About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Claiming "Bush went to church a lot," Doocy criticized Obama for National Prayer Day decision

May 07, 2009 10:44 am ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Steve Doocy asserted that former President Bush "went to church a lot," whereas "[t]his president, I don't believe, has selected a church that he will attend regularly." But Doocy ignored numerous reports that Bush infrequently attended church as president and did not join a congregation in the D.C. area.

136 Comments

On the May 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, discussing President Obama's decision not to hold a public ceremony for National Prayer Day, co-host Steve Doocy asserted that "there's a big difference between this president and the last one. George W. Bush went to church a lot, went to that yellow church just across from Lafayette Square from the White House. This president, I don't believe, has selected a church that he will attend regularly." However, in claiming that former President Bush "went to church a lot," Doocy ignored numerous reports of Bush's infrequent church attendance during his eight years in office. Moreover, in suggesting that Bush "selected a church" that he "attend[ed] regularly," Doocy ignored numerous reports that Bush never belonged to a congregation in the Washington, D.C., area.

As Media Matters for America has previously noted, in an article for the October 11, 2004, issue of The New Republic, headlined "Empty Pew," Amy Sullivan criticized the media for its lack of reporting "on the president's whereabouts on Sunday mornings":

What most [Americans] -- including many of the president's fiercest supporters -- don't know, however, is that Bush doesn't go to church. Sure, when he weekends at Camp David, Bush spends Sunday morning with the compound's chaplain. And, every so often, he drops in on the little Episcopal church across Lafayette Park from the White House. But the president who has staked much of his domestic agenda on the argument that religious communities hold the key to solving social problems doesn't belong to a congregation.

Additionally, in November 2008, reporting on which church the Obamas would consider attending once they moved into the White House, media outlets reported that Bush's church attendance was infrequent:

  • In a November 17, 2008, Associated Press article, Matthew Barakat reported that Obama "could choose, as many presidents have done, not to attend services at all. President George W. Bush, for instance, has only infrequently attended services in Washington, occasionally going to St. John's [Church, near the White House]."
  • In a November 14, 2008, Time article, Sullivan noted that "Ronald Reagan didn't go to church at all" and reported that while "[t]he Clintons drove down the street every Sunday to Foundry United Methodist ... George W. Bush never became a regular member of any local church, preferring to worship most often at the chapel at Camp David."
  • In a November 11, 2008, article in The Hill, Jordy Yager wrote: "President Bush is widely known for his religious beliefs, but for eight years has not frequented a local church, at times citing security concerns." Yager added that "security does not make regular worship impossible. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, for example, attended D.C.-area churches. Clinton's church, Foundry Methodist Church, installed metal detectors because many tourists attended services on Sunday -- some simply to catch a glimpse of the president."

From the May 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: Well, there's a big difference between this president and the last one. George W. Bush went to church a lot, went to that yellow church just across from Lafayette Square from the White House. This president, I don't believe, has selected a church that he will attend regularly. You know, and, while some might say, you know, "Why isn't he doing this?" -- because we are a religious nation when you look at the statistics -- there are others on the other side, for instance, the American Atheist Group, by that name, says that the president, forget about the fact that he is going to observe it privately at the White House, he shouldn't observe it at all.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 07, 2009 10:55 am ET)
      6  
      "National Prayer Day" should be aboloished. If you're that religious pray EVERY day. If you're not, then no one should be telling you to pray at all. Keep your religion in your own personal life, where it belongs. "National Prayer Day" is a National Joke.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (May 07, 2009 10:00 pm ET)
        1  
        I wonder what church Doocy belongs to, and how often he attends services. I'll bet the answers "none" and "not very often."

        Doocy confuses people SAYING they're religious with people who actually are religious. Sure, when people are asked they'll say yes -- who wants to be on the wrong side of God when asked directly? But in practice, most people are not habitual churchgoers.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 07, 2009 10:54 pm ET)
          1
        I think it was just today that Hawaii voted to create an "Islam" day. Such things as the NDP are attempts to show support for things that are exemplary. Certainly, this country was founded by people who did pray every day. But they also had public days dedicated to 'religious' events such as Thanksgiving.
        The NDP has been around for a long time, national days of prayer since 1775, the NDP since 1952, signed into law by a Democratic President, Harry Truman. As I understand it, the NPD is privately funded, generating interest in prayer through the efforts of a privately funded Task Force and thousands of local volunteers.
        It is blatant bigotry to tell people to "Keep your religion in your own personal life, where it belongs." We have freedom of religion in the United States - though there are a number of bigoted people out there who would like to re-define the First Amendment to 'freedom from religion.'
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 07, 2009 11:37 pm ET)
          2  
          Nonsense. More bigotry COMES FROM religion than any other single source. As for an "Islam Day", I'd have just as much of a problem with that. And you CAN'T HAVE freedom of religion WITHOUT freedom from religion. The only nimrods who can't accept that are the same blind sheep think who don't recognize any of the harm done by the church, or the inherently voluntary nature of it's membership. (And why, exactly, is PRAYER exemplary?)

          Freedom of religion MEANS that the gov't cannot compel you to belong to any particular faith. Thus a "national day of prayer" is not only pointless, but very much against the idea of 'freedom of religion.' Like I said, if you're THAT religious pray every day. Just don't insist on my participation in your ritualized superstitions. If you respect my non-belief, I'll surprise you with how much I'll respoect your belief. But the church has made far too many inroads into our government, our media, our MILITARY and our laws for me to just accpet that "it's all good." Churches want power, not only over their voluntary membershp, but over as many people as they can have. They've shown this throught history, with no exception. Any incidental good that they do could happen all teh same without any of the indoctrination, and all the harm they cause is completely uneccessary.

          If it gives YOU a moral compass, or spiritual gidance? Great. Believe whatever you want. Just don't insist on infecting onto the rest of us.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 08, 2009 12:14 am ET)
              2
            "Just don't insist on my participation in your ritualized superstitions." There no one forcing you to pray today, Eddie. You're being silly.
            Christians in this country have every right to try to establish their values and morals as the law of the land. You have the same right. That is how a democratic republic operates. That is the system we live under. Democracy thrives through civil expression. The NDP is a good example of religious people involving themselves in a civil activity.
            Prayer is exemplary for too many reasons to list. Firstly, it is one of the means God has ordained for fellowship between Himself and humans. Secondly, it is pragmatic - it works. Thirdly, it encourages and expresses a humble spirit. There are thousands of books written about the exemplary nature of prayer.

            Are you aware, Eddie, that several of our states had 'official' (state-sponsored) churches when the First Amendment was adopted? Do you not know that the United States is the product of the Puritan movement? Do you not know that the revolution of 1776 was enabled by a great religious movement in the colonies called the "Great Awakening?" Do you not know that the freedom not to pray that you enjoy today was established for you by 'Church' people?
            Just out of curiosity, Eddie, what harm has the Church done to our "government, our media, our MILITARY and our laws?"
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 08, 2009 8:50 am ET)
              3  
              Christians in this country have every right to try to establish their values and morals as the law of the land. You have the same right. That is how a democratic republic operates.
              Subject to the limitations of the 1st ammendment.

