I think that Obama sees himself as Christian, but

• One million people are protesting in Iran...sm - ()
  • There is no excellence in Obama and Biden.... - this is butt kissing time........sm
    • Update for you regarding Biden.sm - ()
      • Oh, please, give me a break....that man sticks his foot - in his mouth everytime he opens it!!! ! nm
    • what you state, I quote........ - ()
      • I am independent as well, which is why - .............sm
        • Excuse me but what do you mean by pick and choose? - ()
          • Hmmmm....well, if that's the case........ - sm
            • this is completely different. It is not proven - ()
              • Secret service has said "yes" they do have these weapons... - sm
                • I think that Obama sees himself as Christian, but - ()
        • me neither......Your sentence that - ()
  • Oh boy....you are kidding, right? - watcher
    • These are TODAY'S news.............sm - ()
    • what are you talking about? This is OLD news!..sm - ()
  • Yeah, well 1 million protested our Govt recently too. - Made no difference, sadly, neither will theirs.nm
    • The only difference is... - watcher
      • LOL 1............nm - ()
      • And that's NO JOKE! Hide and watch! Exactly what - he will attempt to do! nm
        • Hide and watch. Isn't that what our very own - anti-Obama homegrown terrorists
        • there are meds against paranoia, don't you know?...nm - ()
          • are there any for your stupidity? I'm not into the - O lovers fest...nothing more than a puppet!
            • who is your love fest? McCain?eeewww, - ()
  • They had been looking for an excuse....(sm) - Just the big bad
    • Excuses, excuses, excuses........ - nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn-P3yAaAqI

Obama mocks the Bible.  No christian would mock Sermon on the Mount.

Wolf in sheep's clothing.  BEWARE, VERY DISTURBING.  Take it with a grain of salt.  Talks about the future mark. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9P15YZrnv0&feature=related

I'm going to take him at his word, not that it matters much to me which religion he practices.  What matters to me is his character, and I'd put that way above some that I've witnessed on this board.

America is NOT "only" a Christian nation any longer.  America promises freedom of religion for EVERYONE, not just Christians.

Do YOU stone your children for straying?

How about slavery?  (My guess is you're in favor of that one.)

He was just pointing out that sometimes literal translations of the Bible aren't applicable.  In other words, he made sense.

is he's not trying to push his religion down everyone else's unwilling throats.

You want to be in everyone's bedrooms, whether it's for gay marriage, birth control, abortion, etc.

You want everyone to walk in lock step with you on social issues, and this is exactly why the Republicans are in the toilet.  Americans want to choose their own paths and not have these things forced upon us by a group that claims that only THEY hold the exclusive keys to heaven.

By the way, did you know that Muslims believe that Jesus was a messenger from God (via virginal conception) who had been sent to guide the children of Israel??

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:00 AM

Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.

Rep. Norm Dicks voted in 2002 to back the war.

JIMI LOTT / THE SEATTLE TIMES, 2003

U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, center, with military officers at ceremonies marking the opening of new facilities at Naval Station Bremerton in 2003.

By Alicia Mundy
Seattle Times Washington bureau

WASHINGTON — It was after 11 p.m. on Friday when Rep. Norm Dicks finally left the Capitol, fresh from the heated House debate on the Iraq war. He was demoralized and angry.

Sometime during the rancorous, seven-hour floor fight over whether to immediately withdraw U.S. troops, one Texas Republican compared those who question America's military strategy in Iraq to the hippies and peaceniks who protested the Vietnam War and did terrible things to troop morale.

The House was in a frenzy over comments by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had called for the troops to leave Iraq in six months. In response, the White House initially likened Murtha, a 37-year veteran of the Marines and an officer in Vietnam, to lefty moviemaker Michael Moore.

Then a new Republican representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message to the House that she said she had received from a Marine colonel in her district: Cowards cut and run; Marines never do.

During much of the debate, Dicks, a Democrat from Bremerton, huddled in the Democrats' cloakroom with Murtha, a longtime friend. Both men are known for their strong support of the military over the years. Now, they felt, that record was being questioned.

There was a lot of anger back there, Dicks said in an interview this week. It was powerful. I can't remember anything quite as traumatic as this in my history here.

Near midnight, he drove to his D.C. home, poured a drink and wondered how defense hawks like he and Murtha had gotten lumped in with peaceniks by their colleagues and the administration.

