A third time?

[Antigone]

Having watched people in Haiti die of cholera I can't help but wonder if there are better ways to spend our fury.

he is satan

He totally is. I found, like, final evidence.

See? Satan.

 

[SolomonVII]

It's so good to know that conservatives are hanging on to Obama's every word.

Wonder of wonders, they may learn something.

(This comment is a generalization and not directed at any specific individuals.)

Conservatives have always listened very carefully to what President Obama says. His voting constituency seemingly only cares about how good that he makes them feel about themselves of course, about 'hope and change' ,and 'we are the change that we have been waiting for' and all, but conservatives have tended to delve a little deeper into what he is all about, what his vision actually is.

I think that is showing the president a lot of respect. We may not agree with him, but we at least we take him seriously.

He is more than just another pretty face.

 

[Michie]

President Obama Edits the Declaration of Independence

President Obama has taken to referencing the language of the Declaration of Independence while omitting key words. Although the practice has garnered attention of late, it dates back to the beginning of his presidency.In his inauguration speech, President Obama gave up "created," "Creator," and "Life." Is this true to our founding documents, or is it the work of a skilled rhetorician bent on the deconstruction of those documents by stealth? Dr. Peter Colosi argues that the President knew precisely what he was saying and that the failure to cite the entire passage was deliberate and calculated.
Full Story

 

[wondering1]

Because he's doesn't believe in the Creator.

Sorry, but you don't know that. It's just your opinion. You don't know his heart any more than he knows yours.

 

[wondering1]

possible
could just be that he is fairly secular
many people are are of the mindset that religion is a personal thing and in public things like human rights and stuff like that religion has no place

now I am not of this mindset and i think that puts human rights on shaky ground

but there are many nominal christians who think like this...

from what I hear Mr.Obama only started going to church when he wanted to get into politics, not saying that proves anything but it looks shady

From what I understand, he was a church member for more than twenty years. Doesn't really sound that shady to me.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Like I said before. Almost all communists are militant atheists.

 

[Alicia_M]

The first time may have been an oversight. But the second time after all the ado, and now the third, maybe even a fourth?

Fourth? I don't know about that. I haven't looked for further confirmation. The first time it happened I honestly thought, "What's going on with Obama? Seeing that he is the president, he should be fully aware of the Declaration of Independence." Actually, after the second, I stayed the course on searching for speech transcripts only because a "burden of proof" issue was brought against the OP by a different poster (accusations that the president was being accused unjustly). The material, being presented as it was, was done in effort to assure "clarity of truth", that's all.

No way. This historical revisionism is deliberate. I don't even know if it is political. This most likely is getting to the heart of what Obama believes.

I agree.

There are many things he shows no interest in, and merely votes present. Some things though, like the Born Alive Act, he really goes to bat for, even if there is no political gain to be made.

I fully agree with the first part. I'm ignorant of the Born Alive Act, but I intend on looking it up.

And it is not strictly a matter of atheism and disbelief in God. Even an American atheist can see the reasons for placing rights from coming from some transcendant hypothetical place above the dictates of a government.

This is a legal matter more than a theological one. Jefferson wrote this, and he was no raging theocrat either, but he understood the revolutionary import of placing an individuals rights above that of the "Divine Right of Kings".
This evidently is something that Obama's legal mind rejects. He does not want our rights defined by a transcendent Creator. On this point he remains adamant, once, twice, three times, maybe even four.

Re the first few sentences in this quote: yes, I once again agree. I touched on the point of getting our inalienable rights soely from the governement and the havoc it can cause.

He is not specifically rejecting God then.Theocracies of the past and present have had no problem with placing all authority into the pope, the king the caliph, the ayatollah.
What he is rejecting is the American ideal that the will of the governed is of a higher order than the will of the government.

He is in effect therefore rejecting the American Revolution itself.

This was no third or fourth mistake. It is preposterous to believe that it could be.
This is no political ploy either, for truly there is nothing to be gained or maybe even lost in this omission.
This is an indication of what Obama truly believes.

