t argue self defense in court.”
I have already addressed this. But he did make a statement when asked about a large percentage of these guns being sold, finding their way on inner city streets and wanting to stop this, who knew people had an ssue with stopping violence.
First or all I would like to apologize for taking so long to reply, the USMC keeps me busy. In my time since returning from Afghanistan I've become the slightest bit pragmatic with my ideals, political or otherwise. Irregardless, I still hold a strong conviction towards both my religion and my firearms, although I've gained a better understanding of why.
On the subject of religion in the United States of American. Almost every, if not every, state mentions an intelligent creator in their state constitutions. Several states, such as Connecticut, had a state religion until the 1800s, and Massachusetts required that its citizens attend some sort of church until 1833. Establishing a state religion was not banned until 1947. There is also the fact that eight states still have clauses banning atheists from holding public office. However, this was deemed illegal in 1961. Now, whether of not I believe in the separation of church and state is irrelevant, organized religion is thoroughly ingrained into our history and government, so to say that the united states was founded on secularist values is wrong and has no basis in history. The fact that most of the founding fathers were Deist also has little historical backing, although there were indeed deists among the founding fathers. I think this comes from the fact that modern "progressives" are unwilling to give credit to Christians for being tolerant. More important than the religious views of the founding fathers were that they were varied in their beliefs. This forced the continental congress to compromise and create no state sponsored religion, which led to the freedom of religion that we enjoy today. Also, when I said that the country was founded by a religious people, I wasn't simply referring to the 200 or so intellectuals that history chooses to remember. I'm also thinking of the common continental soldier who carried a bible in his rucksack, or the southern militiaman who wore a rosary around his neck. The fact that you feel that the politicians were the only ones important to the founding of Americans is very narrow minded and smells of elitist tendencies.
On Obama's gun control policies. When Obama was in the Illinois legislature, he stated that he would support a ban on all semi automatic firearms. Now, irregardless of the fact that he wants to enact stupidly oppressive registration systems and purchase limits, he wants to ban semi automatic weaponry. That means pretty such every handgun in America made after 1900 (and he wants to ban all handguns anyway, so my single action revolver is out too), and all rifles except lever action carbines and bolt action rifles. Now, what does this mean for the average civilian, it means that if someone breaks into your house your best bet is to hide, because hes packing anything he'll outgun you nine times out of ten. It also represents a lack of education on firearms. From a good position I can visit untold amounts of hell on law enforcement and civilians alike with a perfectly legal bolt action hunting rifle. Now, if he really cared about violent crime he would tighten enforcement on criminals that run guns and sell them, and allow law abiding citizens to carry whatever the fuck they want. An examply I like to bring up is Switzerland, who has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Now, this can be put up to several factors, one of which is the fact that two thirds of the men from age 20 to 34 have an assault rifle in their house. Now, with all those “assault weapons” in the hands of the general populace, wouldn’t you think violent crime would be a problem. Turns out no one wants to fuck with a guy with an automatic rifle, go figure. In short, you can’t be a victim of a crime if you don’t allow yourself to be victimized, whether this requires relieving the perpetrator of their pulse or not is up to you, but the capability to do so can’t hurt your chances.
On your comments regarding religion. I’m not quite sure what you were trying to prove here, or your sobriety during the execution of aforementioned comments. However, we will start at the beginning and see if we can’t pull something out of it. First off, you state that intelligent design is not science, but entwined with modern religion and religiously motivated individuals. Yet you decided to use it to counter the fact that I said Obama’s disagreement with the principle makes him a non religious guy. So what exactly are you trying to prove here, that intelligent design is unsubstantiated. That's just outstanding, but doesn’t do anything to show that Obama is or is not religious. Next you dive into the fact that Obama left a church because he didn’t agree with his preacher, as if it and intelligent design are related, which is just confusingly wrong, but whatever. In any case, isn’t leaving a church, regardless of the reason, kind of something a not religious guy would do. But that’s not what I’m trying to say, because good people do it all the time. The thing about it is that he, and his family, had been attending this church for years upon years. This means that if they had a problem with the preacher, they would have acted on it by then. The fact that he left the church when it became politicized shows that he was not devout enough in his views to stick to it when times got tough. So if he is religious, he’s just spineless, which is just as bad.
