A third time?

[LivingWordUnity]

No one is changing the Declaration. Obama was referencing what's in it, not quoting it verbatim.

It was word for word except that inconvenient part about the Creator.

 

[JoabAnias]

And I fail to see how the Catholics here (and anywhere) cannot but feel a sense of pride that a fellow Catholic, Daniel Carroll was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and yet another fellow Catholic, Charles Carroll was a signer of the Constitution.

Its got nothing to do with our national pride sister. This is dispassionately and irenically about the facts. The fact you mention had little to do with the outcome or the intentions of the founders. By founding this country they were foremost serving self interests. Not God. Sure, they took others into account when it served their purpose, after their own agenda's. Isn't that still the way in Cesar's court? Nothing has changed and it was no different then. None of that is significant to the false claim that the country was founded on Christianity. The facts are that it simply wasn't. It was founded on many things. Christianity was a small concern. Just as small as it is in government today.

Then there's the fact that most of the 52 signers of the Constitution were in some way related to religion just by the fact that the Universities back then were established to turn out ministers! Then there's the original sources that show that these Founders were Christian and often studied Scripture. So much for the charge of deism and the United States not being founded on Christian principles!

To keep this explanation simple please answer this question which should answer it for you; Why do you think Jefferson would draw equally from the Quran, Haddith, Pentateuch and Magna Carte as sources of inspiration for drafting the Declaration of Independence?

Hmmm--maybe that's why today they aren't mentioned--those that want to take Christianity out of the U.S. documents can't afford to have any knowledge of Christians having anything to do with the founding documents.

Do you think that my motivation for mentioning that its a false claim the country was founded on Christianity is aimed at getting Christianity removed from documents? Not at all, its to face the reality that Christianity is much more than what this country was founded on. If this country was founded on Christianity then Christianity is a flop. If you want to say this country was founded on Masonry or Protestantism and Religious Indifference I would be much more inclined to agree with you but then I would have to point out to you that those things are not Chrsitianity. Please study that link above. Please.

I also fail to see why original sources (that show the obvious Christian bent of the Founders) aren't used.

They are used and sometimes misused to perpetuate the myth that this country was founded on Christianity. The fact is those additions were intentionally meant with a spirit of religious indifference in their usage in the first place. I am not saying its bad that they are there, I am saying its bad that they are presumed and ment to be no more important than any of the other influences in these documents, of which they are many that are not Christian. Neither should anyone claim they are unless they are of the false opinion that every religion is as good as the other. Again, please read; religious indifference.

And I fail to see why others don't view Obama's purposeful misquoting of the Declaration to exclude the fact that the Creator gives us rights as one big warning sign.

We do see that, but its exactly the same as its always been with politicians, thats what I am saying, yes even the founders, in their own ways. Its nothing new. These are secular men and always will be secular men. They can't even agree on when life begins, let alone if they should cease the right to omnipotence. Remember Jesus didn't come to overthrow governments. He came to save souls. Lets not perch up on pedestals, as being holy, men who are and were anything but. Our hope is in the Lord, not the founders or any other human.

Doesn't the Declaration also say that it's the government's duty to protect those rights that have been given to us by our Creator? Well, if we don't know that we are given those rights by our Creator, isn't it easier for those rights to be taken away?

In reality, its the people of Gods responsibility. The government is of men. Always has been, always will be. This is why we speak against relativism and secularism and liberalism with the integrity of faithful morality on a daily basis in forums like this. Its to the degree that the truth of God is rejected that we loose our real freedoms and liberty. As St. Paul said, our real battle is not with men but with powers as principalities.

 

[SolomonVII]

worth pointing out that "the creator" in the declaration is NOT the Christian God?

Is ther any other Creator?

 

[SolomonVII]

The American revolution has been a unique experiment in the history of mankind. Now two centuries in the making, we can all look back and see if it was worth it, see if it is worth sustaining.