              Are you aware, Eddie, that several of our states had 'official' (state-sponsored) churches when the First Amendment was adopted? Do you not know that the United States is the product of the Puritan movement?
              Which is exactly why the first ammendment was needed.

              Do you not know that the freedom not to pray that you enjoy today was established for you by 'Church' people?
              Yes. Enlightened religious peope who also understand the dangers of mixing religion with politics. Good on them!

              Prayer is exemplary for too many reasons to list.
              [Translation: Get ready for some upper-level major-league B#LLSH!T on the way!]
              Firstly, it is one of the means God has ordained for fellowship between Himself and humans.
              Uh... no, it's something MANmade up to imagine himself closer to God.
              Secondly, it is pragmatic - it works.
              Uh... NO IT DOESN'T. At best it enhances the placebo effect is some medical cases. The efficacy of prayer fails every other test. And the ebenfit to the individual can be realized through (non-religious) meditation, or merely having strong (seculr) personal beliefs. This point is utter nonsense.
              Thirdly, it encourages and expresses a humble spirit.
              You made my spit out my cofee! You me a new keyboard! HUMBLE?! What on earth is HUMBLE about asking the supreme creator and administrator of the UNIVERSE to take time out of his (presumably) busy schedule to grant you some personal request or guidance... you over eight billion other people on earth, and who knows how many gadzsillion other sentient lifeforms in the universe. Sir, PRAYER is the highpoint of arrogance and self-importance. To suggest humility is... utterly absurd!

              Just out of curiosity, Eddie, what harm has the Church done to our "government, our media, our MILITARY and our laws?"
              GOv't / Law: Well, I guess you think it's a-ok that women have died from back-alley abortions, that gays can't marry, that certain speech or art or entertainment has been supressed due to "decency" concerns, or with prohibition, or the war on drugs, or teaching eveolution in the science room, or suppressing medical resarch. And that's just what christianity has done to US. I'm sure you're familiar with the middle east, and the problems THERE all based on mixing church and state. (SO... WHY would you want to be more like them?!)

              MILITARY: The harrassment of non-evangelical troops currently deployed in the middle east is well-documented. The chaplain service has become infested with funny-mentalists with no respect for other christian denomonations, other faiths or non-believers. Soldiers have been discriminated against and even assaulted with the tacit support of the chain of command. It's well documented. LOOK IT UP.

              Media: Uh... MMFA does an adequate job catalogin this. I don't have anythign to add.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 08, 2009 8:53 am ET)
                1  
                Oh... and I forgot the WORST PART: COntributing to the global AIDS epidemic (and all the poverty and hardship that has followed in its wake) by suppressing eductaion about and availablilit of effective contraceptive measures.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 08, 2009 10:43 am ET)
                  1  
                  Or how about that our gov't let families allow their childeren to DIE, painfully, for 100% treatable diseases, becuase they prefer to PRAY or try FAITH-HEALING. If you want to do that YOURSELF, that's fine. But it's unconsionable to force that on a child. That's called MURDER.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 08, 2009 10:20 am ET)
                  2
                Nicetryeddie;
                You apparently are too close-minded and prejudiced to envision the existence of the supernatural. Please don't delude yourself that you are somehow wiser or brighter than believers. Some of the greatest minds in human history (as well as today) have been orthodox Christians. So, it's not a matter of intelligence or education that makes you a non-believer.
                Truth of the matter is, my friend, that the Church over the centuries, and today, is the strongest engine for good that the world has ever seen.
                Do you know that there are more documented deaths from abortion now than there were prior to abortion's legalization?
                You may not be aware of this, Eddie, but Muslims are not a part of the "Church." How Muslims (dis)organize their societies has nothing to do with Christianity, except that they violently suppress it - kind of like what you are suggesting, only far more violent.
                Art suppressed - you mean like the death threats from Muslims over the Dutch cartoons? American taxpayers pay for disgusting displays like "Christ in P*ss!"
                I did a quick Google search (4-5 pages), and found two articles about evangelicals harassing cadets at the AF Academy. The second said the lawsuit was dismissed, the first said the peer review found 'insensitivity' but not “overt religious discrimination.” One chaplain was cited who warned cadets that if they didn't repent, they would "burn in Hell." If he truly believes that, he should have every right to say it. We do have freedom of religion in the U.S. I didn't find any examples of physical abuse by Christians of non-Christians in the military, though I saw several examples of discrimination against Christian Chaplains.
                To say the Church is able to 'hurt' the media won't pass the laugh test.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 08, 2009 10:41 am ET)
                  2  
                  Hoo-boy, where do I begin. OK, first of, I actually believe in God - my own idea of God that I don't expect anyone else to buy into. It's organized, man-made religion that I have a problem with.

                  Second, what do you mean "Deaths from abortion"? Are you counting the fetuses? I'd like to see some stats and sourcing on THAT.

                  Art - Yes, I am talking about that. The problem is that while the examples you cite may be extreme, and bound to stir peoples emotions, no one has ever been able to clearly delinieate where the line should be drawin in any objective manner. Besides, is there any demonstrable harm? Basically never. Is the discussion these piece evoke worth having? It is if you're OPEN MINDED. Why should represetning religious icons in a negative light (even in a shocking manner) be disallowed? It's like disallowing flag-burning. You get so pent up over the method and the act that 99% of the time you miss the message.

                  Evangelizing in the military? Here you go: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fundamentalist_050609 (look ta #2) and here' another: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/soldiers-in-afghanistan-g_n_195674.html. Sick stuff. What's more the chaplain is question DOES NOT have the right to preahc whatever he believes. A chap[lain service is intended to provide religious service to a broad range of faiths. A Catholic Priest would be made to service Protestants and vice-versa. The chaplain service was setup under unitarian principlas to allows soldiers in far away places some accomodation for their believes and practices. It WAS NOT meant to be a prosteltizing tool for the church.

                  I'm not the closed minded one here, my friend. It is religion that demands you close your mind and accept what they tell you as infallible truth. Even when it's demonstrably false. I prefer to question. And I rarely get reasonable answers to my questions. This conversation has been no exception.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 08, 2009 12:04 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Here more ways religion has damaged oiur laws and gov't: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shelby-knox/sex-lies-and-federal-mone_b_199008.html

                    The list goes on-and-on. You got nothin' dude.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 08, 2009 12:46 pm ET)
                       
                    Even more garbage that we've had to put up with becuase of religion interfereing with the lives of everyone else. Fortunately Obama wants to end THIS nonsense:

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022701104.html

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 08, 2009 2:28 pm ET)
                      1
                    Here's from your 'documentation' of evangelical abuses:
                    "The translated Bibles were never distributed as far as we know, because the soldier understood that if he distributed them he would be in violation of general order 1, and he would be subject to punishment."
                    Here's your second 'documentation:'
                    "The Arabic news network's video shows military chaplains at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, urging enlisted men and women to "hunt people for Jesus." The "hunted" would be Afghan Muslims."
                    I rather doubt that the conclusion is warranted by the evidence. It strains credulity to suppose that a military officer - who is aware that he is being filmed - would publicly contravene a military directive; they are not stupid. I took the 'hunted' to be fellow military personnel.
                    Freedom of religion means that people are free to exercise their faith. That, to an Evangelical, means speaking to others about their faith in an effort to win them to that same faith.
                    Your statement, "What's more the chaplain is (sic) question DOES NOT have the right to preahc (sic) whatever he believes." is nonsense. Chaplains are enlisted to minister from their faith to the military personnel. A Catholic priest is not required to change his faith proclamation and practice to accommodate Protestants, Voodooists or Wiccans. He ministers from his faith tradition, not against it.

