Obama and the "Muslim Question"

[pedroh 21]

Just a general question because I do not understand... Why do people wish ours to be a "Christian nation" anyway? Are people so insecure in their faith that they need everyone else around them to believe the same thing that they do? Does calling the U.S. a Christian nation make people feel better that laws that "pander" to people of other faiths will not be passed? What does a Christian nation even really mean?

Don't you remember, a Christian nation is synonymous for The Declaration of Human Rights, silly Jenn!

yea!

like the good ole christian waterboarding!!!

You left out the good ole Islamic terrorist running into a crowd with a bomb belt. Taking out hundreds at a time. I would say that waterboarding prolly saved more people than hurt through information given up.

yea but the US is supposed to respect human rights, and stuff.. u know.. geneva convention, all those little things.. that the 'bad guys' don't do

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Just a general question because I do not understand... Why do people wish ours to be a "Christian nation" anyway? Are people so insecure in their faith that they need everyone else around them to believe the same thing that they do? Does calling the U.S. a Christian nation make people feel better that laws that "pander" to people of other faiths will not be passed? What does a Christian nation even really mean?

Don't you remember, a Christian nation is synonymous for The Declaration of Human Rights, silly Jenn!

yea!

like the good ole christian waterboarding!!!

You left out the good ole Islamic terrorist running into a crowd with a bomb belt. Taking out hundreds at a time. I would say that waterboarding prolly saved more people than hurt through information given up.

yea but the US is supposed to respect human rights, and stuff.. u know.. geneva convention, all those little things.. that the 'bad guys' don't do

You associated waterboarding with christianity. The geneva convention was written in the context of conventional warfare and should be updated for the present. Throwin all this shite and innuendo around and hopin it sticks is very sad.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, he ironically associated waterboarding with human rights...you missed the point entirely.

[simple_male 1]

No, he ironically associated waterboarding with human rights...you missed the point entirely.

I agree.

[Jenn! 918]

No, he ironically associated waterboarding with human rights...you missed the point entirely.

Typical liberal response!

[Peikko 1,575]

Damn facist, begone!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Damn facist, begone!

Awsome! When all else fails resort to name calling or does that fall under the category of sarcasm or irony as an escape.

[Peikko 1,575]

I wasn't referring to you at all, I was referring to Jenn, in a tone of irony. However, again, you missed it.

[pedroh 21]

No, he ironically associated waterboarding with human rights...you missed the point entirely.

yes...

but, hell, if dem terrorists are doing sh!t, we can too!!! plus, there's not a real proof that waterboarding is effective, or that wit that method useful information has been extracted, even old CIA officers have said, hell yea, torture someone, and they can tell you they caused the Chicago fire!

Edited February 27, 2008 by pedroh

[HAL 9000 96]

No, he ironically associated waterboarding with human rights...you missed the point entirely.

yes...

but, hell, if dem terrorists are doing sh!t, we can too!!! plus, there's not a real proof that waterboarding is effective, or that wit that method useful information has been extracted, even old CIA officers have said, hell yea, torture someone, and they can tell you they caused the Chicago fire!

Shhh you don't need the CIA for that pedro... Chicago Police can do it just as well!!

Human rights??? Who cares (ironically) about those??

[BishopMnA 0]

The reason why is...Your religon does affect the decisons you make...

Boardashell makes the right point above.

For the most part, I believe that separation of church and state is fine. However, all of the candidates have made statements of faith. Therefore, as a conscious and conscientious voter, I do take their statement of faith as a decree of the way they do intend make judgments aka political decisions.

And, it is a fact that the various religions do have different elements of their faith that would effect that decision making. Its that simple....unless they are lying about their faith.

If a candidate makes a statement of faith, it would be ignorant to think that it won't impact their policy making.

On the other hand, if a candidate does make a statement of faith, and it doesn't impact their policy making, then they should be called on it...for they are only grandstanding for political purposes, pandering, at that point.

For an easy example, all of the top candidates now say they are pro-choice, yet all claim to be Christians. I'd say they are all liars or at least confused, on at least that point. However, one point isn't enough to qualify/disqualify a candidate...gotta look at the entire package.

Peace,

MarkNAAm

[Dan J 277]

Boardashell makes the right point above.

For the most part, I believe that separation of church and state is fine. However, all of the candidates have made statements of faith. Therefore, as a conscious and conscientious voter, I do take their statement of faith as a decree of the way they do intend make judgments aka political decisions.

And, it is a fact that the various religions do have different elements of their faith that would effect that decision making. Its that simple....unless they are lying about their faith.

If a candidate makes a statement of faith, it would be ignorant to think that it won't impact their policy making.

On the other hand, if a candidate does make a statement of faith, and it doesn't impact their policy making, then they should be called on it...for they are only grandstanding for political purposes, pandering, at that point.

For an easy example, all of the top candidates now say they are pro-choice, yet all claim to be Christians. I'd say they are all liars or at least confused, on at least that point. However, one point isn't enough to qualify/disqualify a candidate...gotta look at the entire package.

Peace,

MarkNAAm

There are many different types of Christianity. No branch of Christianity can claim to be The Christianity. So of course, even in Christianity, there are other interpretations of what is right and wrong.

[Jaseball 0]

The fact that many of us on VJ are American's and are open minded enough to sponsor and wade through this legal mire that is the immigration process would probably make us a bit more open minded on cultures, religion, etc.

There are vast parts of this country that are probably silently in public and openly among others of their thinking who firmly believe a person should not be president because of race, gender, religion, or any other factor that doesn't fit their own narrow viewpoints.

Unfortunately I also think the ultra conservatives or extreme left liberals far out number the more moderate segment of the US, however just the fact that Hillary and Obama soundly thrashed the white male candidates in terms of their party nominee does show a major change.

Still, call me racist, but I'll also predict right here that McCain wins because he is a white male.

[BishopMnA 0]

Boardashell makes the right point above.

For the most part, I believe that separation of church and state is fine. However, all of the candidates have made statements of faith. Therefore, as a conscious and conscientious voter, I do take their statement of faith as a decree of the way they do intend make judgments aka political decisions.

And, it is a fact that the various religions do have different elements of their faith that would effect that decision making. Its that simple....unless they are lying about their faith.

If a candidate makes a statement of faith, it would be ignorant to think that it won't impact their policy making.

On the other hand, if a candidate does make a statement of faith, and it doesn't impact their policy making, then they should be called on it...for they are only grandstanding for political purposes, pandering, at that point.

For an easy example, all of the top candidates now say they are pro-choice, yet all claim to be Christians. I'd say they are all liars or at least confused, on at least that point. However, one point isn't enough to qualify/disqualify a candidate...gotta look at the entire package.

Peace,

MarkNAAm

There are many different types of Christianity. No branch of Christianity can claim to be The Christianity. So of course, even in Christianity, there are other interpretations of what is right and wrong.

Yes. That is 100% true. There is no correct 'sect' in Christianity. Christianity is above organized religion. Christianity is, after all, the belief in Christ. Sect = Religion, the man made means by which we approach Christianity. Christianity and Sect are two different things. I agree with you.

However, and not to draw this out as a topic or anything, I don't think there is any religious sect of Christianity that would claim to be pro-life. I could be wrong though, so let me know if I'm off base...

The point is that IF a politician claims a faith, then it would be ignorant of the voter to assume that the doctrine of their confessed faith won't impact their decision making. Unless they happen to be claiming a faith, but are not active in their faith, which may be the case with most of our now-candidates.

Peace!

MarkNAam