I guess on the one hand, we can join those who see it as some force of evil, conspiratorial Masons and atheists and other non-Christian and self-interested forces working for their own selfish, or maybe even Satanically evil goals.
Or, we can look at it as the ultimate fulfillment of the madate of Moses to date, as the time when God's people rose above the pharoahs and god-kings who always ruled them, and chose to belief that their freedoms came from God himself.

It has been a checkered past for sure. Progress, if at all, has come two steps back, three steps forward, a furious spurt of success here, a mislabelling of the good and evil there.
The people have probably been deceived into believing that they were fighting for liberty and against evil on occasions, when maybe they were fighting for something more wordly and selfish and even sinister in reality.

But every generation has to decide for itself if the idea of America is still a worthwhile one, if unalienable rights truly have been endowed upon us by our Creator, if the American dream is a basically good one, good for Americans and good for the world too.

Americans will ultimatel;y have to decide that for themselves, whether it was some kind of Koranic, Masonic plot, or whether the inspiration was really inspired in Christianity, in the spirit of Christ, in the image of God himself.
Maybe there is really something better out there waiting to rush into the vacuum that the withdrawal of the American Dream will leave in its wake.

Some American still believe that there is something special in these words; others are hopeful that America will fundamentally change.....

 

[AMDG]

Is ther any other Creator?

It's also important to note that our rights come from Him--not from man (government). We already have those rights. And unlike privileges, rights are not something that can be taken away.

Like I said, years back people knew what the Founders did and they discussed them--in the government and in day-to-day life. It was as natural as can be. Then it started that people no longer had discussions about them--and they didn't really know who the Founders were, what they were about, or even what they wrote in the U.S.' important documents. Pretty soon students were taught tiny revisions (oh the Founders were nothing but old, religiously indifferent men--not ecumenical and certainly not principled Christian men who were concerned for the nation.) Then the revisions got worse and we questioned whether the Founding Documents of such "evil" men were even relevant so much so that we actually have a president misquoting a Foundational Document (and some don't even care!) What next? The vision for the U.S. of the "evil" Founding Fathers stinks?--it's awful and should be decried?--our rights come from the government and the government need only protect what it wants while enslaving others?

In the 1960s I recall Kruschev (head of the then Soviet Union) arrogantly claiming "We will bury you". Before we laughingly say "Yeah, riiiight--the Soviet Union is long gone and we're still here", think--the Soviet Union may be gone but Russia is still around, tyrants are still around, politicians who practice duplicity are still around and that "we'll bury you" could easily mean "we'll change your view of history, so much that you won't know what to believe, what's true, your principles will no longer exist, and the Founding Documents of your country will be meaningless--it'll take time, but we'll do it through your young." Nothing to laugh at. Scary even.

 

[wondering1]

Well, i think most everyone was privy to how his preacher taught. Rev Wright said blasphemies towards America in his church. When i say blasphemies, i mean asking God to damn this nation.
He was unwell as far as preaching, and Obama sat and listened to this for 20 years??

He also had issue with white people, racist, and Obama sat and listened to this for 20 years?
Yet he lied the pastor never said this, then said he knew he said this...

IF he had to make a construct to avoid saying Creator - then he was denying Him.
Obama taught Constitutional Law - you would be hard pressed to tell me he didn't know how the Declaration of Independence was worded.
Not once, not by mistake, but carefully done three times.
That's three times he denied the Lord. BUT no doubt his PR group sees his poll numbers shooting way way down, and so he 'fixed' it?
Havent checked to see if that were the case.

BUT as far as the matter of reading hearts - it is not necessary - when we all note that he intentionally misses saying Creator.

Matthew 10:33
But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.




22 Timothy 2:12
If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us.

Triune God.

Blasphemy is something said against GOD. Although I certainly don't agree with many of the things his pastor said, I would never assume that because of that, those who attended that church don't believe in the Creator, or are not Christians. If we are to assume that President Obama doesn't believe in God because of the church he attended, then what about all of the other members of that church? Do you assume they don't believe in God either?

