• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

I don't know. Why is conservatives miss such an obvious message and go stupid on things Obama says? I guess both are a mystery. :coffeepap
Conservatives don't. Stupid partisans who are too busy to cheerlead for their team are the ones who miss the point.
I actually agree Joe, However, Obama #1, ignored context to make his crappy comparison here. I really think he enjoys slapping Christians in the face....
I love irony.
 
Was Barrack Obama correct in saying that Christians initiated Jim Crow laws? Or is he just stupid?

No, President Obama did not say that during his National Prayer Breakfast speech.

Reading comprehension and/or improving your listening skills will go a long way towards understanding what he really said. The following quote is taken directly from the President's speech in reference to Jim Crow laws in their historical context where such laws were followed sometimes with religious justification behind them:

And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

He never said that Christians initiated Jim Crow laws. He did say that were some who justified their actions when adhering to Jim Crow laws based on their religious faith something we all know to be very true.
 
Do tell what's wrong. And explain how Affirmative Action has anything to do with our nationally elected President, other than making a comment sound borderline racist.
Barrack Obama got where he is today largely because of Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is racist, but it was never a policy I would adapt or condone.
No, Al-Qaeda is saying ISIS is not part of Al-Qaeda.
And what is the importance of this to you? Do you feel that Al Qaeda is morally superior it ISL? Do you tend to believe what terrorists tell you?
 
I quite disagree. The hatred of Muslims in general is something that needed to be addressed. Far too many don't see the difference, and this requires that leaders point it out.

And we can use both historic examples and modern examples. We can move from the Crusades to the Salam witch trials to Hitler blessing plans to black church burnings in the south to Christian hate groups of today. He merely used an example everyone should have been familiar with.
And that's his job? Are Americans really that unschooled that they need BHO to bring them up-to-date?
 
Barrack Obama got where he is today largely because of Affirmative Action.
He got where he is today because he was elected by this country. I'm sorry if you have a problem with a black person being President, but it doesn't change the truth.
And what is the importance of this to you? Do you feel that Al Qaeda is morally superior it ISL? Do you tend to believe what terrorists tell you?
If you're not intelligent enough to read back through the thread to see why I posted that comment, then you'll just have to live with the disappointment of never knowing.
 
No, President Obama did not say that during his National Prayer Breakfast speech.

Reading comprehension and/or improving your listening skills will go a long way towards understanding what he really said. The following quote is taken directly from the President's speech in reference to Jim Crow laws in their historical context where such laws were followed sometimes with religious justification behind them:He never said that Christians initiated Jim Crow laws. He did say that were some who justified their actions when adhering to Jim Crow laws based on their religious faith something we all know to be very true.
Then, in order to clarify things, he should have mentioned who these people were and named some names. How often was often? This connection, while being applied to the Crusades and high horses, makes his intent to associate Christianity with Islamic terrorism very clear.

Why would he mention this at all while still not saying who's committing all the terrorism in the world?

Now we even have his goofy electorate claiming that anyone who raises their voices about abortion is a terrorist. This is yet another example how a leader can manipulate their followers into believing, excusing and supporting whatever he or she has to say, no matter how deep their history of lies and deceit. It's no different from followers of any religion.
 
He got where he is today because he was elected by this country. I'm sorry if you have a problem with a black person being President
No need to be sorry at all. BHO is an incompetent, no matter what the color of his skin. However this man arrived where he did largely because of racist policies and accusations, just as in those you just suggested, that any criticism, or even a lack of support, was racist. There is a depth of ignorance here that will not be easy for the American political or economic system to solve.


but it doesn't change the truth. If you're not intelligent enough to read back through the thread to see why I posted that comment, then you'll just have to live with the disappointment of never knowing.
I tend not to read your posts unless they're directed at me. You're just not that interesting though I try to be polite.
 
And that's his job? Are Americans really that unschooled that they need BHO to bring them up-to-date?

It's any leaders job to speak the truth, yes. It really is.
 
Then, in order to clarify things, he should have mentioned who these people were and named some names. How often was often?

Now you're just being ridiculous.

This connection, while being applied to the Crusades and high horses, makes his intent to associate Christianity with Islamic terrorism very clear.

