Wash. Times forwarded distortion of Obama's "Christian nation" remarks
SUMMARY: The Washington Times uncritically quoted Wendy Wright distorting President Obama's "Christian nation" comments, taking them out of context to claim he rejected "the concept that America is a spiritual nation."
In a May 6 article reporting that "[a]ll Mr. Obama will do for the National Day of Prayer, which is Thursday, is sign a proclamation honoring the day," The Washington Times uncritically quoted Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, distorting comments President Obama made on April 6, taking them out of context to claim he rejected "the concept that America is a spiritual nation." The Times wrote: "Referencing a remark the president made at a recent press conference in Turkey that Americans 'do not consider ourselves a Christian nation,' [Wright] added: 'That was projecting his own beliefs, but not reflecting what the majority of Americans feel. It's almost like Obama is trying to remake America into his own image. This is ... a rejection of the concept that America is a spiritual nation and its foundation is Judeo-Christian.' " In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Obama was not repudiating the presence of Christianity or religion in the United States, as the context of his comments make clear; rather, he was making a broader point about the ecumenical nature of the country.
Indeed, after recognizing earlier in the speech that the United States is "a predominantly Christian nation," Obama stated: "[O]ne of the great strengths of the United States is -- although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
In the article, headlined "Obama to be prayer day no-show," the Times also relayed Wright's assertion that Obama's decision not to host a government service for the National Day of Prayer evinces his "lack of faith." As Media Matters noted, during the presidential campaign, the Times reprinted portions of an Investor's Business Daily editorial smearing Obama's faith, including the editorial's charge that "[a]t the core of the Democratic front-runner's faith ... is African nativism."
From the May 6 Washington Times article:
President Clinton did not host any special observances, according to the National Day of Prayer task force.
Some evangelicals said they were not surprised by Mr. Obama's decision.
"For those of us who have our doubts about Obama's faith, no, we did not expect him to have the service," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. "But as president, he should put his own lack of faith aside and live up to the office."
Referencing a remark the president made at a recent press conference in Turkey that Americans "do not consider ourselves a Christian nation," she added: "That was projecting his own beliefs, but not reflecting what the majority of Americans feel. It's almost like Obama is trying to remake America into his own image. This is not a rejection of Shirley Dobson; it's a rejection of the concept that America is a spiritual nation and its foundation is Judeo-Christian."
LOL!!!! It is sad to say, but your statement is so accurate. Many follow this idea of "convenient christianity". I loved that statement!
Oh yeah...Im a conservative and a Christian. I must be one of those right wing, religious zealots, then, right? LOL!
That's an amusing and pretty ignorant juxtaposition. The Anglo-Saxons were "pagan," not "Judeo-Christian." You are correct that our basis of laws is Anglo-Saxon in origin, but that moves it a step further from being Christian.
... the Constitution for this country, for "certain unalienable rights", and being "endowed by our creator", those lines aren't just there for show ... - ThinkR
The problem for you is that those phrases don't exist in the Constitution. It was a very deliberate act by the founding fathers to make the Constitution and entirely secular document.
Also, "juxtaposition" doesn't even hint at equivalence.
So we are not, never were and were never intended to be a Christian nation.
OMG, LMAO.
I love it when I see someone try to speak so expertly on our founding documents, only to see them get such basic facets so horribly wrong.
You're actually attempting to quote the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
In addition, you're quoting it incorrectly. The correct passage is "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." It's a very important distinction that respects and accommodates believers of all faiths and non-believers as well.
Just trying to think of all the implications of this gets my head spinning.
If you look at the growing Christian population in China; a country which kills Christians, you will notice that when there is persecution, our faith, and our number increases.
So, i say to you...bring your attacks. You will merely be taking part in God inspired prophecy, and you will allow us to grow even larger and stronger than what we are now.
So, i say...bring it!
You might as well talkabout the 'Caucaso-Negroid race' to explain our ethnicity, or the 'capitalo-socialist' school of thought.
My fault-find is that Christians are supposed to follow the New Testament covenant rather than the Old Testament...and while not denying some of the truths of the Old Testament, get away from all the crap that people find in Leviticus, etc to try to justify modern Christianity being as violent and medieval as radical islam.
And don't those five chapters include the way to sell your daughter into slavery, prohibit the wearing of mixed-fabric garments, and forbid the eating of both pork and shellfish?
And don't those who claim every word of the Bible is the literal truth wear polyester blends eat barbeque and enjoy shrimp cocktail?
Tell me...would you debate politics with someone if they knew nothing about politics? If so, wouldn't it be futile? The same goes for this.
Until you understand the "WHY" about the clothes that were worn; the hair styles they wore; the food that they (the Jews) ate and all the other "laws" in the bible, then please do not try and debate the issue. Again...it is futile.
I also love it when those who quote Bible verses attempt to tell me that I don't know enough about the Bible to debate it. Please. I have read the Bible, most of it more than once. It is a wonderful book full of archaic rules and laws (most of which only make sense in the time they were written) and Jewish fairytales. But, I know, we are too ignorant to understand how Jonah actually lived in a whale.
Only the Old Testament; Jewish people generally hold no truck with the New Testament...so let me ask you; if we decided to use the New Testament as the basis of our laws (Randall Terry call your service), do you think the Jewish population of this country would be daning in the streets?...
So, in actuality we are still required to follow God's law in the OT, however, those which accept Jesus Christ as their Savior are covered by His blood which was shed on Calvary for ALL WHO HAVE OR WILL SIN; for all sin.
As far as violence in the bible, that is quite the hypocritical statement. The very country in which you live has killed more people, including the un-born than God has.
I think it is sad when people try and curse God because of acts which they do not, and will not understand. Oh yeah...that's biblical, also. You see, the bible tells us that there will be many which have hard hearts and will not understand.
So, in a secular nation, we can't have a secular president? (yes, I know, he is not atheist or agnostic or Muslim) As a secular nation, even a secular president must put that aside and 'live up to the office' by pretending to be spiritual?
Free-will is a God given choice and in many ways, a right. Answers the question as to why "God allows pain and suffering". There comes a time when a Parent/Father must let His children go, and learn on their own.
You see, that's life, kids. You live...you mess up...you learn. Hopefully, if you add some listening in there, you will avoid most mistakes.
Revolution Ready!
Would Christ be proud of one of His followers insulting a fellow member of his faith by calling him a Marxist?
Would Christ be proud of one of His followers who blasphemes his faith by disingenuously bequeathing sainthood upon someone for which he has obvious contempt?
Yeah, some "follower of Christ" you are.
I think before you condemn yourself in a theological argument, in which you obviously know nothing about, I would suggest that you study up some my friend. You see, Christ desires truth.
Here's a newsflash...Obamarxist is not the christ. He is also not a follower by any stretch of the word. Seriously, I cannot even believe that you said that, or believe it.
So, you see, Pete592, God and Christ desire truth, whether it hurts or not. Now it's up to the person receiving the truth to accept it. That's the hard part.
Would you like more?
That is one of the main issues with today's Christians is that they want to judge on things when it is not their place to do so. However, when a man claims to be a Christian (Obamarxist), and bears no fruits of their faith, then it IS my place, and all Christians place to judge that person.
It is also my place, and every other Christian out there to defend the faith (apologetics). And you can rest assured that if and when it is attacked, and I am around, then I will defend.
So, now I ask you...can you judge me?
"When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."