POST SCRIPTS

All this and they still cannot find anywhere that the founding Fathers of the country or the states put their faith in God.

Kind of reminds of all those politicians, doctors, and reporters in the MSM. No matter how hard they look, they cannot find any viable life in a pregnant woman's womb. And people wonder why I don't believe a word they say.

Incredibly ain't it?

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." (Proverbs 9:10)

They do not fear God, so how can we expect them to have wisdom to understand anything they read or see?

Was the point of this post to criticize Obama's statement by juxtaposing it with those quotes? Because there is no mention of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam in any of those preambles. The mentions of God don't contradict what he said here at all.

But of course, I know a lot of Christian conservatives see "God" and "Christianity" as interchangeable, so I can see why you made that mistake.

"God is, if you will, America's religion."--Joe the Plumber

Thanks, K, for your input on the subject.

I posted this because Christianity (and the Judeo Christian Bible) represents the faith of our founders, a fact that some would prefer to gloss over in search of fairness. Proof of this can be found in their letters and writings.

The reason it is important to acknowledge this fact is that the founding documents include ideals that are fundamental to Christianity. It is not important to recognize this fact as a means of demeaning or excluding other religions as some people believe. In point of fact, the early settlers and founders were oppressed Christians and because of this, the notion that "all men are created equal' was paramount in their minds. Also relevant was the notion that God (for them the God of their faith) was the only authority recognized for our inalianable rights. Deists among them assented.

This is a point of our Heritage that deserves distinction, not to place Chritianity in the drivers seat of the nation, but to honor that which formed and shaped our founding documents, principles and ideals. For this reason President Obama's statement is offensive. He could have said, "Our nation is primarily a nation of Christians (it is) but it is, more importantly, a free nation where people can worship, or not, according to their own beliefs."

Obamas statement, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." is true in that we have a secular government but it is not true with respect to our people or the foundational principles that formed our nation.

It also doesn't help that this president has seen fit to apologize for and disparage this country in nations all around the world. Our failings are miniscule when compared to the great good we have done and the beacon of hope we have been to others in our short history. I believe that good is a direct result of the Judeo Christian values that, at least until recently, made up the fundamental driving force of our policies.

Anonymous, I see what you're saying about how Christianity influences America without controlling it, but I still don't see how Obama's statement was offensive at all. You said yourself that it was true to an extent. Obama probably was talking about our government, not our people, who he surely knows are mostly Christians. I also don't see why you originally juxtaposed that quote with the preambles rather than making the points you just made in your comment. That was a much stronger argument.

As for Obama "disparaging" the country, I don't think he has done that. He has apologized for mistakes we have made. What is wrong with that? After eight years of an administration that never admitted when they were wrong for the sake of patriotism, I admire a little humility. That doesn't mean we should trivialize the good we have done, but I do not think Obama has done that at all. And I think other countries respect that we are finally owning up to some past mistakes rather than puffing out our chests like Bush did so often. Many conservatives have claimed that other countries now see us as weaker because of Obama, but I have seen no evidence of this.

America, despite all the good it has done, also has a reputation of being arrogant and exclusively Christian. This is a perception that we need to break, and Obama is doing precisely that.

"(Please note that at no time is anyone told that they MUST worship God.)"

Indeed, it is the separation of church and state that makes it possible for jews, muslims, christians and a plethora of other religious beliefs to worship their respective "gods" and live in relative peace under one government. So what, exactly, is it about Mr. Obama's comment that bothers you?

I'll throw my hat in the ring with Libby on this one.

Pilgrims came to escape religious prosecution. Yeah, the country was founded on their initial beliefs but we aren't a theocracy. We should acknowledge our roots but we can't act as if the country will echo the early years of our nation for eternity.

Crap, I sound progressive. =/

*I see what you're saying about how Christianity influences America without controlling it, but I still don't see how Obama's statement was offensive at all.*

K, (This is Tina and the comments you question were my comments.)