Only insofar as acknowledging that followers of both religions - Christianity and Islam - have used their religious faith to justify their wicked actions. That's all.

Why would he mention this at all while still not saying who's committing all the terrorism in the world?

He did call ISIL out for their barbarism during his speech.

We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.

Again, either you weren't listening or you didn't read the transcript for yourself and instead are just spouting off what you've heard from the conservative radio talking heads.

Now we even have his goofy electorate claiming that anyone who raises their voices about abortion is a terrorist. This is yet another example how a leader can manipulate their followers into believing, excusing and supporting whatever he or she has to say, no matter how deep their history of lies and deceit. It's no different from followers of any religion.

Come now, Grant. People have been calling those who bomb abortion clinics "terrorist" for years, as far back as the '80s to the best of my memory. There's nothing new there. It's not any different than those who call folks who have abortions "baby killers". But let's leave the abortion slander and/or debate to another thread shall we?
 
Are you saying he did it to give ISIS cover? The people of the U.S. elected him to get us out of Iraq.


No, the people did NOT elect him to make dumbassed Foreign Policy decisions that would enable the spread Islamo-Facism.
 
No need to be sorry at all.
I always feel sorry for those who cannot look beyond skin color. Those who are racist will never understand truths, only their ignorance.

However this man arrived where he did largely because of racist policies and accusations
No, he is President because he was voted by America to be President. No matter how much you wish to make this an issue of race because he's black, it will never change the truth.

just as in those you just suggested, that any criticism, or even a lack of support, was racist.
I did no such thing. But when someone claims a person is only in a position because his skin is black, that's a racist comment.

I tend not to read your posts unless they're directed at me. You're just not that interesting though I try to be polite.
Then why would you reply to a comment which was directed to someone else?

You're not making any sense. If you want an answer to your question, read the posts which generated my post. If you're not intelligent enough to do so, then you'll just have to live with the disappointment.
 
Well I don't think it's wise to mix religion with politics. But it is done anyway.

That said he did tell the truth, people should not hijack religion or use it as a weapon..

So when Mohammed was running roughshod over the Middle East subjecting non-Muslims to terror campaigns of conquest was he hijacking the religion or founding it?
 
Lol! We've been manipulating events in the Middle East to suit our interests for a century. Our government was busy overthrowing the Iranian government, long before Obama was born. But you go on blaming Obama as the only one that has advanced policies in that region that have caused so many people to hate us. It's no wonder we have the issues we have with the lack of critical thinkers.

Obama has policies other then appeasing Islamic terrorism and Russia's designs on Ukraine?
 
So when Mohammed was running roughshod over the Middle East subjecting non-Muslims to terror campaigns of conquest was he hijacking the religion or founding it?

When Europe was running roughshod all over the world subjecting non-Christians to terror campaigns were they hijacking Christianity?
 
No, the people did NOT elect him to make dumbassed Foreign Policy decisions that would enable the spread Islamo-Facism.

Neither did they elect him to kiss Saudi Arabia's and Israel's ass.
 
When Europe was running roughshod all over the world subjecting non-Christians to terror campaigns were they hijacking Christianity?

Yes, because Jesus and his apostles didn't spread Christianity by the sword.
 
Neither did they elect him to kiss Saudi Arabia's and Israel's ass.

LOL !!!

Unleashing a horde of Islamo-terrorist on the people of Iraq, Libya and the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt is a strange way to show Israel and Saudi Arabia that your'e not going to " kiss their ass " anymore.

Who in their right mind thought to themselves before pulling the lever for Obama " Man I hope he makes it easy as hell for Isis to rage across the Middle East. That'll teach Israel and Saudi Arabia !! "
 
Yes, because Jesus and his apostles didn't spread Christianity by the sword.

That is true. However, Jewish kings such as David and Joshua did engage in battle. And even Jesus himself used violence to cleanse the Temple of greedy people.
 
LOL !!!

Unleashing a horde of Islamo-terrorist on the people of Iraq, Libya and the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt is a strange way to show Israel and Saudi Arabia that your'e not going to " kiss their ass " anymore.