You really didn't address my post anyway, as it wasn't about his church or his pastor. He has spoken about his faith on many occasions. That is a fact. To ignore everything else he has said about his belief in God, and just concentrate on whether or not he left the word "Creator" out of certain speeches, is just playing politics. He has affirmed his belief in God many times, and to accuse him of "denying" God is just not right.

 

[wondering1]

Given that anti-Catholic sentiment was one of the popular motives behind the revolution, I'm not sure how hard you want to push THAT barrow.

One out of 52 signers is hardly enough to suggest that the "Creator" mentioned is the God Catholics believe in.

This is yet more anti Obama storm in teacupping. At the very most, his omission shows he doesn't believe that the US has an official stance towards a creator to believe in. It does not suggest that he personally doesn't believe in one.

Absolutely.

 

[wondering1]

No one is changing the Declaration. Obama was referencing what's in it, not quoting it verbatim.

Exactly!

 

[wondering1]

Well, if Hillary Clinton can be believed, she called it on Obama being inexperienced, so I guess that's part of the "can't breath without..." It's that he's in way over his head.

But this thread is about the fact that he changed the Declaration three separate times and that IMO speaks to Michie's Catholic online article of the possible reason for him doing so.

He didn't CHANGE the Declaration! He couldn't change it if he wanted to, and there is no reason to believe he would want to. He wasn't quoting it verbatim! It in no way constitutes him "denying" the Creator.

 

[wondering1]

As i said if he denies God before man...

Anyway - his reasons are insidious, if that would be his reasoning.
As we discussed previously, even if the 2-3 members of the signers of the D o I weren't Christian but signed this - why should a president deny it?



NO other president had that problem.


He is going off the path of the office of presidency by choice in not only this, but so many other ways.
He makes either very calculated judgments or he is really obtuse.

I read the Consitution again the other day - czars are unconstitutional, but he doesnt care.
The worst part - as a professor who taught Constitutional law - he cannot possibly be erring by ignorance.

President Obama is not the first President to appoint people to positions referred to as "czars". Do a search on the "czars" appointed by George W. Bush - you will find a very long list! Was Bush violating the constitution when he appointed his long list of "czars"? They are not the same thing as the "czars" spoken of in the constitution.

 

[TheUnwanted]

Is ther any other Creator?

*facepalm* it is constitutionally NOT the role of the US government to have an opinion on that question!

 

[WarriorAngel]

The American revolution has been a unique experiment in the history of mankind. Now two centuries in the making, we can all look back and see if it was worth it, see if it is worth sustaining.

I guess on the one hand, we can join those who see it as some force of evil, conspiratorial Masons and atheists and other non-Christian and self-interested forces working for their own selfish, or maybe even Satanically evil goals.
Or, we can look at it as the ultimate fulfillment of the madate of Moses to date, as the time when God's people rose above the pharoahs and god-kings who always ruled them, and chose to belief that their freedoms came from God himself.

It has been a checkered past for sure. Progress, if at all, has come two steps back, three steps forward, a furious spurt of success here, a mislabelling of the good and evil there.
The people have probably been deceived into believing that they were fighting for liberty and against evil on occasions, when maybe they were fighting for something more wordly and selfish and even sinister in reality.

But every generation has to decide for itself if the idea of America is still a worthwhile one, if unalienable rights truly have been endowed upon us by our Creator, if the American dream is a basically good one, good for Americans and good for the world too.

Americans will ultimatel;y have to decide that for themselves, whether it was some kind of Koranic, Masonic plot, or whether the inspiration was really inspired in Christianity, in the spirit of Christ, in the image of God himself.
Maybe there is really something better out there waiting to rush into the vacuum that the withdrawal of the American Dream will leave in its wake.

Some American still believe that there is something special in these words; others are hopeful that America will fundamentally change.....

The forefathers gave up all their own personal issues with God and wrote the DoI for the people...
Even in their own quotes they believed the government was a tyrant and the power must be in the hands of the people.