                    Who is the 'they' in this statement? "It is religion that demands you close your mind and accept what they tell you as infallible truth."
                    I've been an Evangelical Christian for 37 years, and have never heard any such demand, nor anything resembling it.
                    Your conclusions about Evangelicals are ignorant and untrue. You don't know the facts, but you have made up your mind. That's not open-minded, that's prejudiced.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 08, 2009 3:25 pm ET)
                         
                      I've been an Evangelical Christian for 37 years, and have never heard any such demand, nor anything resembling it.

                      Then you are UTTERLY FRACKING BRIAN-WASHED. The very NATURE of evangelical religion of ANY stripe is to do JUST THAT! To say otherwise is orwellian nonsense in the eyes of anyone who's not already indoctrinated. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you are an evangelical christian who has not been told, and does not believe or preach, that the Bible is the un-ering word of God? (And again to those who are NOT brainwashed, what that REALLY means is, "My accepted INTERPRETATION of the bible is the unereing word of God.")

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 08, 2009 6:54 pm ET)
                           
                        The key, Eddie, is, as you noted above somewhere, that Evangelicalism is a voluntary association. Of course, I have been told the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and I believe and teach that. But, I haven't been brainwashed, and I don't brainwash anyone nor demand that anyone believe as I do.
                        The goal of Evangelicals is to introduce people to Jesus Christ as the crucified, risen and returning Savior and Lord. That's a far cry from your warped view of Evangelicalism.
                        just as a passing note, I'd refer you to the quote I posted on this thread somewhere about disestablishment of the Church. The First Amendment did not cause any of the state churches to be disestablished. That came as a result of the 14th amendment and the "equal protection" clause. The point being that you misunderstand the purpose of the 1st Amendment.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (May 09, 2009 9:12 am ET)
                       
                    "Second, what do you mean "Deaths from abortion"? Are you counting the fetuses? I'd like to see some stats and sourcing on THAT."

                    I think you might be getting snookered here. For one thing, there are surely more women getting abortions since they've been legal, so the safety statistics could be in favor of legalization and there still be more deaths. It's like the statistic that red cars get pulled over for speeding more than any other color car. There are more red cars, so it doesn't reflect the relevant aspect of proportion.

                    Secondly, the phrase is "documented" deaths. If someone gets an illegal abortion, then who the hell is to say that a death from it would be documented accurately, if documented at all? Surely many back-alley abortionists dumped bodies in rivers to protect themselves.
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by BobsYourUncle (May 08, 2009 1:20 am ET)
          1  
          When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites! They love to stand up and pray in the houses of worship and on the street corners, so that everyone will see them. I assure you, they have already been paid in full. But when you pray, go to your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what you do in private, will reward you. Matthew 6: 5-6

          Nuff Said
          Report Abuse
          • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 08, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
               
            Jesus prayed in public - and He was the guy you are quoting!
            Nuf said!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 9:19 pm ET)
                 
              WHEN? The only time I know of is the sermon on the mount where he was ASKED how to pray. Even so the quote is relevant. You dont think YOU are God do you? If you dont then I dont guess the rules are the same for YOU and for Jesus.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (May 07, 2009 11:11 am ET)
      3  
      Bush reminds me of a sunday christian. He uses the church for personal gain, but to claim he really is christian? Abstinance only for Africa wasn't a christian decision, it was a base decision.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (May 07, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
          2
        hey snoop,

        What's your take on Obama and his 20 years apparently asleep-in-the-pew during Rev. Wright's anti-American sermons?

        Would you say Obama dropped Wright for personal gain after saying he could no more disown Wright than he could disown his own white grandmother? Was that a Christian decision or a base one?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by BillJ-MN (May 07, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
          3  
          I still haven't seen anything quoted from Wright that would qualify as anti-American in context. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of Wright's sermons recorded and available for review. And you can bet that they were reviewed. And yet, all we ever heard were a few seconds of cherry-picked statements out of context.

          I heard brief interviews with some of his regular congregants. They stated that those few seconds that we heard over and over again were very much not typical of the vast majority of Wright's sermons. They said that his sermons were almost always inspirational and uplifting. Who would know better? You, who has only heard those few seconds of cherry-picked soundbites, or his regular congregants?

          As for why Obama "dropped" Wright, it didn't occur until after Obama's statements when Wright made a fool of himself glorying in the attention he was receiving. There might have been an element of personal gain in it, but mostly it was a case of seeing Wright in a new light.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (May 07, 2009 3:33 pm ET)
              3
            I find your first sentence laughable. Anyone who watched those clips could see they were anti-American rants. Just because Wright snuck them in occasionally when giving sermons does not lessen their meaning in any way.

            Of course Wrights congregants would support him. So does Rev. Phelps followers. I bet Louis Farrakhan's followers do not think him anti-semitic.

            I see you are agreeing with me about Obama and his base decision to dump Wright. It is a simple fact that Obama supported Wright until he threw Wright under the campaign bus.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by BillJ-MN (May 07, 2009 3:50 pm ET)
              3  
              I find your first sentence laughable. Anyone who watched those clips could see they were anti-American rants. - anotheramerican

              Only to people who are so narrow-minded that they think any criticism of America is automatically anti-American. What is truly laughable is idiots who think that those few seconds of video tell them all they need to know about Wright.

              I didn't just say that Wright's congregants supported him. They went well beyond that to point out that the cherry-picked few seconds of video we saw over and over (from thousands of hours of sermons) misrepresented his sermons.

              No, Obama didn't throw Wright under the bus. He supported Wright until he went several steps too far in his ridiculous behavior. It put Obama in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by LuvLuLu (May 07, 2009 11:06 pm ET)
                1  
                This is the telling point in the whole false talking point from those on the right about Jeremiah Wright. It's that Wright is not Anti-American. Anyone can criticize the USA for making mistakes and not being perfect without being Anti-American. Only blindly partisan people think that Wright is Anti-American for saying what he said.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 3:10 pm ET)
                     
                  Thanks for the another laugh. You are the ones who are wearing the blinders. It is obvious Wright is anti-American.

                  “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing God Bless America? No, no, no! Not God bless America. God damn America! It’s in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating its citizens as less than human!”

                  “And they will not only attack you if you try to point out what’s going on in white America, the U.S. of KKK A.”