Now I think that Obama finds the American people, 'clinging to their guns and religion' as they do, to be a troublesome lot. They are prone to do 'crazy things' like go to war against Iraq on account of 9/11. They are unpredictable and therefore uncontrollable.
He is deeply uncomfortable with this American trait, and would feel a lot better if they were more passive, more obedient to the powers that be, more malleable by the elites and the intelligensia that he belongs to—more like the Europeans seem to be, for instance.

He know that this phrase above all others is what makes the American people truly free and unfettered, and this is what he is rejecting.

The fact is that Obama's revising of the Declaration was purposive. It was not accidental or even politically astute.

My above opinion as to why is based on that indisputable fact. That is the only thing that makes sense to me as to why.

We're both "saying" the same thing, I think. I thought I was clear concerning these issues earlier? Maybe it's because I approach thread response by starting at the beginning and coming to a conclusion throughout?

The second bolding gave me a chuckle, thanks. Basically, what I "said" I find similar to "he finds the Americans a troublesome lot". I framed it differently, though, by relating it to the reason why Americans are given the right to bear arms and how that might be perceieved as "terroristic" nowadays.

 

[SolomonVII]

We're both "saying" the same thing, I think. I thought I was clear concerning these issues earlier? Maybe it's because I approach thread response by starting at the beginning and coming to a conclusion throughout?

Yea, I thought we were saying pretty much the same things to. My replying to you in no way entails disagreement.

The second bolding gave me a chuckle, thanks. Basically, what I "said" I find similar to "he finds the Americans a troublesome lot". I framed it differently, though, by relating it to the reason why Americans are given the right to bear arms and how that might be perceived as "terroristic" nowadays.

I wouldn't go so far as to way that Americans are perceived as terrorists by their right to bear arms.
But it does bring a whole new perspective on the relationship between a government and a people when the people as a whole have access to firepower.
The American government can still crush resistance with overwhelming force of course. But the very fact that it would take overwhelming force, and maybe images of children being burned in the fires that the government themselves would set to drive resistance out on the street, would give any government pause for serious second thoughts.

Only a totalitarian regime would be able to live with such images, but the very fact that Americans have private guns decentralized across the country would even limit what the most totalitarian regime can get away with without taking some severe hits on their own.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Sorry, but you don't know that. It's just your opinion. You don't know his heart any more than he knows yours.

True we may not know what's in his heart - but revoking the use of Creator - if he is a professed God believer does show what may be in his heart.

It would seem to me if someone believed in the Creator - they would profess it to the world... but to bend over backwards and do somersaults to avoid saying Creator doesn't take a huge leap of faith to see he denies him before the world.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yea, I thought we were saying pretty much the same things to. My replying to you in no way entails disagreement.

I wouldn't go so far as to way that Americans are perceived as terrorists by their right to bear arms.
But it does bring a whole new perspective on the relationship between a government and a people when the people as a whole have access to firepower.
The American government can still crush resistance with overwhelming force of course. But the very fact that it would take overwhelming force, and maybe images of children being burned in the fires that the government themselves would set to drive resistance out on the street, would give any government pause for serious second thoughts.

Only a totalitarian regime would be able to live with such images, but the very fact that Americans have private guns decentralized across the country would even limit what the most totalitarian regime can get away with without taking some severe hits on their own.

We have fire arms so if and when we are attacked [and military isnt on our streets because we have this freedom] - we are better able to thwart attacks.

This is necessary in times of terrorism... if a people are disarmed - they are sitting ducks....from even the government itself.

 

[Fantine]

President Bush and the religious right tried to redefine God to their own image and likeness. God was on our sides against the Muslim infidel, and they were doing what God wanted.

Everything they did was because of God--poisoning the environment, executing retarded prisoners on death row, giving tax cuts to billionaires but not increasing the earned income credit.

And so God got a bad rep among a lot of people--not because of who He was, but because of who these people, who were doing bad things in His name, said He was.

People began to fear that some were trying to establish a theocracy, not based on who God was, but based on the misinformation they were spreading about Him.

Bush and the religious right try to spread the rumor that the Founding Fathers were Christian fundamentalists. They were, in fact, much more heavily influenced by the Enlightenment and interpreted Christianity through humanism.

It is probably very difficult for President Obama to keep invoking God when His image has been distorted and altered after 8 years of Republican rule.

 

[AMDG]

Bush and the religious right try to spread the rumor that the Founding Fathers were Christian fundamentalists.

