Egyptian minister: Obama told me he is a Muslim

Glinda said:

I don't have to prove anything. I'm not the one insisting that fairy stories are fact.

Nor am I the one who sent thousands of soldiers to their deaths because "I'm on a mission from god."

Click to expand...

Bush personally sent them right.....without the approval of nearly all of the 535 members of Congress right? I suppose every member of Congress who voted to fund the war in Iraq was on a "mission from God" right? Including Barack Obama, who was a US Senator who voted in favor of the war effort in Iraq, right. You've talked yourself into a hole dear lady. LOL

BTW, I'm sorry that you are so bitter toward the idea that SOME people can find comfort through the Christian Faith, even WITHOUT attempting to force others to subscribe to it.

Doesn't it just make you sooooo angry that the majority of earthlings profess belief in at least some form of supreme being/deity, and that even highly educated people (world leaders and the vast majority of US Presidents included) have subscribed to belief in some form of absurd, unverifiable, unsubstantiated religious "fairy story" as you so eloquently put it? That just reeaalllly gets under your collar doesn't it? Upset because you just can't seem to convince me of how "ignorant" I really am? LOL, you little Atheists are so darn cute some times! :lol:

FluffyNinja said:

That just reeaalllly gets under your collar doesn't it? Upset because you just can't seem to convince me of how "ignorant" I really am? LOL, you little Atheists are so darn cute some times! :lol:

Click to expand...

Never can tell - Glinda may turn out to have the fate of Saul.

Ockham said:

Never can tell - Glinda may turn out to have the fate of Saul.

Click to expand...

LOL, yeah, we can only hope................................oh, and pray :mrgreen:

FluffyNinja said:

Bush personally sent them right.....without the approval of nearly all of the 535 members of Congress right? I suppose every member of Congress who voted to fund the war in Iraq was on a "mission from God" right? Including Barack Obama, who was a US Senator who voted in favor of the war effort in Iraq, right. You've talked yourself into a hole dear lady. LOL

Click to expand...

Didn't Obama vote against the Iraq war as Senator? I thought that was one of the reasons why many preferred him over Hillary.

And of course, it were probably other reasons that convinced Congress members of the war in Iraq than religious reasons ... but still, IF Chirac's claims are true, I would consider it really, really frightening. After all, that guy was in possession of the nuclear suitcase.

FluffyNinja said:

And if it proves to be true, who will be shocked? Anyone? Anyone? Any takers? :wow:

Click to expand...

I'm not shocked people believe this crap, but I would very shocked if it were true. I think Obama is a secular Christian (without strong convictions) and thus might have a heart for Muslim, but there is no evidence of him being a Muslim.

German guy said:

Didn't Obama vote against the Iraq war as Senator? I thought that was one of the reasons why many preferred him over Hillary.

And of course, it were probably other reasons that convinced Congress members of the war in Iraq than religious reasons ... but still, IF Chirac's claims are true, I would consider it really, really frightening. After all, that guy was in possession of the nuclear suitcase.

Click to expand...

Calm down, your flight back to earth will leave within the hour.

German guy said:

Didn't Obama vote against the Iraq war as Senator? I thought that was one of the reasons why many preferred him over Hillary.

And of course, it were probably other reasons that convinced Congress members of the war in Iraq than religious reasons ... but still, IF Chirac's claims are true, I would consider it really, really frightening. After all, that guy was in possession of the nuclear suitcase.

Click to expand...

Obama was not in the Senate when the vote to authorize the war occured. He however claimed that he has opposed the war from the beginning, which drew the distinction between his opponents who both (Clinton and Edwards) voted to authorize the use of force.

NolaMan said:

Obama was not in the Senate when the vote to authorize the war occured. He however claimed that he has opposed the war from the beginning, which drew the distinction between his opponents who both (Clinton and Edwards) voted to authorize the use of force.

Click to expand...

Obama DID, however, vote in favor of budget packages to fund the war in Iraq while he was a Senator.

FluffyNinja said:

Obama DID, however, vote in favor of budget packages to fund the war in Iraq while he was a Senator.

