The Church That Donald Trump Says He Goes to ‘A Lot’ Says He’s Not an ‘Active Member’

[Rationalt]

so it's not like these individuals would hide these criticisms of Obama from me out of sensitivity. .

Obama was not criticized for his religion because the leftys know that it is a sham and that it nicely aligns with their own ideas. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

[Blank Stair]

Obama was not criticized for his religion because the leftys know that it is a sham and that it nicely aligns with their own ideas. Talk about hypocrisy.

Indeed.
Also, it's hard to argue with a guy that makes up an excuse for his uncle's ranting racism from the pulpit that Obama sat before for some 20 years, that in all that time Obama was deaf to that kind of racist ranting.

Today his former pastor is living large with millions of dollars in a custom built mansion in a nearly all white gated community.
Figure that one out.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Obama was not criticized for his religion because the leftys know that it is a sham and that it nicely aligns with their own ideas. Talk about hypocrisy.

Ok, then let's use Mitt Romney as an example. During the campaign, there wasn't much criticism from the left of Romney's religious beliefs, outside the occasional remark about magic underpants. This, despite there being no love at all on the left for Romney and no love among atheists for his ultra-conservative religion. Again, the reason Romney's faith was spared a lot of criticism, is because Romney didn't do a lot of religious pandering, because he didn't present an image of his religion being superior to other belief systems, and because his religious beliefs were obviously sincere and not exaggerated for political purposes.

Most atheists and libs I've known are perfectly ok with other people being religious (even if they think it's stupid) so long as the religious people aren't fake and/or hypocritical about it and so long as they don't try to foist their religious beliefs on others.

 

[Rationalt]

Indeed.
Also, it's hard to argue with a guy that makes up an excuse for his uncle's ranting racism from the pulpit that Obama sat before for some 20 years, that in all that time Obama was deaf to that kind of racist ranting.

Today his former pastor is living large with millions of dollars in a custom built mansion in a nearly all white gated community.
Figure that one out.

More mind boggling is that people accepting his flimsy excuse that he heard the ranting only after he announced for presidency.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Obama was not criticized for his religion because the leftys know that it is a sham and that it nicely aligns with their own ideas. Talk about hypocrisy.

There was some criticism on Obama's religiosity too coming from the left, usually in the form that he wasn't really that religious but used it to try and appeal to certain voters. Something, as mentioned, virtually every president has done in the last few decades.

I can't recall there being any criticism of Bush Jr's religiosity, however.

So attempting to merely paint this as a thing "lefty's" do, and only do to Republicans seems to be a false statement. What is happening in this instance, in regard to Trump, is the amusement of someone attempting the same, doing so with all the usual bravado Trump is known for, but then seemingly having failed to do enough homework in order to provide some basic questions.

If his favorite passages from the Bible were so personal that he couldn't be public about it, one has to wonder why he'd make a big deal that the Bible is his favorite book. Some of use merely find this amusing. It's entirely possible Trump's favorite book really is the Bible and he really needed that to be known, and that his favorite parts of the Bible are just so personal he can't say them out loud. But, let's be honest here, at the very least that looks an awful lot like, "I wasn't prepared to have to back this up."

That said, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if, at some point in the nearish future, he does have a couple passages handy. And then, of course, more amusement.

I personally couldn't care less about Trump's religiosity, what religion he is, if any religion at all. I merely find this--again--amusing. Trump is a gold mine of unintentional hilarity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

More mind boggling is that people accepting his flimsy excuse that he heard the ranting only after he announced for presidency.

I've found that very few ever watched the entire video of Jeremiah Wright's sermon that was spliced and edited back in 2008. They only saw the tiny clips which the news networks aired.

As someone who watched the entire thing, and saw the "God damn America" remarks in their context, it seemed pretty obvious that the intent was to misuse Wright's words in order to create some political controversy (i.e. ratings).

I understand that Wright has said other things which are a bit, shall we say, out there. But in terms of this specific case the media coverage was hardly impartial, and I note that few--conservative or liberal--ever really bothered to look into it more.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[wing2000]

What has it got to do with anyone else what his religious affiliations are anyway? who do they think they are questioning him about what he believes or not? his religion [or lack of] is his own personal business and should concern no one else.
Americans should learn to mind their own business.

Jimmy Carter was the first President to openly talk about his faith as a candidate (and the first Evangelical Christian President). Reagan took note and readily adopted the language to appeal to Evangelical voters. It has continued thus ever since.

Ironically, Carter, who is well respected for living his Christian faith, is largely rejected by the far right today.

 

[wing2000]

I've found that very few ever watched the entire video of Jeremiah Wright's sermon that was spliced and edited back in 2008. They only saw the tiny clips which the news networks aired.

As someone who watched the entire thing, and saw the "God damn America" remarks in their context, it seemed pretty obvious that the intent was to misuse Wright's words in order to create some political controversy (i.e. ratings).

I understand that Wright has said other things which are a bit, shall we say, out there. But in terms of this specific case the media coverage was hardly impartial, and I note that few--conservative or liberal--ever really bothered to look into it more.

-CryptoLutheran

I find that most people never bother to listen to entire speech or read a source document....even though such resources are readily available today.

 

[Cute Tink]

There's not a lot more I can say. When you twist what is in this thread and in print because you have a personal issue with me, I leave you to it.

I have no personal issue with you. I don't even know who you are. That's very confusing.

The church said he is not an active member, and they defined what an active member is. When the church defines what an active member is, and they say that Donald who claimed he goes to church a lot, does not meet that criteria, he is not an active member.

They have specific criteria as to what an active member is and, unfortunately for your argument, their criteria doesn't include how often you go to the church.

 

[brewmama]

Defending a falsehood isn't gracious. Reading a minute part of this thread, Cute Tink's, and then jumping on me on their behalf isn't gracious.