It could be because it is true. They weren't revisionists.

Our Founding Fathers in the U.S. were Christians and they did recognize that our inalienable rights were endowed by our Creator--not something that came from man--that the elitists in government gave.

 

[WarriorAngel]

President Bush and the religious right tried to redefine God to their own image and likeness. God was on our sides against the Muslim infidel, and they were doing what God wanted.

Everything they did was because of God--poisoning the environment, executing retarded prisoners on death row, giving tax cuts to billionaires but not increasing the earned income credit.

And so God got a bad rep among a lot of people--not because of who He was, but because of who these people, who were doing bad things in His name, said He was.

People began to fear that some were trying to establish a theocracy, not based on who God was, but based on the misinformation they were spreading about Him.

Bush and the religious right try to spread the rumor that the Founding Fathers were Christian fundamentalists. They were, in fact, much more heavily influenced by the Enlightenment and interpreted Christianity through humanism.

It is probably very difficult for President Obama to keep invoking God when His image has been distorted and altered after 8 years of Republican rule.

When you say religious right - i mean this to say:
1) he didn't deny God.
2) he didn't propose partial birth abortions be on demand
3) that he didnt try to infuse gay marriages into the society
4) that he kept the Declaration Independence as the forefathers wrote it to include GOD.
5) he didnt try to usurp freedoms
6) he knew taxation was unfair and could ruin the poor.

Then i am all for that.

But compared to option number 2:
1) denying the Creator before men
2) proposed partial birth abortions and reenacted it
3) adding gay marriage and pride into society
4) refusing to say Creator in Declaration Independence
5) usurps the congress with czars and our freedoms in many ways
6) wants to tax til we we leak out all our resources and die as a sovereign nation

Then give me the first please. I am not ashamed of our Creator and stand firm in the faith first which as we know - option 2 is doing everything in his power to destroy.

NOW, if Bush stood for number 2 - the left would be screaming.. right?

So it's not about the moral issues - but rather the party.
Parties in politics are gods and have more credence with man than the Laws of God.
Or so it seems....Interesting.

And our Church says we are culpable for the votes cast that allows for immorality.

 

[Fantine]

It could be because it is true. They weren't revisionists.

Our Founding Fathers in the U.S. were Christians and they did recognize that our inalienable rights were endowed by our Creator--not something that came from man--that the elitists in government gave.

From CBS News (I looked for a neutral and reliable source.)

The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between church and state." John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans -- the fundamentalists of their day -- would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast." The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers," as Jefferson wrote, "civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time."

If we define a Christian as a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of the key Founding Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists -- that is, they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature. John Adams was a professed liberal Unitarian, but he, too, in his private correspondence seems more deist than Christian.

George Washington and James Madison also leaned toward deism, although neither took much interest in religious matters. Madison believed that "religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize." He spoke of the "almost fifteen centuries" during which Christianity had been on trial: "What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." If Washington mentioned the Almighty in a public address, as he occasionally did, he was careful to refer to Him not as "God" but with some nondenominational moniker like "Great Author" or "Almighty Being." It is interesting to note that the Father of our Country spoke no words of a religious nature on his deathbed, although fully aware that he was dying, and did not ask for a man of God to be present; his last act was to take his own pulse, the consummate gesture of a creature of the age of scientific rationalism.

Our Godless Constitution - CBS News

 

[AMDG]

From CBS News (I looked for a neutral and reliable source.)



Our Godless Constitution - CBS News

That source could hardly be called "neutral". I think orginal sources are sources that are far more accurate and are actually "neutral" rather than revisionist progressive leaning ramblings. How about the fact that Jefferson signed his documents with "In Christ". And about George Washington--what about that painting of him kneeling in prayer in some farmer's field? Or how about the fact that many of the signers of the Constitution were ministers or at least theologically schooled (there was even a Catholic)? Or even the fact that the Founders decided, in fact, to have the Declaration of Independence state "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are they are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Persuit of happiness" Got any original sources?

 

[WarriorAngel]

I was about to say - a LOT of revision has been put into our more current understanding of the forefathers.
Just like 'protesting' the Church happened - do we honestly think modern day revisionists wont mar the history of the forefathers?