And he thought about all that had happened over the past couple of years to change his mind about the war in Iraq.

Voted to back Bush

In October 2002, Dicks voted loudly and proudly to back President Bush in a future deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq — one of two Washington state Democratic House members to do so. Adam Smith, whose district includes Fort Lewis, was the other.

Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't hesitate to use them against the United States.

After visiting Iraq early in the war, Norm told me the Iraqis were going to be throwing petals at American troops, Murtha said in an interview this week.

Dicks now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.

While he disagrees with Murtha's conclusion that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within six months, Dicks said, He may well be right if this insurgency goes much further.

The insurgency has gotten worse and worse, he said. That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong — we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake.

Dicks, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, says he's particularly angry about the intelligence that supported going to war.

Without the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he said, he would absolutely not have voted for the war.

The Bush administration has accused some members of Congress of rewriting history by claiming the president misled Americans about the reasons for going to war. Congress, the administration says, saw the same intelligence and agreed Iraq was a threat.

But Dicks says the intelligence was doctored. And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency.

A lot of us relied on [former CIA director] George Tenet. We had many meetings with the White House and CIA, and they did not tell us there was a dispute between the CIA, Commerce or the Pentagon on the WMDs, he said.

He and Murtha tended to give the military, the CIA and the White House the benefit of the doubt, Dicks says. But he now says he and his colleagues should have pressed much harder for answers.

Norm ... has agonized

All of us have gone through a difficult period, but Norm really has agonized, Murtha said this week.

Murtha and Dicks were appointed to the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee in 1979, three years after Dicks first was elected to Congress. They rarely have disagreed, especially in their support of the military.

In October 2002, Dicks made an impassioned speech during the House debate over whether to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq without waiting for the United Nations to act.

Based on the briefings I have had, and based on the information provided by our intelligence agencies to members of Congress, I now believe there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he may be close to developing a nuclear weapon, Dicks said at the time.

By spring 2003, U.N. weapons inspectors said they hadn't found hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq. But Dicks remained convinced of Iraq's threat.

We're going to find things [Saddam] had not disclosed, he said shortly before the war began in March 2003. There is no doubt about that. Period. Underlined.

By June of that year, with no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons found, Dicks remained steadfast in his support for the war but called for a congressional inquiry into the intelligence agencies' work on Iraq. I think the American people deserve to know what happened and why it happened, he said at the time.

That same month, Dicks was upset when a good friend, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, was forced into retirement after telling Congress that the secretary of defense was not sending enough troops to win the peace.

Growing doubts

On July 6, 2003, Dicks awoke to read the now-famous New York Times opinion piece by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA mission to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa.

Wilson wrote that he had found no evidence of such Iraqi intentions and criticized Bush for making the claim in his State of the Union address two months before the invasion.

That Joe Wilson article was very troubling, Dicks said.

Dicks grew somber about Iraq. Rep. Jim McDermott, who represents Seattle and had opposed the war from the start, talked with him about it.

Norm is a lot like Jack Murtha. These are guys with a somewhat different philosophy than me, McDermott said recently. This an extremely difficult time for them because they have to reassess what they were led to believe about prewar intelligence.

The White House maintains it did nothing to mischaracterize what it knew about Iraq and its weapons.

Dicks' private concerns became more public two months ago. At a breakfast fundraiser on Capitol Hill, Dicks surprised the guests with a tough talk against the war.

The White House last Friday called Dicks to gauge his support. House GOP leaders were pushing for a vote on a resolution they hoped would put Democrats on the spot by forcing them to either endorse an immediate troop withdrawal or stay the course in Iraq.

Dicks said he told the White House that their attack on Murtha was the most outrageous comment I've ever heard.

The resolution, denounced by Democrats, ultimately was defeated 403-3.

Dicks says the Pentagon should begin a phased withdrawal and leave some troops to help maintain order and train a new Iraq army. We've got to be very concerned that Iraq comes out of this whole, he said.

But he added, We can't take forever.

Some people say it takes eight to nine years to control an insurgency, Dicks said.

I don't think the American people will give eight to nine years, and I sure as heck won't.