Ergo, the nation was majority Christian. Ergo the Creator was God Almighty... who not only that - but the One Who gives us inalienable rights.... as they stated - and not the government.

Not the government...!!

Blasphemy is something said against GOD. Although I certainly don't agree with many of the things his pastor said, I would never assume that because of that, those who attended that church don't believe in the Creator, or are not Christians. If we are to assume that President Obama doesn't believe in God because of the church he attended, then what about all of the other members of that church? Do you assume they don't believe in God either?

You really didn't address my post anyway, as it wasn't about his church or his pastor. He has spoken about his faith on many occasions. That is a fact. To ignore everything else he has said about his belief in God, and just concentrate on whether or not he left the word "Creator" out of certain speeches, is just playing politics. He has affirmed his belief in God many times, and to accuse him of "denying" God is just not right.

Blasphemy means either disbelieving in God - or making ourselves God.

When we place ourselves onto the throne of God - we make ourselves God.
To bring damnation down on anything - we usurp the throne of God - and lest we forget Jesus was almost stoned because 'He made Himself God and enraged the Jews'....

Which is why damning anything is a mortal sin.

I have yet to see Obama stand up for Christianity. Aside from the bane comment he made mocking the Bible - i dont see where he talks about his faith.
He hides it for fear of putting God first in his job as though God offends this nation.

Prime example - omitting Creator from the Declaration of Independence.
Irony that you are lifting up his faith in light of the thread.

President Obama is not the first President to appoint people to positions referred to as "czars". Do a search on the "czars" appointed by George W. Bush - you will find a very long list! Was Bush violating the constitution when he appointed his long list of "czars"? They are not the same thing as the "czars" spoken of in the constitution.

Yes he is.
The first - and only ...i already checked it out long ago.

Yea, i saw blogs where people repeat this anthem, but historically NO president has done that.

Anyone can say what they like on blogs..



BUT - here is an interesting part of the Constitution regarding how Obama got his Bamacare in...he is in fact impeachable.


Section 4 - Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

[WarriorAngel]

President Obama's czar system concerns some - Los Angeles Times

President Obama's czar system concerns some

He has 'super aides' for healthcare, the economy, energy and urban issues, with more to come -- prompting some lawmakers and groups to worry that he may be concentrating power and bypassing Congress.


March 05, 2009|Tom Hamburger and Christi Parsons
WASHINGTON — As President Obama names more policy czars to his White House team -- high-level staff members who will help oversee the administration's top initiatives -- some lawmakers and Washington interest groups are raising concerns that he may be subverting the authority of Congress and concentrating too much power in the presidency...........








Republican's attack President Obama's use of Czars - National Law and Politics | Examiner.com


...there is a reason the founders set up a balance of power between co-equal branches of government. There are legitimate questions being raised regarding the president’s penchant for appointing Czars, at over $100,000 a piece, to oversee each piece of his agenda. The Czars face no congressional scrutiny, no oversight, and have authority of dubious constitutionality over large portions of the administrative bureaucracy, and through TARP, the U.S. economy as well. Whatever one thinks of the president’s agenda, Congressman Kingston raises very real concerns regarding the manner by which President Obama has chosen to implement it.



Nixon invested in the Department of Energy. [which some claim was a czar]
Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency
EERE leads the Federal government's research, development, and deployment efforts in energy efficiency. EERE's role is to invest in high-risk, high-value research and development that is critical to the Nation's energy future and would not be sufficiently conducted by the private sector acting on its own.

DOE is a research department and not a position of given powers in any agenda or branch 'nor overseer' of any kind.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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?

Can you deny what the article from CBS said?

Fact is, many of the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of rights were Freemasons, who ware deist, not Christians.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What I find amazing about neo-conservatives is that, like democracy, they believe in freedom of speech when the speech provided is from one of their own. Otherwise, if it comes from Obama, and he leaves out words
like, "creator," they want to condemn him.