                  “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant?! Because the stuff we have done overseas is not brought back into our front yard? Americans chickens are coming home to roost. “

                  “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run… We [Americans] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

                  “When [Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli [in Libya to visit Gadaffi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 3:11 pm ET)
                       
                    see: http://www.intelligentconservatism.com/?p=31
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 9:22 pm ET)
                         
                      Another Bogus rightwing site from Another BRAINWASHED American
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 9:31 pm ET)
                       
                    There is NO ONE more un-American than you. You think that it is up to YOU to decide that others are anti American because they disagree with your twisted rightwing perversion of an ideology. Wright IS an American. YOU are just a Fascist without a single functioning braincell.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by pbg (May 07, 2009 9:10 pm ET)
              3 1
              I have a good friend from the old neighborhood who listens to Limbaugh. When we talked about the election and I said I was for Obama, he said "How can you? Jeremiah Wright? 'God Damn America'?"
              I told him What Reverend Wright said was God Damn America when it does evil. And I have no problem with that."
              He didn't have an answer to that.\
              Nor do you.
              If you read Mr. Wright's namesake (the guy in the Bible with the same first name), it's full of predictions of terrible consequences if the nation does not act rightly.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Revolution Ready (May 07, 2009 9:47 pm ET)
                1 1
                Very well stated, i would have to say, pbg.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 08, 2009 1:31 am ET)
                  4
                I have a problem with that. And I have an answer for you.
                Mr. Wright is a 'Pandora's Box' of the putrid hatred that emenates from what is called 'Black Liberation' theology - which is merely Marxism dressed up in church language with racial robes.
                Mr. Wright was using a church pulpit to indoctrinate the people of that Church on political issues. Not only was his language irreverent and blasphemous, but his subject was political not spiritual. His sermons are an insult to a holy God. His theology (what he has) is not even close to orthodox. He claims to speak as a Christian but his message is Marxist. He is an embarrassing goof-ball, a nut case. He embraces the anti-semitic black racist Louis Farrakhan. He himself espouses a black supremacy doctrine that differs from Hitler's 'Aryan Supremacy' because of hair and skin color only.
                Mr. Wright is to Christianity what Ward Churchill is to academic integrity.
                People who follow Mr. Wright are following a man who hates the United States regardless of her actions. Mr. Obama followed him until it was apparent that Wright showed too much of the left's real attitude toward the United States. And then reluctantly, Obama threw him under the bus.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (May 08, 2009 1:54 am ET)
                  2  
                  You are arrogant and not too bright. Three cited quotes out of context that were controversial in 20 years. You have been trying to sell this idiocy since before the election and flat out you dont know what you are talking about. YOU are not GODS appointed voice on Earth. It is not UP to you to decide what is an insult go God. Plainly YOU ARE NOT GOD, though you clearly seem to think you are. You are a bigot spew whatever you have been programmed with by Rush Hannity and whoever else does your thinking FOR you. Your posts are consistantly worthless and arrogant.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 08, 2009 9:29 am ET)
                      2
                    It's always so enlightening to hear from you, Solon.
                    It must be really unpleasant living with all that rage.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 9:21 pm ET)
                         
                      I dont have any rage. You cant read my mind. My wife LOVES living with me and has less patience for stupidity like yours than I do. Anyway it is NEVER a pleasure hearing from YOU
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
                   
                pbg,

                Your friend was probably speechless because you misrepresented Wright's words

                Either that or you have some other quote than the one above where Wright intentionally lies with his accusation the government of purposely giving out drugs and bigger prisons before using his epithet.

                Please do show us that quote.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 07, 2009 9:30 pm ET)
              3  
              YOU are not the arbiter of what is and what isnt American. Itself an absolutly childish, simpleminded sentiment. You are brainwashed. You spew what Rush TOLD you to think. Its pathetic really.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by markbfoot199 (May 08, 2009 9:59 am ET)
                  1
                Salon, the only person that seems to walk and spew daily memos is yourself. Brainwashed are those that think the Great Reader of a President will help this country recover. The only thing this President will do is hurt this country. He is a person that thinks that last 200 years of this country was wrong and he is here to fix that problem. His plan is wealth redistribution and he proves this each day. I know you will come back and say, "show proof", proof is in the news daily. President Obama will go down as worse President then Carter, time will show. Look at GM; they have taken how much money from this government? GM will still file for bankruptcy (lost of 80 billion dollars of Tax Payer Money) and once they settle in the dust you will see all of their jobs be sent to foreign country’s. So tax payers loose money, Unions lose jobs, and now we the public will have to fit the bill or more unemployed GM workers. Do not give ma a blame Bush for GM, it has Obama all over it, Bush did not fire the GM leader (yes he did under pressure). Perfect example of what this President has done in a mere short 100 days, the next 3 and half years will be rough due to him, “The Great Reader”
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 08, 2009 12:42 pm ET)
                     
                  You show your ignorance and bias by claiming that a president after his first 100 days is worse than anything. You have become deranged clearly.

                  I miss the Great Reader comment. Are we back to attacking intellectuals? We want someone who can't read now?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by markbfoot199 (May 08, 2009 1:13 pm ET)
                       
                    Mike, ones current event predicts ones future behavior. Each thing he touches he seems to make worse. The banks, The Auto Industry, The Economy, each has gotten worse as he touches each one. How can you miss the Great Reader, he is in front of you daily. Let me help you out, teleprompter. The GM and now Chrysler fiasco proves this man is lost, and has no idea what he is doing.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 08, 2009 4:42 pm ET)
                         
                      So, anyone who uses a teleprompter on TV cannot be trusted? Got it. You're nuts.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 9:38 pm ET)
                         
                      My GOD you are a brainwashed idiot who has no idea what you are talking about.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 9:37 pm ET)
                     
                  You simply show everyone how desperate you are. What a LIAR you are and how completely brainwashed you are. I am known here. I have been here for years. No one with a single braincell thinks I spout talking points I picked up. You of course are so stupid you cant even imagine someone thinking for themselves so you project YOUR weakness on me. You really arent bright enough for anyone sentient to take your predictions seriously. The much more likely scenrio is that BUSH will go down as the worst president in American history and we are far too soon into Obamas term to see where he will fit. You show that you are incapable of thinking for yourself and just repeat what Rush TOLD you to think by talking about him as the great reader. You guys are so jealous that he can talk in complete sentences when Bush couldnt pull two coherent sentences out of his nether regions most of the time so you talk about him reading a teleprompter even though OBAMA unlike say BUSH actually writes some of his speeches. Most high level politicians use a teleprompter you have to be a complete moron to take that talking point seriously but you are dumb enough to repeat it.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 3:29 pm ET)
                   
                Solon,
                There ya go again.. imagining you know my radio listening habits. I love the way you make up your own arguments so you can wright your own preconceived and endlessly repetitive responses.