I can understsand why you and many others would not see any offense in what Obama said. You would have to be sensitive to the many ways the left is determined to shove both Christian influence and the founding fathers into the closet. Basic facts about the history of this nation are being removed from our history books in favor of a more diverse approach. I celebrate teaching about the historical contributions and accomplishments made by people of color and women, but not to the exclusion of George Washington, John Adams, et al. Glossing over or eliminating the part that Christianity played in framming our basic human rights is wrong and a crass misrepresentation of historical fact.

The day may come when we have to defend the Constitution based on the authority behind it. The Christian founders said that authority was God, not man on earth or his philosophy. When Allah is cited as the authority for a man's killing his daughter in our courts this could become an important point. It matters that we know and understand the foundation of our Constitutional rights...and that we have respect for it.

Obamas statement in the Middle East was a foolish mistake made by an amateur politicuian (not a statesman) who hasn't the foggiest notion of the message he sent across those nations. (or does he?) They called Bush a frat boy but Bush understood the culture in the Middle East and knew playing the Mr. Popular game doesn't impress. He articulated the way that we are a diverse nation and that we live peacefully side by side with one another without denying our foundational roots.

*Obama probably was talking about our government, not our people...*

If you aren't sure why would the people in the Middle east be? What a president says and how he says it is very important.

* I also don't see why you originally juxtaposed that quote with the preambles rather than making the points you just made in your comment.*

(I always put "posted by Tina" if the post is not mine. My own work is "by Tina Grazier".) I honestly didn't expect this much feedback. It is the feedback we get that makes this blogging game fun and interesting so thank you. My own comments were made possible by you and others...so thank you.

* After eight years of an administration that never admitted when they were wrong for the sake of patriotism, I admire a little humility. That doesn't mean we should trivialize the good we have done, but I do not think Obama has done that at all. *

I absolutely resent this image of President Bush. The immaturity that underlies this notion is pathetic. President Bush found himself fighting a war with a dangerous new kind of enemy. There was no simple model of warfare to use in framing the way we would fight terrorists. We got to make it up as we went along in many ways. Yet he was expected to get it right every time by a disrespectful press and an opposing party that wished for him to stumble. No President in the middle of a difficult war should not have to fight a personal battle with fellow americans and a hostile media at home. But he did that and with a great deal of dignity and grace. He was respectful of all of the leaders who were allied with us. He was respectful of the people in the Middle East caught in the midst of this mess. He deserved our respect and support.

* As for Obama "disparaging" the country, I don't think he has done that. He has apologized for mistakes we have made. What is wrong with that? *

What is the purpose? What will it accomplish? Why does he feel the need to apologize for America?

* Many conservatives have claimed that other countries now see us as weaker because of Obama, but I have seen no evidence of this. *

I would say that's because in general the left philosophy is that if you talk and act "nice" you can mend fences and make friends. This works in a many instances...it requires amicable people who share the philosophy. It doesn't necessarily work with male dominated societies and in particular, those factions who wish to absolutely destroy us. When a president speaks he speaks to all.

* America, despite all the good it has done, also has a reputation of being arrogant and exclusively Christian. *

Who says we are seen as arrogant? You know who says it? Democrats say it whenever we have Republican presidents. it gets repreated in the media over and over...left European meda repeats it. They do the exact opposite when a Democrat is president. Obama's "popularity" is a made up phenomenon. The hatred for Bush was in many ways a media driven myth. The Kennedy Camelot myth was made up by the media...Ronald Reagan was loved and the media did everything it could to sully his standing. This is the rot that has to go.

* I'll throw my hat in the ring with Libby on this one. *** Pilgrims came to escape religious prosecution. Yeah, the country was founded on their initial beliefs but we aren't a theocracy. We should acknowledge our roots but we can't act as if the country will echo the early years of our nation for eternity. *

Dave you are in danger of sounding progressive...one of the first things they do is destroy religion. Know why? because if god is the authority for your rights, instead of the state, they don't have a prayer of controlling you, your property, your speech, your right to defend yourself against oppression, and your money!

The Judeo/Christian notion that God is the author of those rights is FUNDAMENTAL...and should never be denied or dismissed as irrelevant!

***

Heads up people...ask yourselves why this president is so bent on denying the religion from which that foundation was formed. The latest? Asking that religious symbols be covered at Notre Dame during his commencement speech there ...why? What is the BIG DEAL?

