• 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!

The Rev. Franklin Graham Says President Obama was 'Born a Muslim'

Which doesn't change the fact that those words were approved by our founding fathers as a description of the country.

They were not approved by the Founding Fathers but rather the Senate. The clause is non-binding because there was no mutual ratification.
 
Look, I am no fan of President Obama, but I am getting tired of two things.

1. The Birthers asinine argument that he is not a natural born citizen.
2. That he was born a Muslim and somehow he went to an Islamic school in Indonesia.

Both of these lines of thinking are stupid, ignorant and needless. What we should be focusing on is policy differences and why what he is doing is wrong for the U.S. and the free world. Rather, a distressingly large number of people insist on continuing to make fools of themselves and in the process make Obama's opposition seem less than credible at times.

That is really stupid. Grow up people. He is the President. He is a natural born citizen. He did not attend an Islamic school in Indonesia. Get it?
 
They were not approved by the Founding Fathers but rather the Senate. The clause is non-binding because there was no mutual ratification.

The senate in 1796-7 would have been comprised of founding fathers.

And the "binding" nature of the statement is irrelvent considering the fact that our government believed that was what was in the arabic document that was binding. They still OKed it. The only thing that has any intellectual value in this discussion is what our government believed was in the document.

The Tripolians don't define our nation, so what they believed is irrelvent.
 
The senate in 1796-7 would have been comprised of founding fathers.

What is your definition of Founding Fathers?

And the "binding" nature of the statement is irrelvent considering the fact that our government believed that was what was in the arabic document that was binding. They still OKed it. The only thing that has any intellectual value in this discussion is what our government believed was in the document.

Still not legally binding on the United States or its government.

The Tripolians don't define our nation, so what they believed is irrelvent.

And I would argue that the Senate in 1796 was not composed of Founding Fathers... so there...
 
What is your definition of Founding Fathers?

Those who were involved in the American Revolution, Ratification of the Constitution, and/or the early stages of our government (Including our government under the Articles of Confederation).

Even if you use a far more stingent definition, the fact that the English version of the treaty was signed by John Adams would be a definitive inclusion of a founding father's beliefs on the matter (he could not read arabic to my knowledge, so it was the English version which he said this about:

"Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof."

Now, whether or not the clauses were all "legally binding" is irrelvent because even without legal binding, we have evidence of someone who is undeniably a founder affirming them to be true.

Still not legally binding on the United States or its government.

Whether or not is it legally binding is irrelevent to it being factual or not.

And I would argue that the Senate in 1796 was not composed of Founding Fathers... so there...

Yes, but you are basing your belief on opinion, while my statement about is 100% factual: The tripolians don't define our nation.
 
Here why don't we play with this little quote a little:

"You shall have no other gods before me."

Now tell me, if I tell you that you can't have any other Gods before me in a commandment, what choice am I giving you? No, no. I believe you're running circles trying to explain the progressive ideas at the time. 'God' didn't give really give humanity a choice. If he did then he's not all knowing. A choice would mean that he thought it could go both ways and thus planned in the event of either case. Do you not understand the fallacy in saying that you have a choice when everything you do is already predetermined to end in a precise way regardless of what you do? No, no. Freedom of religion is NOT a Christian idea. It isn't so in the 21st century much less the 16th or 17th century.

I think the founders of the United States were more interested in the teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament when they founded America, Hatuey, then they were of the Old Testament.

The Golden Rule of 'Doing unto others' would play an especially important role.

Of course the Ten Commandments are difficult to follow, I've broken nine of them myself, but they are part of the American heritage and it's always valuable to maintain an understanding of who you are as a people and where you came from. Without that understanding you don't have much at all.
 
Here why don't we play with this little quote a little:

"You shall have no other gods before me."

Now tell me, if I tell you that you can't have any other Gods before me in a commandment, what choice am I giving you? No, no. I believe you're running circles trying to explain the progressive ideas at the time. 'God' didn't give really give humanity a choice. If he did then he's not all knowing. A choice would mean that he thought it could go both ways and thus planned in the event of either case. Do you not understand the fallacy in saying that you have a choice when everything you do is already predetermined to end in a precise way regardless of what you do? No, no. Freedom of religion is NOT a Christian idea. It isn't so in the 21st century much less the 16th or 17th century.

You're right. Freedom of religious is not a Christian idea. It is an American idea borne from the belief from this nation's Founding Fathers that no American citizen will ever be unjustly persecuted based on their religious belief nor forced to follow any one particular religion as what was thrust upon English citizens under the British crown.

When you get down to it, America may have been discovered under the religious banner of Christianity, but those lonely Pilgrims were Quakers. (Whatever happened to that religion in this country anyway? Did they morph into Amish or did it just go away?)
 
Last edited:
You're right. Freedom of religious is not a Christian idea. It is an American idea borne from the belief from this nation's Founding Fathers that no American citizen will ever be unjustly persecuted based on their religious belief nor forced to follow any one particular religion as what was thrust upon English citizens under the British crown.

When you get down to it, America may have been discovered under the religious banner of Christianity, but those lonely Pilgrims were Quakers. (Whatever happened to that religion in this country anyway? Did they morph into Amish or did it just go away?)

I had a Quaker friend in college and Nixon was a Quaker too.
 
Because one of Obama's parents was Muslim and the other was Christian. Why aren't his detractors saying that he was born Christian? The answer is obvious. They want to pin him as a Muslim, in order to commit character assassination on him.