                Oh speaking of brainwashed.. How many of that anti-American, Marxist, Noam Chomsky, books have you read? You mentioned it once or twice. Isn't somewhere around 12-15? Or is it more?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 3:30 pm ET)
                     
                  hahaha... wright = write.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (May 09, 2009 9:14 am ET)
                    1  
                    I'm surprised you don't spell "years" as "ayers", personally.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 9:44 pm ET)
                     
                  My GOD you are stupid. Noam isnt a Marxist fool. He is an anarcho syndacalist much more lefty than Marxism. Apparantly you havent read his books. He doesnt do the bumper sticker talking point thing. HIS books are actually filled with FACTS and and analysis. Along with his ideology here and there. The thing is I am used to thinking for myself from long doing it. YOU listen to Rush, I use Rush as shorthand for ALL the rightwing screechmonkeys to do your thinking FOR you. We SEE the talking points you regurgitate and they are lies and flat out ludicrous so you couldnt have come up with them yourself. I have about 20 Chomsky books. Gee isnt it terrible I read the guy that Nation magazine called the most important intellectual alive? That was voted the most important Foriegn Policy intellectual by Foriegn Policy magazine with more than double the runner ups votes. Seeking actual information instead of one liner moron talking points. You have become pathetic AA. Its just sad.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (May 07, 2009 5:39 pm ET)
          2  
          If anything, it was a cave in to the fanatic fascist right wing wackos who hate Obama for being black and Democratic. You know, the same fascist racist bubba's that make a big deal about Dijon mustard on a cheeseburger.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by smarshall1432997 (May 07, 2009 6:31 pm ET)
            1  
            Hey Snoopy,

            You left out the "biggest" thing those fanatic fascist right wing wackos hated too about President Obama - he "IS" a "RELIGIOUS" man. The Republicans (Conservatives i.e. Gov. Sarah Palin) tried to scare people by calling Pres. Obama a Muslim, and not a Christian Man. Great comments from you and BillJ-MN.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by markbfoot199 (May 08, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
                 
              Marshall, please share what religion this President practices, please enlighten us.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Conchobhar (May 08, 2009 3:10 pm ET)
                   
                Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Paragraph Three:
                "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

                Please shut the frog up about what religion the President may or may not have. It's un-American.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 3:37 pm ET)
                     
                  Conch,
                  Funny thing is that nobody said this discussion prevented Obama from being President. Nice attempt at hopping past the issue.

                  As an aside, I don't seem to recall you ever complaining against fellow lefties slinging mud Bush when his Christian faith came up. Why do you suddenly object now?
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 9:45 pm ET)
                   
                Please dont be such a brainwashed dufus. You are embarassing yourself.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Revolution Ready (May 07, 2009 9:59 pm ET)
              3
            Oh, how easy it is to call us "racist". Do you honestly think that we are making this big of a deal simply because we don't like the color of Obamarxist's skin?

            How about the fact that Obamarxist obliterated Bush about spending too much money. And what does Obamarxist do when he first takes office??? Spends about $4 trillion dollars! Oh, but that is to get our economy up and running good again, right.

            If Bush - who I am also not a fan of - were to do something like that, all of you would have started talking impeachment. Oh, wait a minute...he did, and so didn't you.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by magnolialover (May 07, 2009 10:26 pm ET)
              1  
              Actually, no. Nobody I know talked about impeachment for Bush for overspending (he presided over the largest increase in the federal government, ever remember). We discussed possible impeachment because, he, you know, broke the law as far as warrants for wiretapping American citizens. That's called high crimes against the Constitution.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (May 07, 2009 11:13 pm ET)
              1  
              Yes it's that simple. The right is full of fascist racists who hate Obama for his skin color. And again, your right, so didn't I.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 08, 2009 1:08 am ET)
                  2
                What do you mean "full of fascist racists?" About 48% of the population voted against Obama (or for the weakest candidate since Bob Dole). Do you think all of those folks are fascist racists?
                Don't you understand that people of good conscience might disagree and disagree strongly with a politician that would say of a major industry in the U.S. (coal) that his intent was to bankrupt them? And that's one of many socialistic statements the man made. I strongly believe that 'wealth redistribution' is legalized theft. Does that make me a fascist? That's limited government - the very opposite of fascism. I believe that no President should ever have the power to force a CEO of a private company to resign or to make a company declare bankruptcy. That's fascism in action! Obama took this nation around a corner when the government purchased GM and Chrysler to give them to the Union bosses. It will be decades before we recover from Obama, if ever.
                Your characterization of the right is mind-numbed bigotry.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (May 08, 2009 1:58 am ET)
                  2  
                  No it makes you brainwashed and none too bright. That word socialist. You have not one clue what the word means. Just because Rush TOLD you to repeat it over and over doesnt mean it wont make you look stupid doing it. Obama didnt have the power to make the head of GM resign but he DID have the power to say WHO would get the bailout money and if they wanted it then they had to show they were serious about changing Banks do this all the time. Your characterizations, pretty much alwasy are mind numbing stupidity
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by ufleirx (May 08, 2009 9:16 am ET)
                  1  
                  "...About 48% of the population voted against Obama (or for the weakest candidate since Bob Dole). ..."

                  Nice tactic you use a real smoke and mirrors illusion while throwing around the idea that Obama had no "real" support -- whereas in reality he had a sizable electoral victory and he polled at 53% in the popular vote (52.9 according to a couple of sources) which was 7% higher than his closest opponent and the highest percentage difference since Reagan.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (May 08, 2009 11:28 am ET)
                  1  
                  You didn't complain when they redistributed wealth from the middle class to the upper class, did you? And you clearly don't understand fascism. The right has a propaganda arm, they push for party over country, and want to regulate what kind of people live here, all perfect carbon copies of Hitler's fascist germany.

                  My characterization of the right is spot on. The only mind numbing bigotry here is you and your depiction of things Obama and what he never did or said. Good luck getting the 4th reich up and running, the rest of the country (65% last I checked) think Obama has done the country well and think republicans are just a bunch of racist fascist obstructionists who can't stand successful black men.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
                       
                    snoop,
                    Can you explain how "they" redistributed wealth from the middle class to the upper class?

                    Nice job of name calling. What grade are you in?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 9:51 pm ET)
                         
                      Says the hypocrite that called Wright anti American several times who OFTEN calls US anti American. I could explain it but you arent bright enough to understand it anyway so why waste my time what is your IQ about six?
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 08, 2009 12:48 pm ET)
                     
                  Right, a progressive tax is theft. Every president since at least Teddy Roosevelt were all socialist, marxist, thieves. It is impossible to have a rational, adult conversation with someone this out of touch with reality.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
                     
                  edross,
                  It is an old tactic of the radical lefties here to toss out invective in order to deflect the arguments. In this case blanket accusations of racism are incredibly weak and laughable to boot.

                  Of course snoop and friends never offer any proof. For some reason they feel they don't need any. They laughably assert they can read minds and hearts of those who hold different opinions and then they try to foist it off by speaking in generalities instead of specifics.

                  Attempts at verbal bullying only show their intellectual bankruptcy.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 9:54 pm ET)
                       
                    YOU have the intellect of cigarrett ash. Hypocrite who calls us anti American often who called Wright anti American in this very thread. I guess namecalling is fine for YOU but sooooo bad when WE do it. You have never HAD an intellect to go bankrupt. If you didnt know how long we have had a progressive tax structure you are too uninformed to bother with informing.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (May 07, 2009 11:37 pm ET)
              3  
              "How about the fact that Obamarxist obliterated Bush about spending too much money. And what does Obamarxist do when he first takes office??? Spends about $4 trillion dollars! Oh, but that is to get our economy up and running good again, right."