Click to expand...

True, but the counter to that is simply once they are there, they need to be supported, and not turned into political pawns. The vote that really counts in that regard is the original go or not vote.

I don't really have a problem, or view it as hypocrisy, for a political to vote against the war, but then if it happens anyway, to make sure it gets adaquately funded.

Zyphlin said:

Absolutely. Because, as you see, he has a HISTORY of it. There's a history there because its been found out, seen, exposed, proven, etc.

Yet at the same time we're supposed to believe that for the vast majority of his life and his decade in public office that he has managed to completely and utterly keep secret from everyone possible that he was a muslim to the point of being able to assure that there could be no solid proof what so ever that would be found by his own party that vets their candidates nor the multitude of opposition that digs for dirt on a person, including when he was running for the highest office in all the land.

So he's managed to keep something like that secret while openly lying about it on a national stage while having every spot light from his party and the opposing party put on him without having anything with a shred of credibility come to light to prove that the notion is true...

....but that he goes ahead and just says it to a random Egyptian politician?

Wonderful. Do you have an ebay account. I have this great piece of Florida real estate for you that I'd love to sell you for a bargain price.

Click to expand...

The point isn't if he is a Muslim, it is the lies and deceiving Obama is doing

It's hard to believe so many Conservatives didn't vote against Obama because he's black when they keep coming up with ways of saying OMFG HE'S A MUSLIM!

ptif219 said:

Wrong I say Obama is a liar and can not be believed. He claimed to be Christian when he went to a racist church for 20 years. Then claimed he did know the church was racist. Obama has a history that shows he can not be believed and he has no credibility

Click to expand...

You may want to reread your posts. You jumped on the "He's a Muslim" bandwagon without checking the facts. Furthermore, racist church does not invalidate you as a Christian, if that was true, most of those at Bob Jones University are racist not to mention millions of Christians in the past that went to Churches that were racists.

Basically, you don't like Obama and you will jump on anything to suit your bias.

Zyphlin said:

In a broader sense, if it [Obama is a Muslim] was somehow true (which is kind of like saying if smurfs existed and lived inside of Pulto. So you know, Possible, but highly highly highly improbable to the point that its ridiculous) ...

To the vast majority of the American public at this point though I'd imagine Obama's religion isn't much of an issue as its already known and is a dead issue.

Click to expand...

BINGO. (Technically, /thread. Thanks Zyph.)

One's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are completely unimportant and unacceptable where our government is concerned. They have no legitimacy in our nation's form or function, yet they reportedly have been used/abused by the leader of the free world to instigate and champion a fruitless and deadly war of choice.

I don't know how many times I need to repeat this for it to sink in, but I'll give it one more try and then I'm out:

Followers of Organized Religion: Please do keep your "faith" (whatever it might be, and more power to you) to yourselves, but do NOT include me, my government, my President, OR my nation in your "beliefs."

We have laws against that. :roll:

Practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
- James Madison

Click to expand...

Glinda said:

BINGO. (Technically, /thread. Thanks Zyph.)

Click to expand...

Zyph has a way with doing that.

ptif219 said:

The point isn't if he is a Muslim, it is the lies and deceiving Obama is doing

Click to expand...

Except for the fact that in this case the only way he's "lying and deceiving" is if he's a Muslim, which is like saying there are smurfs on Pluto. Its not true, so there's nothing to bitch about in regards to him "Lying and deceiving" on this issue UNLESS you think he's really a super duper secret Muslim!

Glinda said:

BINGO. (Technically, /thread. Thanks Zyph.)

One's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are completely unimportant and unacceptable where our government is concerned. They have no legitimacy in our nation's form or function, yet they reportedly have been used/abused by the leader of the free world to instigate and champion a fruitless and deadly war of choice.

I don't know how many times I need to repeat this for it to sink in, but I'll give it one more try and then I'm out:

Followers of Organized Religion: Please do keep your "faith" (whatever it might be, and more power to you) to yourselves, but do NOT include me, my government, my President, OR my nation in your "beliefs."