Nah, I think you have it wrong Dan. Correct me if I am wrong, but if a child born to a Muslim father isn't that child considered Muslim? Isn't that why he was registered as a Muslim in the Jakarta school?



j-mac
 
Nah, I think you have it wrong Dan. Correct me if I am wrong, but if a child born to a Muslim father isn't that child considered Muslim? Isn't that why he was registered as a Muslim in the Jakarta school? j-mac

That's quite correct, J-mac. Not every religious faith shares the same attitudes in this area as Christianity. Indeed, every Muslim father expects his children to be Muslim, which is why they have "honor killings" should the children dare stray.

This is why so many Muslims consider BHO to be a Muslim, especially considering his name and, if he was genuinely changed to Christianity, he would then be an apostate, and subject to the death penalty.

Fortunately for BHO, Muslims consider him to be a Muslim also, just commuting Al-taqiyya, so he is still part of the faith.
 
That's quite correct, J-mac. Not every religious faith shares the same attitudes in this area as Christianity. Indeed, every Muslim father expects his children to be Muslim, which is why they have "honor killings" should the children dare stray.

This is why so many Muslims consider BHO to be a Muslim, especially considering his name and, if he was genuinely changed to Christianity, he would then be an apostate, and subject to the death penalty.

Fortunately for BHO, Muslims consider him to be a Muslim also, just commuting Al-taqiyya, so he is still part of the faith.


thank you...That's what I thought. But ofcourse, that isn't to say whether he is Muslim in practice or not, but it is important to understand his outreach, and seeming propensity to appear weak, and subservient to Muslim concerns and wants during this time.

j-mac
 
That's quite correct, J-mac. Not every religious faith shares the same attitudes in this area as Christianity. Indeed, every Muslim father expects his children to be Muslim, which is why they have "honor killings" should the children dare stray.

yes there seems to have been several hundred in recent memory. I think i will take this and apply it to muslim society in general and make it seem as though it were a widespread and common tradition among them.
 
Nah, I think you have it wrong Dan. Correct me if I am wrong, but if a child born to a Muslim father isn't that child considered Muslim? Isn't that why he was registered as a Muslim in the Jakarta school?
j-mac
That's circular reasoning, which is a fallacy. You're assuming the proposition that Obama is a Muslim is true based on the premise that the step father is Muslim.
 
Last edited:
The Rev. Franklin Graham is exactly correct.

I believe Obama to be an anti-American Muslim.

It is clear that Rev. Wright Obama's mentor is big time into black liberation theology which is anti-Constitution, anti-American, and anti-white people.

Obama claims he was in that Chicago Church almost every Sunday for 20 years, but somehow missed all the racism and hate speech.

I have to point out here that it is permitted for Muslims to lie if it furthers their goals, because in the end they can be redeemed by fbe simple act of becoming a martyr.

Just look at all the drinking and fooling around in strip bars some of the
9-11 suicide bombers did before they hit.

In the Cult of Islam anything that works against us infidels is fine.

For argument sake let's say I'm wrong. Then someone explain all the bowing scraping Obama did first thing in the Middle east along with becoming the all time leading "Appeaser in Chief" on the same trip.
 
Did anyone inquire during the taking of the poll, what percentage were muslim who considered Obama muslim?
 
You're right. Freedom of religious is not a Christian idea. It is an American idea borne from the belief from this nation's Founding Fathers that no American citizen will ever be unjustly persecuted based on their religious belief nor forced to follow any one particular religion as what was thrust upon English citizens under the British crown.

When you get down to it, America may have been discovered under the religious banner of Christianity, but those lonely Pilgrims were Quakers. (Whatever happened to that religion in this country anyway? Did they morph into Amish or did it just go away?)

There were several State sactioned churches at our Founding.
 
Are you going to try to explain yourself or not?

I will to this extent, (it's late and I'm tired} there were in fact State sanctioned religions, which makes it a fallacy that there was ever any such thing as "separation of church and state" at our founding. Leave that aside..

Food for thought extrapolation.............

Look forward 20 years. Look at the defence of the religion of Islam from the left. Is it foreseeable that a State could be overtaken by demographics that once again it could be deemed constitutional for a State to sanction Islam as the official religion of the State? Look at the leftist SCOTUS nutjobs.

Look back 20, who would believe where we are now?

Food for thought.........
 
Last edited:
I will to this extent, (it's late and I'm tired} there were in fact State sanctioned religions, which makes it a fallacy that there was ever any such thing as "separation of church and state" at our founding. Leave that aside..

Food for thought extrapolation.............

Look forward 20 years. Look at the defence of the religion of Islam from the left. Is it foreseeable that a State could be overtaken by demographics that once again it could be deemed constitutional for a State to sanction Islam as the official religion of the State? Look at the leftist SCOTUS nutjobs.

Look back 20, who would believe where we are now?

Food for thought.........

Well those States agreed to the Constitution of the USA.
 
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive
treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. — Marcus Cicero
 
I have to point out here that it is permitted for Muslims to lie if it furthers their goals, because in the end they can be redeemed by fbe simple act of becoming a martyr.

Makes you wonder about things, doesn't it? Blustering and lies are part of the culture. So what we did before going into Iraq was use the blowhard who ran the country as the main source for our brilliant intel that led to the invasion. He was bragging about all the bad, dangerous stuff he had stashed somewhere. He was lying, of course, and we knew it. But the statements of this known liar were used to push for war. Course, that means there were some liars here too, non-Muslim ones. Maybe its also part of our culture.
 
Back
Top Bottom