              I like how you say that, as if the reason for the spending has absolutely no bearing on how spending is judged. If Obama didn't spend money and we went into a depression, you can bet conservatives would be screaming bloody murder over it. And don't claim you wouldn't, because it's not as if the use of the name "Obamarxist" allows one to believe that you have any interest in honesty and objectivity.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 9:48 pm ET)
                 
              Who thought up Obamarxist for your tiny little brainwashed grey cells? Did you think it was clever when Rush said it. See someone with a normal IQ, say someone who actually KNEW what Marxism was instead of being a brainwashed moron like YOU would not have thought it clever but recognized it as being stupid and pathetic. Read a book some day for goodness sake
              Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (May 07, 2009 9:27 pm ET)
          1  
          You think that YOU are qualified to decide for Americans what is and what ISNT an American thing to say. To me that makes YOU the most AntiAmerican bloviator I know. Let me give you a hint. God did NOT put YOU on a pedestal to decide for Americans what is and what ISNT anti American. You are a loser who likes to slander people and not a very bright one. In that 20 years. Conservatives came up with about THREE examples of provacative and outrageous statemenst from Wright and yet you PRETEND he was spewing them every day. Is THIS thread about Wright or are you doing your trollwork of trying to derail the thread AGAIN?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 07, 2009 10:27 pm ET)
              1
            Solon;
            Your deeply reasoned and judicious comments are always such a positive addition to any conversation.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by LuvLuLu (May 07, 2009 11:08 pm ET)
              2  
              Actually, his comments are typically quite valuable. He either makes a great point or points out the fallacy of the arguments of others less capable of making great points!
              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 08, 2009 2:00 am ET)
              1  
              You wouldnt KNOW reasoning from Rongo Rongo Ed. You are all stupid rants all the time. So what YOU think about my posts means less to me than the color of mud on the bottom of the ocean. Trust me. I dont stay up at night worrying about what YOU think of me.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 08, 2009 2:40 pm ET)
           
        Africans say that Bush has done more about AIDS in Africa than any previous President or administration. Those Africans must be stupid, huh?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (May 07, 2009 11:16 am ET)
      2  
      what ever happened to separation of church and state. I'd vote for an atheist if I agreed with his policies. Going to church does not have a rats a** to do with governing this country. My wife is from England and she is continually amazed at the cr*p that comes from the religious right of this country.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 07, 2009 11:51 am ET)
        2  
        The right wing figured out that the could use religious to get poor white trash to vote against their own economic interests and let the rich get even richer at their expense.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (May 07, 2009 12:05 pm ET)
        3 1
        I think England learned something from the crusades, but some Americans who espouse Christianity would just as soon repeat them.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by SDL (May 07, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
          2  
          No dount Ann-thrax Coultergeist now says she was "just kidding ha ha!"
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (May 07, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
              2
            In case you hadn't noticed it. We are at war with the Taliban and Obama supports that war. So Ann was correct about that.

            I wonder what is that Pete thinks England learned about the crusades?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by BillJ-MN (May 07, 2009 3:30 pm ET)
              2  
              Nut-job Coulter supported indiscriminate bombing of Afghanistan. Is that what you think she was correct about?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (May 07, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
                   
                Bill,

                I just told you where I though Ann was correct.

                Can you show me where Coulter said she supports indiscriminate bombing of Afghanistan?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by BillJ-MN (May 07, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
                  3  
                  That evening, CNN reported that bombs were dropping in Afghanistan — and then updated the report to say they weren't our bombs.

                  They should have been ours. I want them to be ours.

                  This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson.
                  ...
                  We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war
                  . - nut-job Ann Coulter
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by teabaggers ♥ [wing]NUTS (May 07, 2009 4:08 pm ET)
                    3  
                    lol... what a great quote coming from mann coulter. shes a straight up nut. what an embarrassment.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by WildcatProgressive (May 07, 2009 4:34 pm ET)
                    3  
                    No, no, no! You are taking her words out of context. I mean, she was just joking. No wait, I mean ... ummm ... why do you hate America?
                    Sarcasm, off.
                    Why do I strongly suspect AA will have nothing to say to this?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by LuvLuLu (May 07, 2009 11:10 pm ET)
                    1  
                    So where's the comment from Another American acknowledging the proof that BillJ-MN provided?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 4:11 pm ET)
                         
                      luvll,
                      I'm back. I don't see Ann's quote proves Bill's contention at all.

                      First of all, what bombs in Afghanistan is she referring? Were they indiscriminate?

                      Remember this was published on Sept. 13, 2001 and it was in response to a friend being killed in the 9/11 attacks. Wishing the people who were responsible were killed by our bombs is a lot different than advocating indiscriminate bombing of completely innocent people. She makes it clear she wants revenge for the people responsible. That is all.

                      Claiming historically accurate facts about the nature of war and the methods the allies used to defeat the Germans will to fight only puts Coulter's argument in historical context. She is advocating nothing more than the same practices carried out by "the greatest generation."

                      If one has a problem with that, than one should be arguing against Truman and Churchill. I don't see anyone calling them 'nut jobs'.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Brabantio (May 09, 2009 8:04 am ET)
                        1  
                        You are a liar. I don't know how it's possible to think you really believe this crap.

                        "She makes it clear she wants revenge for the people responsible."

                        "This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson.
                        ...
                        We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war"

                        She's talking about killing civilians, under the assumption that they appreciated the 9/11 attacks, and under the argument that would justify killing them anyway. How is an assumed reaction done in response to an action consistent with being responsible for the attack? And does it really not occur to you that al Qaeda is not a national army? It doesn't represent a country. Bombing civilians in any country doesn't cause a terrorist organization to knuckle under like it would for a government. So how, pray tell, could the advocacy of killing citizens in this situation be consistent with WWII practices?
                        Report Abuse
            • Author by pete592 (May 08, 2009 12:01 am ET)
              1  
              "I wonder what is that Pete thinks England learned about the crusades?"

              Curious that you didn't choose to address me directly, but anyway...

              That's learned from the crusades, not learned "about."

              The most glaring one I think would be that it's better to take up arms against those that truly seek to harm you, rather than against an entire religion.



              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
                   
                Pete,
                Just saving time and space since I replied directly to the reply under your quote. No offense meant.

                Please find for me where during the crusades, England was fighting against an entire religion. If I remember correctly, they were trying to get back the holy land that had been conquered by the Muslims. I recall there were four crusades and England was not the only Christian country to send troops. Which crusade are you referring? what evidence do you have to support your contention that that England fought the entire religion and some further proof that what you wrote is the lesson they learned from which ever crusade it is you are referring?

                Report Abuse
        • Author by Revolution Ready (May 07, 2009 10:22 pm ET)
          1  
          A prime example as to WHY our Forefathers wrote in the Bill of Rights..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". So, it wasn't only England that learned something, it was also our Forefathers.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 4:21 pm ET)
               
            RevRead,
            Are you saying the First Amendment came as a response from lessons learned from the crusades? Not to be nitpicky but I think you are missing a few historical occurrences that happened in the mean time.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Revolution Ready (May 07, 2009 10:08 pm ET)
          2
        "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

        Ok...let's get this straight here. The people of this country at the time this was written were just coming out of being enslaved by a government (the British) that DID respect an establishment of religion. It was the Catholic Church. The Brits also made sure that it was the only religion that was practiced, thus "making laws respecting AN (singular) establishment of religion".