We have laws against that. :roll:

Click to expand...

Actually, you're so wrong here its kind of sad. There's never been in any way shape or form any kind of ban on disallowing ones religious views to guide ones vote, either for a candidate or for a bill. There is no location anywhere within the constitution or any founding document that details or restricts what forms of philosophies one must use or not use when determining the rationale behind how they view the world and what they think is best for the country. The only thing that is disallowed is the official establishment of an individual state church. If I believe killing is bad because of my religious views, and there is a bill that would make killing someone a capital offense, and I wanted to vote for it because it because my religion tells me killing is bad and thus I agree with this bill there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about such a thing. It is no different under the constitution and under the law then if I believed killing was bad due to Platonic philosophy and thus voted for it. What would be a violation is if you instead tried to push a law specifically stating "It will be illegal to violate the sixth commandment" as that is instilling a specific and definitive grouping of religions into official capacity.

Peoples faiths, beliefs, religions, philosophies, and other such things are more than welcoming to be involved and included within their, their government, their presidents, or their nations belief structure as to how things should be done...what it can not be is institutionalized in such a defined and exact way as to force others to actually forcibly participate in said religion through the official or defacto set up of a state religion.

Zyphlin said:

Actually, you're so wrong here its kind of sad. There's never been in any way shape or form any kind of ban on disallowing ones religious views to guide ones vote, either for a candidate or for a bill. There is no location anywhere within the constitution or any founding document that details or restricts what forms of philosophies one must use or not use when determining the rationale behind how they view the world and what they think is best for the country. The only thing that is disallowed is the official establishment of an individual state church. If I believe killing is bad because of my religious views, and there is a bill that would make killing someone a capital offense, and I wanted to vote for it because it because my religion tells me killing is bad and thus I agree with this bill there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about such a thing. It is no different under the constitution and under the law then if I believed killing was bad due to Platonic philosophy and thus voted for it. What would be a violation is if you instead tried to push a law specifically stating "It will be illegal to violate the sixth commandment" as that is instilling a specific and definitive grouping of religions into official capacity.

Peoples faiths, beliefs, religions, philosophies, and other such things are more than welcoming to be involved and included within their, their government, their presidents, or their nations belief structure as to how things should be done...what it can not be is institutionalized in such a defined and exact way as to force others to actually forcibly participate in said religion through the official or defacto set up of a state religion.

Click to expand...

Not intending to get into a quarrel about the US Constitution, and I don't think what you say is necessarily wrong ... but isn't one major ideal in the Western World the freedom of religion, which means there must be no policies that favor one religion over another, or one over atheism? And should a President, although he may not legally be required, at least try to be a President for the entire people, Christians, atheists or believers in another faith alike?

Zyphlin said:

There's never been in any way shape or form any kind of ban on disallowing ones religious views to guide ones vote, either for a candidate or for a bill.

Click to expand...

Never said there was. :doh

Zyphlin said:

There is no location anywhere within the constitution or any founding document that details or restricts what forms of philosophies one must use or not use when determining the rationale behind how they view the world and what they think is best for the country.

Click to expand...

Never said there was. :doh The problem arises when the leader of our nation chooses to wage war against an independent sovereign nation based on "God told me to."

Zyphlin said:

Peoples faiths, beliefs, religions, philosophies, and other such things are more than welcoming to be involved and included within their, their government, their presidents, or their nations belief structure as to how things should be done..

Click to expand...

FFS. :roll: I'll say it one more time r e a l l y s l o w l y for those who are clearly incapable of grasping the point:

Dear Everybody, Including the President: Please do believe anything you wish; adhere to any faith, belief, religion, or philosophy you wish, none of it means diddly to me. I don't give a crap if you worship dung beetles and dance nekkid under the moonlight to appease Zeus in your own private world, but when a government official attempts to use his/her faith, belief, religion, or philosophy as an acceptable or legitimate justification for needlessly sending thousands to their deaths in a war of choice, I've got a BIG problem with that.