Alicia Mundy: 202-662-7457 or amundy@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company

It looks like America is becoming a theocracy.  I always thought that freedom of religion was one of the greatest things about America.  I'm worried it isn't going to exist in a very short time.

The letter you posted is great!  Thanks. 

From WikiPedia:

Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Episcopalian, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Jefferson. Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin. However, notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of deists, including Franklin, Jefferson, and Ethan Allen.^[11]

Although not a religion, Freemasonry was represented in John Blair, Benjamin Franklin, James Mchenry, George Washington, Abraham Baldwin, Gunning Bedford, William Blount, David Brearly, Daniel Carroll, Jonathan Dayton, Rufus King, John Langdon, George Read, Roger Sherman, James Madison, Robert Morris, William Paterson, and Charles Pinckney.

christian enough for what?  You said in one of your posts below that, "I find it especially interesting that black churches cannot be "angry" but white churches are free to do a shout out of the next anti-christ?

Hello?  If a black church is preaching hate towards white people, I would call that "angry."  If a white church is preaching about the coming of the anti-christ, how is that "angry?"  Please tell me.  One church is teaching racial hate, the other teaching Bible prophecy.  Please tell me what you mean?

I dont know what kind of church you have been to, but it must not have been a good experience.  God talks about the need for church in the Bible.  We are supposed to worship him, keep the sabbath holy and all of that.  You seem very sarcastic when you speak of Christianity.  I hope that your sister is praying for you. 

him being Muslim, convince yourselves and those voices in your head that he is Muslim and then say he's lying about being Christian.

America is supposed to have freedom of religion.  I don't care what his faith is.  He's not my pastor.  He's my president.

Robertson calls for assassination of Chavez

Televangelist calls Venezuelan president a ‘terrific danger’ to U.S.

There are many Democrats who belong to the Christian right.  I am not sure why you feel politicizing religion is so important, but I realize how important labels are to you.  It's unfortunate.  Jimmy Carter just recently came out and spoke against the Democratic party for abandoning God.  If Christians feel they have to place to turn but the *right*, whose fault is that?   Pat Robertson doesn't speak for me.  However, he is a good man and a Christian man.  As far as calling for an assassination that's bogus and was taken out of context and anyone who cared to do their research would know that.  But it's just way more convenient and fits into the left's philosophy to damn him to hell.  THERE' s the left for you.

By Jon Christian Ryter

McCain's "Palin" decision has already cost him the election.

Even though thousands of conservatives who had previously decided to sit out the Election of 2008 but have done an about face because GOP presumptive nominee John McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, either the Election of 2008 or the fate of the 2nd Amendment may have been decided shortly before noon on Aug. 29 even though the voters will not officially speak until Tues., Nov. 4, 2008.

To appease radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and the evangelical leaders who opposed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney because of—they claimed—his fuzzy view on abortion (when their unspoken opposition to Romney was really based from his Mormon faith), and Sen. John McCain's staff who surmised that the liberal Hillary Clinton-feminists who balked at supporting pro-abortion Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama (with whom they agree) would support a conservative pro-life, pro-gun, first term governor (with whom they vehemently disagree) just because she is a woman.

This was the same type of mistake President George Herbert Walker Bush made in 1992 when he "courted" Ross Perot supporters. They were Ross Perot supporters because they had already made a conscious-decision not to be George Bush supporters. And, the Hillary Clinton supporters are Hillary Clinton supporters because they rejected the core tenets of the Republican Party. In other words, the wayward female Clinton supporters won't vote for a woman just because she's a woman. Many of the Clinton supporters who would have voted for left-of-center John McCain will not vote for him specifically because he added prolife Gov. Sarah Palin [R-AK] to his ticket.

McCain knew he was taking a calculated risk in naming Palin simply because she is virtually unknown to voters in the continuous 48-States. Furthermore, like Obama, she is completely untested on both the national and international stage. But even more important, like Hillary Clinton who unconstitutionally sought the office of President, Palin is also constitutionally ineligible to run or, be elected to, or serve as, Vice President of the United States because of the provisions of Article II of the Constitution.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution appears to establish only four ironclad qualifications for the job as President of the United States. The president must [1] be at least 35-years of age, [2] must be a natural born citizen and [3] have lived in the United States at least 14 years. And, finally, 18 times Article II reiterates that the President of the United States will be a man. What that means is that not only could Hillary Rodham Clinton not seek the office of President of the United States without Congress first adopting a constitutional amendment degenderizing the office of President, but Gov. Sarah Palin cannot seek the office of Vice President for the same reason. The Vice President is one heartbeat away from the office of President. Logic suggests that, constitutionally, since a woman cannot be President she cannot be Vice President either because the job of the Vice President is to be prepared to step into the Oval Office as President should anything happen to the commander-in-chief/head-of-state.