        Never once was it said that prayer could not go on in schools; that the 10 commandments were not allowed to be displayed in front of court houses, etc... It was banning the government from choosing a religion for us.

        This line in the Bill of Rights must be one of the most misconstrued in all of American History.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by AdamWest1313 (May 07, 2009 10:24 pm ET)
          3  
          First off, the British did NOT respect the Catholic Church, which is why so many of them were killed. Ever heard of the Anglican Church? There is a reason it is called the CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 2nd off, school, court houses, "etc", are all government establishments. Thus, if they were to pratice or support a religion, they would be identifying themselves as a religion, and thus supporting it. In that sense, they WOULD be choosing a religion for us because that puts obvious pressure on those who aren't part of that religion. So no, it is not misconstrued whatsoever.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (May 07, 2009 10:30 pm ET)
          3  
          Except for the 2nd amendment, which is misconstrued all of the time.

          Displaying Christian religious items in a courthouse, state capital, and other places says that we represent a Christian religion, and therefore, implicitly states Christian as the religion.

          Nobody is saying you can't pray in schools. Go ahead. Pray. What the LAW is though, is that prayer cannot be mandatory and be held by the teachers. Kids can pray, and the teachers for that matter, all that they want to. I was always taught that prayer doesn't have to be verbal to be prayer, as a matter of fact, it's better when praying in private, as it is supposed to be you talking directly to God. Not that I believe in that hooey these days, but just saying.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 07, 2009 11:43 pm ET)
            2  
            I know. And THAT'S the most misrepresented issue by CONSERVATIVES: That you CAN'T pray in school. It would be unconstitutional to PREVENT you form praying in school. You just can't LEAD a prayer if you a re a TEACHER or ADMINISTRATOR. How these people can't wrap their tiny heads around this concept and the inherent good it represents I'll never understand.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by BobsYourUncle (May 08, 2009 10:24 am ET)
            1  
            Ah you obviously know your bible you paraphrase Jesus well:-
            "When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites! They love to stand up and pray in the houses of worship and on the street corners, so that everyone will see them. I assure you, they have already been paid in full. But when you pray, go to your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what you do in private, will reward you." Matthew 6: 5-6
            Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 4:32 pm ET)
               
            mags,
            I disagree that showing religious items at a courthouse implicitly states Christian(ity) as the state religion. It does no more so than showing Greek classical architecture illustrates Greek Gods as our deities. That idea is laughable.

            Your confusion regarding the 1st Amendment is not surprising. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Putting religious artifacts in public squares is not making any law nor is it establishing a state religion.

            As an aside, the 10 Commandments are not a Christian symbol. It comes straight from the Jewish tradition.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (May 09, 2009 9:19 am ET)
                 
              I think the difference would be, obviously, that putting up the 10 commandments suggests that our legal system expects Americans to abide by them. The fact that there are actual words involved is sort of relevant.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (May 09, 2009 9:26 am ET)
                 
              Also, anything from the Bible is just slightly more consistent with current religious views than ancient Greek myths.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 10:00 pm ET)
                 
              See here again you are spewing a TALKING POINT you have been TOLD to believe. One that is OBVIOUSLY FALSE. That you only spew out of pure brainwashing. IF the intent of the First Amendment had been to stop the establishment of A national religion it would have said no establishment of A religion it does NOT it says no estblishment of religion PERIOD. You are flat out wrong this has been pointed out at least a dozen times but you dont CARE about truth facts OR reality only repeating what you have been programmed to spew
              Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (May 08, 2009 2:03 am ET)
          1  
          True enough. Misconstrued by you conservatives that know NOTHING about history. No it wasnt.If the point of the first amendment was to deny a National religion then the wording would have been ' no establishment of A religion not no establishment of religion.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 08, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
               
            Reference.com http://www.reference.com/browse/state churches
            "The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts did not disestablish its official church until 1833, more than forty years after the ratification of the First Amendment; and local official establishments of religion persisted even later."
            Sorry to burst your bubble, Solon :)
            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 10:08 pm ET)
                 
              You didnt burst ANYTHING since you didnt refute my POINT. Whatever they got away with for a WHILE we both know the Supreme Court TODAY would never go for it. I am right. Show me how my logic is mistaken. IF the intent had BEEN to not establish A National religion THAT is what it would have said not no establishment of RELIGION. Try to keep up. You dont think the founding fathers were dumb enough to NOT know the difference between A religion and RELIGION do you?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 10:12 pm ET)
                 
              You didnt burst ANYTHING since you didnt refute my POINT. There is obviously a difference between A religion and RELIGION. I hope you dont think the founding fathers were so dumb THEY didnt know that difference. Whatever they were able to get away with for a while we both know it would NOT FLY TODAY. Obviously every Supreme Court decision agrees with ME not you. I dont know that site it wasnt a link I cant tell if it is biased or definitive but it doesnt matter unless you OR that site can refute the logic of my observation then you havent come close to refuting my point much less bursting my bubble especially since I obviously have the Supreme Court on MY SIDE. Where did YOU get your degree in constitutional law again?
              Report Abuse
    • Author by juliajayne (May 07, 2009 11:53 am ET)
      1  
      I just knew when Obama made his announcement that all the usual mouthpieces would come out against the decision.

      To me prayer is private. I applaud Obama's stance.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by smarshall1432997 (May 07, 2009 6:43 pm ET)
        1  
        You know too, isn't it written in the Bible that God hears you when you are "alone" and "pray" to him? These Republicans really need to stop fighting "every" thing that President Obama does or say. Maybe this is what they were using "ALL" along to get alot of their Republican Members into Congress and the WH. The Republicans just attack every thing done by the Opposition to muddy the water and win elections with "NO" new ideas, visions, or solutions. Unbelievable.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by LuvLuLu (May 07, 2009 11:12 pm ET)
          1  
          One is not supposed to show off by praying in public. One is supposed to pray in private. It's not a 'look how good I am' kind of activity.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by roninkannushi1711 (May 07, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
      2  
      Bush-baby went to church, did not help. Nitpick. We do realize the fruitlessness of conservative backlash? Something falling away has little impact. There is no truth behind what the Clog(Conservative media), is nurturing, besides jealous gossip. Power envy. Smear, is so their color.
      Ploggers,(progressive loggers), unite. Plog on!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NG_Officer (May 07, 2009 12:19 pm ET)
      2  
      Like the old saying goes:
      "Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (May 07, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
      2  
      Wasn't it President Thomas Jefferson who first thought it would be a good idea to skip a National Day of Prayer? Presidents Washington and Adams issued proclaimations - but Mr. Jefferson did not.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (May 07, 2009 1:30 pm ET)
        2  
        Conservative party has become a joke...

        National Prayer Day?

        If you want to get out of the hypocrite box Doocy:

        1) Shut your pie hole
        2) Stop disgracing the words of Jesus
        3) Go to church.

        The most important step is step 1.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by totallynext6230 (May 07, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
      2  
      Just a quick question, has fox and friends ever once ever... said a nice thing about President Obama and / or a Democratic Representative?