The next paragraph is just awesome, and I actually agree with it, but it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. If you were trying to justify the fact that Obama wants a secular America, its kind of weird on account of the fact that the constitution guarantees the right to practice religion. Next up, I also doubt that most religious people consider the constitution wrong, I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here. Are you trying to say that if someone upholds a religious view like being pro-life or opposing stem cell research they oppose the constitution? Hmm, I hope you don’t mean to propose that abortion and stem cell research are guaranteed by the constitution, because that would exhibit an extreme ignorance of the constitution and its tenants, regardless of the moral side of the argument. On abortion, if he is against it, which he’s not, he might think about voting that way from time to time. And not only is he all for allowing abortion to continue as it is, he voted for legalizing late term abortions, and making it even easier to kill the unborn. So, again, despite what he says his voting record shines brighter.
I am aware that a large percentage of the states were religious. Yet being religious and having religion intertwined with state are two different matters. Of state religions I am also aware of state religions, yet the federal constitution trumps the states constitutions. Such as in the case of Cecil Bothwell in 2009. Here is a man who was elected to a position in North Carolina. As soon as he was elected many religious groups tried to get him fired because the North Carolina constitution states that a person must recognize god to hold office, yet the federal constitution states that a religious test shall never be required for any positions. While many founding fathers were somewhat religious, most did not wish to be run as a religious country, for the matter was one of the main reasons for leaving Britain was for religious tolerance where as religion was such ingrained in the society that it did not allow for other beliefs without persecution, be it legal or societal.
As far as deism, I said several, no where did I utter the words “most”. One of the most well known of them were Thomas Paine, who is not as often talked about because if his views on organized religion being useless in societies, and his very socialistic ideas. Yet several of the founding fathers including Washington, and Jefferson spoke of the greatness of his written works. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and others had referred to themselves as Deist in either spoken or written works. No one is saying that there were no founding fathers who were Christian, or even spiritual in nature… yet to disregard the self proclaimed deist would also not be right.
I did laugh at the whole elitist tendencies, I hear that quite often. We are speaking of the founding fathers, not all of the people that helped the building of the nation. I am an elitist for …speaking of a particular topic and staying on that topic..
I do not see it at all at being oppressive. When you have a large percent of inner city guns bought legally from big gun states, and when investigated many of these shops have unclear records so it is hard to find out who exactly bought the guns. I do not think anyone would have an issue with saying you must keep good records, and register weapons so that we are able to trace back guns when something happens.
This is not a democrat or republican thing, Obama, Bush, Clinton all spoke of tougher enforcement of the gun laws to avoid/decrease shooting crimes and making sure the guns do not get into the wrong hands. I have not seen any senior senator speak of banning all guns, yet simply enforcing the gun laws to ensure the safety of others is not some big evil progressive plan. Since as I said it has been spoke about from the last three presidents, and senators on left, right, and center.
As well as, not to bring up recent history, yet what the past few years has shown us is that there is no criteria for terrorist. They have been non-citizens, and citizens, black, white, dark with black hair, to blond hair and blue eyed. So just going by a…. they have no record so should buy whatever they want with no real regulation, … so I have no problem with registrations. Yet it is not just about the guns when you wish to compare Switzerland. They also do not have America’s gang problem, not as diversified as we are, nor have several of the other issues that we have.
I am not against people having guns, I fully support people having guns if they wish. Yet I am also for registering these guns. So if they happen to see a large percentage of inner city guns coming from one source and the source unable to tell how they got them, then maybe they should not be allowed to sell guns any longer. If they are buying these guns legally just to then turn around and sell them illegally to pull a profit then they should lose their gun license.
I did not “use” intelligent design to show he is not a religious guy. What I did say is that when it comes to matters of public schools, which today is not suppose to push any particular religious agenda should not make science classes teach that all organisms come from some ultimate creator.