No, I'm not denying facts. Cute Tink and you apparently are simply glossing over this thread, while not bothering to read the outside links so as to be fully informed of the facts. That's rather lazy. And it's even worse when in light of that Cute Tink pounds an issue he doesn't know anything about due to that.

Your remarks should be directed at Cute Tink.Who badgers when they are apparently not inclined to read the links provided that answer their questions that they refuse to accept when I've answered them repeatedly.
Furthermore, it is not gracious to misrepresent the truth when you attempt to defend someone who's done that consistently in their pursuit of me in this thread.

Also, it isn't very gracious when Cute Tink fabricated a statement from their own imagination and then challenged me claiming I said that! And then challenged me to find proof of where I was entitled to say that in the links , articles, I've provided in this thread.

Before you start defending someone know what you're talking about. Don't demonstrate you don't have a care to read this thread in full, including the supporting links to outside sources, before you jump on someone in the name of someone who's behavior is just like that.

I'll not respond to you again. You don't know what's going on but you enter slinging judgment? God have mercy.

Actually I read the entire thread, and I must say it appears if anyone did not, it would be you. So once again, your false assumptions and accusations are coming back to bite you. You should be more careful.
The bottom line is that active membership and going to church services at a church are two different things, and why you insist on making a mountain out of a molehill over this is beyond me. I hope you mean what you say and don't respond again.

 

[Blank Stair]

It is cowardice to make false statements and attack someone's character while admitting at the end that thinking they won't respond gave impetus to that action.
God have mercy. Now, if you want to proceed on that aforementioned track, do so.

Actually I read the entire thread, and I must say it appears if anyone did not, it would be you. So once again, your false assumptions and accusations are coming back to bite you. You should be more careful.
The bottom line is that active membership and going to church services at a church are two different things, and why you insist on making a mountain out of a molehill over this is beyond me. I hope you mean what you say and don't respond again.

 

[brewmama]

Jimmy Carter was the first President to openly talk about his faith as a candidate (and the first Evangelical Christian President). Reagan took note and readily adopted the language to appeal to Evangelical voters. It has continued thus ever since.

Ironically, Carter, who is well respected for living his Christian faith, is largely rejected by the far right today.

You obviously know nothing of what most of our historical presidents have said and done, and how their religious faith was so present in much of what they did. Such is the state of history in our country.

 

[brewmama]

It is cowardice to make false statements and attack someone's character while admitting at the end that thinking they won't respond gave impetus to that action.
God have mercy. Now, if you want to proceed on that aforementioned track, do so.

I see now that you have a reading problem, as I was referring to YOUR words, not mine, which you obviously did not mean. Whatever. Carry on if you wish or not.

 

[brewmama]

I've found that very few ever watched the entire video of Jeremiah Wright's sermon that was spliced and edited back in 2008. They only saw the tiny clips which the news networks aired.

As someone who watched the entire thing, and saw the "God damn America" remarks in their context, it seemed pretty obvious that the intent was to misuse Wright's words in order to create some political controversy (i.e. ratings).

I understand that Wright has said other things which are a bit, shall we say, out there. But in terms of this specific case the media coverage was hardly impartial, and I note that few--conservative or liberal--ever really bothered to look into it more.

-CryptoLutheran

I'm very curious to hear how you justify Wright's rants as legitimate if listened in context. Please give an example.

 

[ViaCrucis]

-CryptoLutheran

 

[brewmama]

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for sharing that...but do you truly think that justifies his cursing of America?? I don't see it. And I certainly don't see much of a Christian message there, that's for sure. Mainly partisan politics and stirring up hate over the past.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks for sharing that...but do you truly think that justifies his cursing of America?? I don't see it. And I certainly don't see much of a Christian message there, that's for sure. Mainly partisan politics and stirring up hate over the past.

What I see is an entirely just and fair criticism of America's historical sins, coupled with an invitation that it is possible for America to change for the better.

I don't know where you see stirring up hate, I see stirring up a sense of the need for right change, to recognize the faults and sins of the past and in light of those move forward toward a better, more just and peaceful future.

I don't see Wright saying anything fundamentally different than what is standard in the tradition of the Black Church, calls for love, peace, and justice are intrinsic parts of the Black Church tradition in the United States, it's the same tradition out from which Martin Luther King Jr spoke the things he spoke. And I reckon that there would be plenty who, if they really read or listened to the things MLK said, outside of the I Have a Dream speech would likely shock them. For example MLK's speech against the Vietnam War, and against the systematic injustice against the poor. White America has done a very good job at white-washing King, sterilizing and sanitizing him in order that he no longer is a threat to the status quo. But the Real Dr. Martin Luther King Jr is still, most definitely, a threat to the status quo.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rationalt]

That fellow wanted destruction at the time he made that speech.

 

[Rationalt]

Some more :
Apparently the pastor's ahte wants to keep blacks in exclusive black neighbour hoods like Ferguson.


"biscuits" and "sheep dogs" - African Americans raised in the white world.
"Take that baby, him or her away, from the African mother, away from the African community, away from the African experience ... and put them Africans over at the breasts of Yale, Harvard, University of Chicago ... UCLA or UC-Berkeley," he said. "Turn them into biscuits. Let them get that alien DNA all up inside their brain and they will turn on their own people in defense of the ones who are keeping their own people under oppression. Sheep dogs."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._rant_from_jeremiah_wright.html#ixzz3kl6QlCI5

 

[wing2000]

You obviously know nothing of what most of our historical presidents have said and done, and how their religious faith was so present in much of what they did. Such is the state of history in our country.

Since I am so ignorant please do site an example of another Presidential candidate openly talking about his faith prior to Jimmy Carter.