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















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.
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.'
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
The list goes on-and-on. You got nothin' dude.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022701104.html
"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.
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.")
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.
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.
Nuff Said
Nuf said!
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
It must be really unpleasant living with all that rage.
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.
I miss the Great Reader comment. Are we back to attacking intellectuals? We want someone who can't read now?
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?
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Your deeply reasoned and judicious comments are always such a positive addition to any conversation.
I wonder what is that Pete thinks England learned about the crusades?
I just told you where I though Ann was correct.
Can you show me where Coulter said she supports indiscriminate bombing of Afghanistan?
Sarcasm, off.
Why do I strongly suspect AA will have nothing to say to this?
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'.
"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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
"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 :)
To me prayer is private. I applaud Obama's stance.
Ploggers,(progressive loggers), unite. Plog on!
"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car."
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.
EVER?
Thank you.
That you attach motives to Obama's decision that you couldn't possibly know to be true isn't surprising. Pathetic, but not surprising.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
If anyone knows for sure please post. Thanks. ^^