Here's a little truth test for you; let's see how honest you really are:

If Obama had said out loud, in front of an audience, "God speaks through me" you (and Fluffy Ninja and anyone else who gives Bush a pass on this) would be having coronaries over it.

Please, PLEASE try to deny that one. :roll:

German guy said:

Not intending to get into a quarrel about the US Constitution, and I don't think what you say is necessarily wrong ... but isn't one major ideal in the Western World the freedom of religion, which means there must be no policies that favor one religion over another, or one over atheism? And should a President, although he may not legally be required, at least try to be a President for the entire people, Christians, atheists or believers in another faith alike?

Click to expand...

The general theory is in a representative republic we're voting for people we think are going to govern in such a way that we'll like and will better our country. Which means when we nominate them we nominate all of them, not just their logical side or just their practical side or just their philosophical side. Just like someone may vote for a candidate because they're black and they think will be able to identify with black individuals better and shape laws that better understand their position in life so to could you say that about someone that's a muslim, or christian, or athiest. And neither is necessarily wrong.

Indeed, its absolutely unrealistic to suggest that you can or will remove religion 100% from politics because for the vast majority of people in this country their religion greatly affects them even on a subconscious level. Their views on things, their morals, their ethics, their world view all may very well be shaped by their religion and to suggest religion must be removed from it completely is to essentially ask them to completely rewrite their world view, morals, and belief system. Such a thing is just generally not possible, especially in a one day turn around between running for office and being elected.

One of the Western World is freedom of religion, that anyone can practice whatever religion they feel privately without the government keeping them from doing it or forcing them to participate in another religion. However having ones religion affect their views and their policies is not against freedom of religion, no more than if we substituted "Talmud" with "Works of John Locke". While there can be disputes made about how heavily Christian some of the founders were it would be an absolute, 100%, bold faced lie to not suggest many of them were religious in some fashion and that said religion in many ways affected their philosophies, views, morals, and thoughts in regards to governance.

In my eyes a President in a representative Republic should do what he feels is best for the country based on his own views/thoughts/beliefs with a mindful ear and eye turned to what his constituents desire. What I do not believe should happen is that a President actively try to act contrary to what his principles/thoughts/views/beliefs are, the very things likely represented through his speech and his campaigning and thus which helped him get elected, because those things may offend some people as doing so would then betray and deceive the majority population that voted him into office.

For example, I would expect a person who ran a campaign while making his unquestionable Athiesm central to his belief structure in regards to how government should reign to not get into office and then vote against a bill allowing gay marriage because some religions find it offensive and the government shouldn't be mandating something religions find offensive. If he did do that then I would fully understand and support the outcry of his constituents because one of the factors about the man that they believed shaped his views and beliefs and thus would shape his policy was thrown to the way side, doing a disservice to his constituency that voted him into office. Likewise, if a person ran a campaign making his christian values and principles a key focus as to how he thinks the world works and what is moral or not I do not expect him to go into office and go pass a bill allowing gay marriage. Again, if he did, like the Athiest, I'd have no issue with his constituents being upset with him for presenting a false image of what guides his beliefs regarding what should be legal or not. In neither case is someone attempting to establish a state religion, nor prohibit someone from practicing their religion, they're voting on a completely secular proposal but their reasonings for their vote is anything but secular.

The Constitution prohibits laws that explicitly form a state religion, either directly or through specifically putting in a religious edict. However no where in any portion of the constitution does it state that religious views is barred from being used in the rational, either subconscious or conscious, of whether or not an individual or a congressman votes for a bill or not.

Glinda said:

Never said there was. :doh The problem arises when the leader of our nation chooses to wage war against an independent sovereign nation based on "God told me to."

Click to expand...

Its amazing you bitch about people "believing about the mythical man in the sky" and then you type out idiotic **** like that from a man who is a known antagonist to the individual in question and disagreed with the mans actions that is completely and utterly unverified but naturally because it suits your agenda of hatred for religion and hatred for George Bush obviously it must be unquestionably true.