It is not just about Obama, people have been arguing religion in schools long before the birth of Obama, and they will still be arguing about more or less religious teachings in school after Obama is out of office.
Regardless of the reason? Nope, I would expect anyone whose preacher said something they may not have agreed with to leave the church. I also have known plenty of religious people who have left a particular church and went to another when the preachers started on a line that they did not agree with. So no, I will have to disagree with your saying that “In any case, isn’t leaving a church, regardless of the reason, kind of something a not religious guy would do.” If you said leaving the church, then maybe. Yet leaving one church and going to another because you did not agree with what was said, I do not see that as proof he is not a religious guy. For me personally, I do not care if he is religious or not. I am an atheist, so a president’s religious affiliation is not even a factor when I choose to vote for them. As long as I believe they will do a good job, that is what matters; I have voted for republican, democrat, independent, green party… and all of them were religious people.
Secular society does not mean promoting atheism or something like that. It means just as it sounds, secular. Where as you, or anyone has the right to believe in whatever you wish, worship, pray to whatever you wish. Yet the law shall hold no favor over any one belief and treat each as equal.
No, I am trying to say that just because someone is religious, they want the freedom to practice that religion, yet for the most part, do not believe their religion should be the all and end all when it comes to the law. Though those are more moral or societal views, you do have the majority of pro-choice people are theist, and some are atheist.
The constitution is a ever progressive document, today it allows for a woman’s right to get an abortion if she chooses. Whereas before it was illegal. That is where the differences comes from his personal views and his votes. Even if he is against it, I would hope that any so called person that wants less government, etc would vote to keep the government out of personal matters such as abortion. I often find it a bit funny that the same people who scream less government, also want the government to ban what they do not agree with.
This was not intended to be so long but I am rather long winded.
"On religion, Obama is against intelligent design, and while he states hes a religious guy, he already quit one church for political reasons, which calls his faith into question. He also says that the founding fathers wanted a secular America and supports several things most religious people consider wrong, such as stem cell research on fetuses and abortion. "
Intelligent design is not science. Science has to be testable and falsifiable. He probably quit the church because of his ass hole paster os you mentioned. You don't have to go to church to believe in god or anything, it's nothing more then a building with a cross on it. Stem cells could help amputees with their problems. It has already been proven that it has happened. Abortion should be legal on certain terms like you have a limit or if you were raped. To me, fetuses are nothing more then a bunch of cells, I find value in life, a series of cells feeding off of a host like a parasite doesn't really count as life for me.
Im no American, but if I was I'm all for gun REGULATION laws, not disarmament. You know, with age regulation, limits, psycho analysis, and all to ensure that the arms fall on responsible, lawful, and sane hands.
For me, a country that allows its citizens to bear arms shows is probably one of the most palpable signs that the government trusts it's people
People should be free to hold their own religious views without imposing them upon others. Religion is far too subject to coruption to trust it to hold any great sway in government. Think civil rights movement, slavery, crusades and fascist italy. And don't think it isn't still happening today.
Well its been about
2 weeks since my
last giveaway right
:?:star: To enter
simply Fave :+fav:
:star: - and this is
not required, but I
would like to get my
youtube channel out
there so I would be
honored if you could
take some time to
check it out(also
A few days ago we
had a chat to
issues and solutions
(see the original
thanks to everyone
who came and raised
took 45 minutes for
the volume of talk
to max out Sta.sh
limit and this chat
went for two more
Don't forget to
feature if you like
it.You can also "+1"
a selection from
r:Have a close
In our continuous
effort to improve
Site Updates to keep
members informed and
to gather feedback.
Below is a list of
recent changes to
the site, bug fixes,
and feedback that
was brought up by
members in the last
NewUpdate to th...
I reached the target
I'd been waiting for
for some time now:
!!! :headbang: I'm
guys are always so
awesome and give me
so much support!To
thank you, old
watchers and new
ones, I decided to
open a GIVEAWAY here
on my page!As you
`anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More