@anonymous

So are we a theocracy or aren't we? I can think of some countries in the Middle East that operate as Theocracies.

Dave this is Tina...for some reason our software is not remembering my personal information and my comments are sometimes posted as "anonymous".

Of course we are not a theocracy. You can thank the Christian founders for that. I think a lot of people are mistaken about the reason that Christians want this bit of history remembered. They are so biased against religion, or Christians specifically, that they plug in immediately to their disdain and never hear what we are saying.

President Obama is stepping very close to the edge in making himself the "final authority" right now. If he is "the one we have been waiting for" (as many of his "followers" claim) then in effect he, and they, have begun to make him the one with the power to arbitrarily make the rules. Do you really want a man, any man, to be that authority in our nation and your life?

The founders believed that kings, dictators and tyrants should have no place in the nation they were founding. They believed that the government should be one of, for, and by the people and that their rights were granted under the authority of a higher power...God...meaning they could not be taken away by mere men. They established a republic and a system with checks and balances to help guard our freesom and rights.

Right now Obama is taking advantage of a crisis to exert his authority. He is using our taxes and future taxes to reward and punish citizens. He has said today he will seriously consider limiting bonus amounts even in private companies that have NOT received taxpayer money. He is selectively spending "stimulus money" in ways that favor certain people or groups and do little to stimulate the overall economy. He is, in fact, acting as a king over his subjects and not as a president.

At no other time in our history has it been so important to remember and pass on to our posterity, accurate information about our founding principles. Your freedom and your future is at stake.

@Tina

Now you're talking my language. =)

THIS is what we need to be talking about. I also just saw this morning a report that says he FORCED some Banks to take TARP money. If this is true, IT'S INSANE.

Not only is it insane, but forcing the proxy of semi-nationalization....nobody voted on this is my point. He kind of just waved his hand and the Banks crumbled under it and into the open arms of semi-government ownership. At least Bush had people vote on it....Obama is bypassing that.

Those kinds of actions are the dangerous actions. Further, they don't come in on the same scale as some of the initial comments and the EQUALLY insane idea that Obama is trying to destroy religion, I just can't buy that one.

Anyway....thank you. =) You always seem to really cut the chase and get straight to the meat of it, you need to post more! =)

There really should be a post explaining what Obama is doing in terms of forcing Banks to take TARP and also how he's not letting Banks pay back TARP when they want to.

Thanks Dave, I think I do my best work when challenged by other's in their comments so your participation means a lot to me.

While I don't accuse the president of trying to "destroy" religion I do think he is unwilling to acknowledge the reliion that influenced our founding. I was the "anonymous" who wrote:

"...ask yourselves why this president is so bent on denying the religion from which that foundation was formed. The latest? Asking that religious symbols be covered at Notre Dame during his commencement speech there ...why?"

He asked that religious symbols that are part of the architechtural structures of Notre Dame be covered when he speaks...why would this occur to anyone much less be a problem? Do you have a plausable explanation for this?

@Tina

I also think you kind of help reign me in sometimes, I can be pretty uncompromising sometimes. Anyway, the sentiment is mutual. =)

Ok, so on to this. I did some research because this isn't the first time it happened, Georgetown was also asked to cover up a religious symbol. It didn't hit the main wires because Notre Dame happens to have more name power. So I dug further because WHY in the world would Georgetown (who I tend to think of as more principled than Notre Dame at times, no offense to ND) agree to that?

Turns out that they just covered up one religious symbol (the IHS emblem) directly behind where Obama was to speak, to create a more consistent "presidential" backdrop. If you look at the video feeds of the different networks (and I actually did....ugh...) you can see alot of other religious symbols and even paintings in the hall at Georgetown.

Obviously he hasn't spoken yet at Notre Dame (that's on the 17th I believe), but if Georgetown was any indication, he just wants a "presidential" backdrop so he can feel "presidentially".