:roll:

Dear Everybody, Including the President: Please do believe anything you wish; adhere to any faith, belief, religion, or philosophy you wish, none of it means diddly to me. I don't give a crap if you worship dung beetles and dance nekkid under the moonlight to appease Zeus in your own private world, but when a government official attempts to use his/her faith, belief, religion, or philosophy as an acceptable or legitimate justification for needlessly sending thousands to their deaths in a war of choice, I've got a BIG problem with that.

Click to expand...

I agree. Can we also agree that people Presiden'ts shouldn't use their faith, belief, religion, or philosophy to order an orgy break out over the entire US? Oh, oh, oh, how about they can't use their faith, belief, religion, or philosophy as justification for ****ting upon the head of the secretary of state. Oh, I know...how about they can't use it to justify a reach around with a spider monkey.

I mean, since we're throwing out ridiculous situations that are adverse to actual logical fact and are based on nothing but one questionable accusation and personal bias without any care for the plethora of fact surrounding various reasons for the action might as well make it fun, right?

Here's a little truth test for you; let's see how honest you really are:

If Obama had said out loud, in front of an audience, "God speaks through me" you (and Fluffy Ninja and anyone else who gives Bush a pass on this) would be having coronaries over it.

Please, PLEASE try to deny that one. :roll:

Click to expand...

Well that's simple, if Obama simply said:

"God speaks through me" I'd probably raise an eye brow and think "WTF, that's a bit crazy" and likely be wary of him

If he said

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." to a bunch of Amish people

Then I'd say he's either putting on an act (since there's no history of him being deeply religious). However, assuming lets say there WAS such a history, I'd likely think he's a deeply religious person that believes that we are subject to gods will and divine grace and that through following the tenets of the bible that we are doing gods work, thus him "speaking through" that person. I'd probably chuckle a bit at the surprise that Obama is more deeply religious then I thought, and then ignore it because it'd be a case of a deeply religious person speaking in religious terms to a bunch of even more deeply religious people in a way that makes sense to them.

This is akin to someone that say, plays World of Warcraft, talking to a bunch of people who don't play going "Yeah, I play world of warcraft, its a neat game where I run around killing monsters and getting stronger" while talking to a bunch of other WOW players going "Yeah I pwn at WOW, I've got a leet Ele Shammy on A52 pumping out 5k dps when I'm pwning LDW in ICC for the uber loots." The later sentence would make little sense to people who are not heavily within that culture but its meaning is fully understandable to those that are in it. That person would likely not say such a sentence to others outside of that culture because they'd likely look at him like he's a loon speaking greek.

But its amazing what giving FULL SENTENCES and CONTEXT can do to make a situation look different. Though, not surprising, of course you didn't bother with that because then it wouldn't make your obviously biased attempt at going "OMG CRAZY RELIGIOUS PERSON!" work nearly as well.

:roll:

So, you're in complete denial.

Noted. :lamo

It must be true then,this post has convinced me !!!!!

obvious Child said:

You may want to reread your posts. You jumped on the "He's a Muslim" bandwagon without checking the facts. Furthermore, racist church does not invalidate you as a Christian, if that was true, most of those at Bob Jones University are racist not to mention millions of Christians in the past that went to Churches that were racists.

Basically, you don't like Obama and you will jump on anything to suit your bias.

Click to expand...

You need to reread I said he lied and deceived.

Zyphlin said:

Except for the fact that in this case the only way he's "lying and deceiving" is if he's a Muslim, which is like saying there are smurfs on Pluto. Its not true, so there's nothing to bitch about in regards to him "Lying and deceiving" on this issue UNLESS you think he's really a super duper secret Muslim!

Click to expand...

How do we know what is true? Obama has claimed to be Christian in a racist church but for 20 years he did not know it was racist. He is not credibile or beleivable. He tries to be all things to all people and the truth and facts do not matter.

Obama lied to somebody.

ptif219 said:

You need to reread I said he lied and deceived.

Click to expand...

You also need to reread where you argued you can't be Christian and a racist.

"He claimed to be Christian when he went to a racist church for 20 years."

Huh. Your argument is that if you go to a racist Church, you cannot actually be a Christian.