      EVER?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by smarshall1432997 (May 07, 2009 6:55 pm ET)
        1  
        Nope. FoxNews "HATES" President Obama and /or the Democrats - period. FoxNews had become the first (and only) cable network to beg viewers to "rise-up" against an American President (President Obama) i.e. Tea Parties. FoxNews on a daily basis, 24/7, always report "negatively" about President Obama and the Democrats. It is hard to believe that only 4 months or so have passed with FoxNews being so "negative" about President Obama and the Democrats. But well, let's hope that Media Matters can hang in there with FoxNews bias coverage for the next 4 years, huh?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Revolution Ready (May 07, 2009 10:19 pm ET)
          2
        And just another quick question...did NBC, MSN, Yahoo! or any other media source except for Fox say a nice thing about Bush, and/or a Republican representative?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (May 07, 2009 10:31 pm ET)
          1  
          Yes, all of the time.

          Thank you.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (May 08, 2009 2:07 am ET)
          1  
          WOW how brainwashed do you have to be to ask THAT question. Of COURSE they did. Quite often. Back away from the crackpipe
          Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (May 07, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
        4
      As a religious person, I do not really care if Obama has a public ceremony on the National Day of Prayer. It have been a nice gesture, but Obama rather than being a uniter, played to his secular base. Nobody should be surprised.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by BillJ-MN (May 07, 2009 3:28 pm ET)
        3  
        anotheramerican -
        That you attach motives to Obama's decision that you couldn't possibly know to be true isn't surprising. Pathetic, but not surprising.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (May 07, 2009 3:52 pm ET)
            3
          Bill,

          You apparently are reading your bias into my posts.

          Why don't you read what I write instead of making stuff up. You must have missed it but I am agreeing with most people here.

          However I notice you like to talk in generalities rather than specifics. Your last sentence is a common diversion by tossing out accusations without backing them up and on top of it tossing in rather juvenile insults.

          If you want to discuss this as an adult, make your argument as to where I am assigning motives to Obama.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by BillJ-MN (May 07, 2009 4:00 pm ET)
            3  
            ... Obama rather than being a uniter, played to his secular base. - anotheramerican

            There's no bias being read into your post. You very clearly state that you believe the reason for Obama's choice is to play to this imagined secular base. You don't provide any allowance that there could have been any other reasons on his part for his decision.

            I'd say I was dead-on correct. You're assigning motives to his decision that you are in no position to know are true. And I consider that to be pathetic.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by WildcatProgressive (May 07, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
              2  
              Stop using the words conservatives speak against them. It is simply unfair.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by smarshall1432997 (May 07, 2009 7:01 pm ET)
              3  
              BillJ-MN,

              You are so "right" with "all" your comments. Please don't get "distracted" by this AA person. Your comments are a delight and always on point with facts. Thanks.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 4:37 pm ET)
                1
              "Playing to one's base" is an action, not a motive.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (May 09, 2009 9:33 am ET)
                1  
                You dictated the reason for Obama's decision, therefore you attributed motive to the decision. By your logic, saying "he killed his wife so he could continue his affair" isn't attributing motive, because "having an affair" is an action.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by westla (May 07, 2009 4:00 pm ET)
            3  
            AA,

            You most certainly did ascribe motives to Obama. You said he was "playing to his secular base". So you believe Obama's motivation in his decision is political? That is definitely attaching a motive that you have no basis for.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
                1
              As I just mentioned above, "playing to one's base" is an action, not a motive.

              I never said his decision was political.

              As usual, I find people here seemingly ask questions and then make up their own answers to answer the question they themselves asked, all the while assigning their answer to someone or some other group as you have done here.

              the ironic and laughable part or your note is that you are guilty of assigning unproven an unfounded motives to me.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 10:14 pm ET)
                   
                How in the WORLD would 'playing to ones base' be anything OTHER than political?
                Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (May 07, 2009 7:43 pm ET)
        3  
        He is not playing to his "secular base," AA. As a religious person I respect Obama's spirituality. Its a private thing and he doesn't need to explain it to anyone. His decision to not to a public ceremony does not reflect at all on him being a uniter. You would have criticized his decision either way.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 4:57 pm ET)
             
          fried,

          We agree that Obama can do what he likes. I never said Obama has to explain his spirituality to anyone. In fact, I agree with you. The fact that he brought up his religious beliefs during the campaign is immaterial to this conversation.

          I hardly see where if he had conducted a prayer breakfast that I would have criticized him. In fact, I did not criticize him here. I only said he missed an opportunity to be a uniter by reaching out to people of faith in a public act. The fact that so many liberals here are defending Obama only proves my point that his actions played to his base. Whether you like it or not, by not having a prayer breakfast, he offended some on the religious right, which I think you'll agree, is not 'uniting'.

          It is the same with returning the bust of Churchill. Obama was free to do so, but many Brits took it as a slight. That and giving the PM dvd's were symbolic of Obama's seemingly low opinion of Great Britain. It was hardly the way to treat our #1 ally.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (May 09, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
               
            "I only said he missed an opportunity to be a uniter by reaching out to people of faith in a public act. The fact that so many liberals here are defending Obama only proves my point that his actions played to his base."

            When you say that Obama played to his base, that's active. It means that he did it for that purpose. If you say that his base approved of something, that doesn't say anything about Obama's intent. So the fact that liberals are defending Obama does not mean Obama played to his base.

            Maybe that will make it a little more clear why you feel misunderstood, because if that really was your point you phrased it horribly wrong.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (May 07, 2009 10:33 pm ET)
        1  
        Umm, well over 80 percent of this country identify themselves as Christians. 2-4 percent are Jewish. 2-4 percent are "other" religions. This leaves us with maybe 12 percent that could be called secular. Who is he playing to again? Not his base. His base is Christian, just like the republican base. Stop pretending that republicans are the only people that believe in a Christian God, because that's just not true.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (May 08, 2009 5:14 pm ET)
             
          "The Democratic nominee’s support among self-identified atheists and agnostics reached 76 percent—a 12 percentage point increase from 2004."

          http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmI2MjZmMWUzMmYxZjk1YTE5YjhkMDNkZDUzNzcyODA=

          That is my only point. Google Obama = "secular base" and you'll see that I am not the only one who acknowledges this
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 09, 2009 10:18 pm ET)
               
            78% of about 10% wont make a BASE. google moreon conservative and get more than 1,65,000 hits exactly what point does THAT make again?
            Report Abuse
    • Author by alissa.holiday5177 (May 08, 2009 2:14 am ET)
      1  
      I'm curious about something. Isn't President Obama doing the same thing that President Reagan did? If so then what leg does FOX News have to stand on? Because FOX News defends Reagan like he's a deity, and it's well known that Roger Ailes holds the now deceased Reagan in the highest possible regard.

      If anyone knows for sure please post. Thanks. ^^
      Report Abuse
    • Author by twseattle (May 08, 2009 3:55 am ET)
      1  
      Doocy is trying to continue the new republican tradition of 'bearing false witness' started last year by Liddy Dole. If this is all the ammo they have left for their culture war, then they really need to head back to the bunker.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.