The news that McCain picked a virtually unknown running mate came on the heels of reports that the two key front-runners for the job—Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney—confirmed to the media that neither made the final round. Former Washington Times reporter and Fox News Deputy News Director Bill Sammon correctly guessed that Palin would be McCain's choice several weeks ago. The McCain camp would not only not confirm he was right, but pooh-poohed the notion as "premature" when he tried to get a confirmation.

Palin was picked not only because she was a woman but, in 2006 when the Democrats swept both Houses of Congress and took the governor's mansions in several States, Palin orchestrated the stunning upset of two popular Alaska political figures. First she knocked off former four term US Senator and first term GOP Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski in the primary. Palin was involved in a three-way race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination. She took 51% of the vote, bowling over both Murkowski and former State legislator John Binkley. Former governor Tony Knowles won the Democratic primary with 74% of the vote. Palin defeated Knowles in the general election. Knowles fully expected a cakewalk in the November, 2006 election. After all, his opponent was the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska—and a former local beauty queen, Miss Wasilla. Knowles should have know better. Palin earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" in high school because in athletics—as in politics—she was extremely aggressive.

When Palin's name was first bantered as a possible GOP veep candidate she told the Washington Post that her being picked by the presumptive GOP nominee as vice president was "an impossibility," even though the idea of serving in national office intrigued her.

When she answered Kudlow & Company Larry Kudlow's question about the possibility of her being picked as McCain's running mate a month ago, she said: "As for the VP talk...I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the US, before I can even start addressing that question."

But as good as she sounds—and as good as she looks—the only pick that would have been worse for McCain would have been Condolessa Rice or Kay Bailey Hutchinson—or Tom Ridge or Jeb Bush. But the entire blogsphere knows that while feminists will vote for a woman as vice president as long as she's on the Democratic ticket, they won't vote for one on the GOP ticket. At least, not with enough votes to bring the victory home to the GOP. Because in the conservative world, mom's "house" is home, not Congress—and it's certainly not a cozy pink Oval Office in the White House.

McCain's people should have gone back and looked at the 1984 presidential election results. The Democratic ticket that year consisted of former VP Walter Mondale for President and former Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro for Veep. Ferraro made history by becoming the first woman at the top of a national party ticket when it was prohibited by the Constitution. While Reagan and Bush-41 took 54,455,472 votes against Mondale and Ferraro's 37,577,352 votes, Mondale took only one State—Minnesota in the worst political upset since 1820 when James Monroe took all but 1 electoral vote from John Quincy Adams. The voters flatly repudiated the notion of a woman Vice President in 1984—and most of them were not even aware that the Constitution mandates that the President of the United States—and those in line to become President—be male.

The Lord's Prayer:
...Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven....

This is a Christian prayer, for those of you who are unfamiliar.  There is nothing radical about what she is saying.  She is a faithful Christian woman. 

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The phrase "separation of church and state" which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

Wikipedia - Separation of Church and State United States

http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm

I was talking to somebody yesterday who wanted to go to the McCain rally here... I said why, she said because she was a Republican, I said, well, there's your mistake right there (in a joking manner) and she said (not joking!!) Well, I'm a Christian so I'm a Republican.

Does anyone else ever think that the real values cited by Christ (love, compassion, etc.) are better embodied by liberal policy these days? I'm just watching all of the hate-mongering, the intolerance, the lying... if I were a Christian Republican I'd be ashamed to call myself such. I'm not religious myself, but I love studying religion, and it boggles my mind how hateful and intolerant and just plain mean and ignorant some of these people are.

(Though just to note -- I am not bashing Christianity here. Just confused that those who believe they hold themselves to a higher moral standard because they are Christians can also ally themselves to this political and social party. The crazy ones, who I do believe are the minority, give those sane and good and actually moral Christians a bad name, in my opinion.)