I can kind of understand the idea, but really...he's their guest right? Kind of seems to me that he would respect the space he's going to be speaking in. My personal opinion? He's suffering an acute case of "political correctness". I'm not so zealous about the idea he denies religion because one of the first articles I read about him years ago (before anyone came up with the idea of making him president) talked about how he thought the Democratic party didn't spend enough time talking about religion and God. I happened to agree with that.

Anyway, like I said above, it's kind of less important when you consider all the other stuff going on right now....like his apparent lack of fiscal discipline and his heavy-handed nationalization efforts. I can only hope that Republicans push fiscal discipline to the VERY front of the national discussion. I think the party spends too much time talking about things that don't directly deal with running the country....it irritates me I'll be honest. I see alot of "distractions" at a time when we need to get down to business. Seriously, the State's regulation of marriage and is going to be peanuts if the State goes bankrupt and China calls in for all the debt we owe them!

I guess, to be more articulate....Republicans I think need to figure out priorities. The big stuff that deals with the nation being run in the way it was intended (minimal government, fiscal discipline, personal liberty, strong security). After we make progress there, we can build on that hit some of the other more socially oriented stuff. My main focus right now is all about the "business" of how the government should function. If we can't fix the "business", what hope do we have to fix anything else?

Sorry for such a big post! Interested to get your thoughts though Tina. =)

Dave,

* Turns out that they just covered up one religious symbol (the IHS emblem) directly behind where Obama was to speak, to create a more consistent "presidential" backdrop. If you look at the video feeds of the different networks (and I actually did....ugh...) you can see alot of other religious symbols and even paintings in the hall at Georgetown. *

Well this is certainly consistant with the man's ego need. It is also a first in America to my knowledge.

*seems to me that he would respect the space he's going to be speaking in.*

Absolutely, this would require a bit of humility and grace that he often lacks.

* I read about him years ago (before anyone came up with the idea of making him president) talked about how he thought the Democratic party didn't spend enough time talking about religion and God. I happened to agree with that. *

Would that this was an idea born of conviction rather than politcal expediency. I didn't read the articles but I would bet he was motivated by the fact that Republicans had cornered the christian market. If he was expressing a tactic and not a moral or religious conviction then it isn't all that impressive as regards morality. Also he said he joined Jeremiah Wrights church to meet people. He was looking for connections.

I have no doubt he wants to help people on some level. He said he discovered that by getting into politics he could more. The need seems to derive more from his progressive background than any religious convictions. His rise to power, and the Chicago way that shoved him along, is evidence enough for me.

* ...it's kind of less important when you consider all the other stuff going on right now....like his apparent lack of fiscal discipline and his heavy-handed nationalization efforts."

I agree...some days I'm too busy to write or they are slow news days...LOL

What Obama is doing to future generations is another indicator of his lack of moral or religious undingerpinnings. No responsible adult would do the things he is doing. It also reveals his absolute ignorance about business.

*I see alot of "distractions" at a time when we need to get down to business.*

I agree with one ogressives caveat. Progressives NEVER stop on social issues. What republicans need is a good effective leader who can articulate the republican platform backed up by an army of organizations and individuals who will continue to press on specific issues. Actually we have that but we are busy buying into and defending against the accusation that we must divorce ourselves from our social stances. I'm sorry I don't buy it.

If Carvill thinks we should back off you can bet it's what he fears most. If liberals say we should back off it's because they can't shove their agenda down our throats easily anymore. If republicans think we should back off on principles it's because they don't get the important part they play in securing our future, including our fiscal future.

*The big stuff that deals with the nation being run in the way it was intended (minimal government, fiscal discipline, personal liberty, strong security).*

I agree! this is at the top of the page.

* After we make progress there, we can build on that hit some of the other more socially oriented stuff.*

As I said some of us must continue in this fight because they never stop.

* My main focus right now is all about the "business" of how the government should function. If we can't fix the "business", what hope do we have to fix anything else?*

Great...play on that part of the team! It's where your passion is.

*Sorry for such a big post! Interested to get your thoughts though Tina. =)*

As anyone on the blog can tell you I do "long" all the time...no worries!

My main focus right now is all about the "business" of how the government should function. If we can't fix the "business", what hope do we have to fix anything else?*