Who in their right mind thought to themselves before pulling the lever for Obama " Man I hope he makes it easy as hell for Isis to rage across the Middle East. That'll teach Israel and Saudi Arabia !! "

The point is they did not elect Obama to appease Saudi Arabia by using direct U.S. military power to topple Assad. Neither did they elect Obama to use direct military power to attack Iran to appease Israel. Why are you advocating the appeasement of Saudi Arabia and Israel in this way?
 
That is true. However, Jewish kings such as David and Joshua did engage in battle.

The Crusades were specifically ignoring the teachings of Christ. Your argument only works with Jews. Christians are tasked with emulating Jesus, not David or Joshua.

And even Jesus himself used violence to cleanse the Temple of greedy people.

Would we be talking about the Crusades today if the crusaders just turned over a few tables in a mosque once?
 
The Crusades were specifically ignoring the teachings of Christ. Your argument only works with Jews. Christians are tasked with emulating Jesus, not David or Joshua.

You totally right. Very, very good point. That said, there are aspects of the Old Testament that Jesus did want his followers to adhere to. But again, I agree with you here. I yield that point because it is a very strong one and is something that I feel strongly about myself.

Would we be talking about the Crusades today if the crusaders just turned over a few tables in a mosque once?

The point is this, although Jesus taught non-violence with regards to one's personal situation, when it came to directly disrespecting God, he was violent. Therefore you cannot say that violence has absolutely no place in Christianity. However, that should be reserved for someone, like Jesus, whose sole motivation is to please God.
 
Last edited:
You totally right. Very, very good point. That said, there are aspects of the Old Testament that Jesus did want his followers to adhere to. But again, I agree with you here. I yield that point because it is a very strong one and is something that I feel strongly about myself.

The point is this, although Jesus taught non-violence with regards to one's personal situation, when it came to directly disrespecting God, he was violent. Therefore you cannot say that violence has absolutely no place in Christianity. However, that should be reserved for someone, like Jesus, whose sole motivation is to please God.

I would have liked this comment but for the second part. Are you saying that Jesus condoned burning cities and slaughter because he flipped a table? The net you cast with the word "violence" is absurdly huge.
 
Are you saying that Jesus condoned burning cities and slaughter because he flipped a table?

I said EXACTLY what I meant. Nothing more, nothing less.

The net you cast with the word "violence" is absurdly huge.

No it isn't because that was certainly violence. The difference in that case is that it was violence committed in the process of the glorification of God. The motivation is key. Jesus was not angry because something that someone had done to him. He was angry that God's property was being misused. That is glorified anger. Do you not realize that anger can be used in the service of God? The motivation must be pure however.
 
The point is they did not elect Obama to appease Saudi Arabia by using direct U.S. military power to topple Assad. Neither did they elect Obama to use direct military power to attack Iran to appease Israel. Why are you advocating the appeasement of Saudi Arabia and Israel in this way?



There was never any need for our Military to attack anyone.

The presence of American Military forces alone kept the Isis thugs at bay.

By removing, ( against the advice of some of his closest aides ) every semblance of American militarily assets he enabled the expansion of Islamo-fascist thugs into previously secure territories.

Then he tried to draw ridiculous and desperate parallels by bringing up the crusades and slavery in a attempt to mitigate their terrorist actions.

Actions that he's partially repsonsible for.

Someone needs to teach Obama about the " Abolitionist Movement ". Chances are he would attribute it to " Right Wing Misinformation ".
 
There was never any need for our Military to attack anyone.

The presence of American Military forces alone kept the Isis thugs at bay.

By removing, ( against the advice of some of his closest aides ) every semblance of American militarily assets he enabled the expansion of Islamo-fascist thugs into previously secure territories.

Then he tried to draw ridiculous and desperate parallels by bringing up the crusades and slavery in a attempt to mitigate their terrorist actions.

Actions that he's partially repsonsible for.

Someone needs to teach Obama about the " Abolitionist Movement ". Chances are he would attribute it to " Right Wing Misinformation ".

The point is this, Saudi Arabia was very angry at Obama when he did not use U.S. military force to topple Assad. Not only that, but Israel does not want a nuclear deal with Iran. The only other option is force.
 
Back
Top Bottom