Reading their very own quotes - one can see they were religious Christian men.

They insisted no state mandated Church exist and that all religious freedoms be enjoyed. As a matter of belief, if they were atheists, one would think they would less champion faith in God.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Declaration of Independence is very profound in showing us where the hearts of the forefathers lay.

....endowed by their Creator....
[men have a Creator]

Wow, doesnt sound a bit like the modern day version of what they stood for.

Godless Constitution?
The Constitution was based on their declaring Independence and all rights endowed by the CREATOR....
What rights?
The rights they employed in the Constitution.

ENDOWED BY WHOM?
OUR CREATOR.

If they were not endowed by the Creator - there would be no rights - and there would be no Constitution.

I get annoyed by the obtuse trying to falsify the evident.

 

[JoabAnias]

I was about to say - a LOT of revision has been put into our more current understanding of the forefathers.
Just like 'protesting' the Church happened - do we honestly think modern day revisionists wont mar the history of the forefathers?

Reading their very own quotes - one can see they were religious Christian men.

They insisted no state mandated Church exist and that all religious freedoms be enjoyed. As a matter of belief, if they were atheists, one would think they would less champion faith in God.

I don't get why people so look up to the framers of the constitution as they do and I am a retired vet who served the country because I actually wanted to serve the country to protect people of my own volition.

It makes me think most people don't know very much about the framers at all.

Did you know that when this country was founded the catholic population was 1% of the country of 3 million or less? That means there were less than 30,000 Catholics in the whole country and they were persecuted.

Do you know why that was?

Did you know that the puritans made it a law that you had to belong to a Church. So even athiests like Thomas Pain and Ben Franklin had to belong to a Church. Even Jefferson wasn't sure what he believed and was a self proclaimed agnostic. Some of them sounded like they believed in God but never knew a sacrament in their whole lives.

People really should study up on the puritans and the Catholic persecution in this country. Some framers had noble goals for sure, but in practice they were no more holy than anyone else. There were more war mongers than anything.

They had a false praxis, if they had any, that we never have and in all honesty were far from Christ because of it.

Besides the deism and agnosticism, this country was not founded on God but on "God'S" in a spirit of pluralistic religious indifference. It would do anyone well to remember that because it explains the constant state of discord and religious indifference between the Church and State. The intent was humanistic.

I would suggest study of the Republic and other parties in the early days. They have actually reversed roles since then. This country is no more democratic than most others.

 

[AMDG]

Why are people looking at the Founders of this country? Well, because they are the...Founders of this country. Their documents are what the U.S. was planned to be--not the revisionist history and not the modern-day definition of "deism". And by keeping with the Founder's vision for this country, IMO, we would not have gone so far off the deep end with "political correctness", taking away our freedoms, putting us in massive debt and waste, growing government until it doesn't even look like what the Constitution was supposed to allow. And of course, again IMO, we wouldn't be so far from the Christian beginnings of this nation (and I doubt that we would have an elected president misquoting the Declaration and denying the fact that our rights come from our Creator. (Gee, maybe Michie's Catholic article--http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=38860 --is right--when we stop realizing that our rights come from the Creator and government is supposed to protect them, government can take those "rights" away.)

Do the people really know about the Founders? I would guess not because of all the revisionist history going on and the fact that we are all told not to really discuss this (except in school.) But at one time, they actually did know about them. (I've seen the old book about the Founders that used to be given to every Congressman upon election. I think there was one about their wives too.) And I remember having regular conversations with my Grandfather (God rest his soul) all the time.

In an effort to "introduce" some to our Founders, there's this site:
WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible
I guess that not everyone will like this site about the Founders, but for those willing to look, it's there.

 

[JoabAnias]

"One of the most common statements from the "Religious Right" is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not once.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" (see link). This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams."[/FONT]

Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians

The Treaty of Tripoli of November 4, 1796 says:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
​

The truth about the founding fathers is out there for anyone willing to look. They were no more religious men of faith than Obama or any other president.

The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity
Religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers

I know this may burst some peoples bubble about the Government supposedly being their savior from God but I have to tell you, it never was intended to be or ever will be. If our faith or "hope" is placed in the Government then its in the wrong place.