Just like they believe in democracy, except when their side loses in the election. Then they want and armed revolt.


Hypocrisy!

Jim

 

[AMDG]

Given that anti-Catholic sentiment was one of the popular motives behind the revolution, I'm not sure how hard you want to push THAT barrow.

Look up the documents themselves! Charles Carroll, from, Maryland, was a signer of the Declaration of Independence--a foundational document of the United States. He was of the 13 colonies (each separate from one another) and he was Catholic. Daniel Carroll, also from one of the 13 colonies, Maryland, was a Catholic who signed the foundational document of the Constitution making the United States, the United States. They both then went on to help make the Bill of Rights for the country, without which the Constitution wouldn't be approved by the colonies (now states). Some trick to allow Catholics to sign two different foundational documents and then allow both to help make the Bill of Rights for the people of the new country when the U.S. was supposed to be anti-Catholic (especially since each of the signers were actually leaders of their particular colony).

Oh, the motive behind the revolution was independence from King George of England--not anti-Catholicism. The King of England was not Catholic.

It doesn't take someone from the TEA party to know that (of course, I'm beginning to think that it might help since they do know the Constitution of the U.S. where others may not.)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

AMDG;

Look up the documents themselves! Charles Carroll, from, Maryland, was a signer of the Declaration of Independence--a foundational document of the United States. He was of the 13 colonies (each separate from one another) and he was Catholic. Daniel Carroll, also from one of the 13 colonies, Maryland, was a Catholic who signed the foundational document of the Constitution making the United States, the United States. They both then went on to help make the Bill of Rights for the country, without which the Constitution wouldn't be approved by the colonies (now states). Some trick to allow Catholics to sign two different foundational documents and then allow both to help make the Bill of Rights for the people of the new country when the U.S. was supposed to be anti-Catholic (especially since each of the signers were actually leaders of their particular colony).

Yes, there was some states that tolerated Catholicism, but it was limited.

When the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were states that outlawed any religion other than that which the state approved. In Massachusetts, Congregationalism was the only religion allowed. Rhode Island was more tolerant being it was more liberal.

However, even after the Revolution, discrimination against Catholics was common in most of the states.

Oh, the motive behind the revolution was independence from King George of England--not anti-Catholicism. The King of England was not Catholic.

It was against totalitarianism and religious totalitarianism which the Catholic Church had a strong history of in Europe, was opposed. Its why
the 1st amendment which states; "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

It doesn't take someone from the TEA party to know that (of course, I'm beginning to think that it might help since they do know the Constitution of the U.S. where others may not.)

Well if you're getting your info from the Tea Party, that could be your problem.
Jim

 

[AMDG]

Its why
the 1st amendment which states; "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Err--that was a protection of religion from the federal government. The states were still allowed establishment--as you pointed out, states (colonies) had established religions--and it was seen as no problem. Don't like the one the state (colony) has established? "Vote with your feet." The U.S. is vast with many states--move to a state that has what you do like. (Well you could do that back then, but not now that the federal government has established secular humanism and defends it with an iron hand.)

We were given freedom of religion (various religions), not freedom from religion.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

AMDG

Err--that was a protection of religion from the federal government. The states were still allowed establishment--as you pointed out, states (colonies) had established religions--and it was seen as no problem.

And if you look back at European history, the context of state religions comes from Catholicism, where kings mandated that all subjects
become Catholic.

Of course after the Reformation, states mandated that subjects belong to state religions ala, Henry VIII's Church of England.

It was in this mindset that the framers of the Constitution, put the establishment clause.

Jim

 

[Alicia_M]

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

That's what I was originally thinking. I just wanted to ask for the sake of my own clarity, thanks.

I wouldn't go so far as to way that Americans are perceived as terrorists by their right to bear arms.

Yeah. I was only touching on the fact that some might abuse or misinterpret the right; questions of "terroristic" actions could be brought before the public. Rightly so.

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.

Completely, I agree.