Obama’s Christianity

A harsh but correct statement about Obama:

Obama and Co very much want to fool Christians, again.  He managed the trick in 2008 – and not just with Catholics, as Obama did relatively well among self-identified Evangelicals, as well.  As the video states, Obama is counting on our ignorance – on the ignorance of Christians, themselves – in order to sucker us to vote for him.  My view:  in 2012, our theme song will be “Won’t Get Fooled Again”.

 

Advertisements

101 thoughts on “Obama’s Christianity

  1. neocon1 September 3, 2012 / 1:10 pm

    FRAUD

    One notable quote from Cone decribing his Black Liberation Theology is as follows:

    “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” – “Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology”, in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, by William R Jones, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).

    That theology accepts a perverted and wrested interpretation of Jesus Christ where it describes him as a poor black man (or man of color) living under oppressive white European rule (the Romans) and that he was as much about social change and bringing down government as he was about spiritual liberation. He therefore meets Cone’s (and adherants to this perverted view of our Savior) criteria for a God who supports their black power insurgency against what they describe as the ruling rich white men and women in America.

    http://www.jeffhead.com/blacklibtheology.htm

    • neocon1 September 3, 2012 / 1:15 pm

      WOW

      catspuke? denny?
      this video is for you

  2. Amazona September 3, 2012 / 2:32 pm

    I have always been astounded at the free pass given to Obama’s religious beliefs.

    I do not think that religious belief ought to be a criterion for public office, or that there should be a religious litmus test for candidates. But when religion is indistinguishable from things like politics or racism, when a religion demands certain behaviors or beliefs, I think we should at least know about these beliefs so we can decided if we want someone with those beliefs in high office.

    I am not talking about things like the Virgin Birth or how old the Earth is or the role of clergy in approaching God, but a religious belief that all who do not share it must be killed would definitely be a disqualifier for me.

    I studied up on Black Liberation Theology after I saw a black matron declare, with great scorn, when the Jeremiah Wright thing kind of bubbled up and then was squashed by the Complicit Agenda Media, that Black Liberation Theology had been around for a long time but white folks just didn’t know about it, and that it is very mainstream in the black community. And I was appalled at what I learned.

    Among the welter of strong emotional reactions to the dogma of BLT was one of betrayal—here I, and everyone I knew, had been supporting the ideal of a colorblind society, contributing to Civil Rights causes, voting for them, decrying racism wherever and whenever we found it, only to discover that while we were fighting for equality the people we were defending were engaged in institutionalized hatred of us, and subscribing to a
    “religion” based upon eliminating us.

    “If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. ”

    Strong words, words of hate, words that have absolutely nothing in common with any denomination of Christianity I have ever heard of or any teaching in any Christian Bible, yet when Obama merely stated that he was a “Christian” we were supposed to accept that without any discussion of just what that term means to him.

    So we elected a man whose deeply held religious beliefs of more than 20 years were based on nurturing and promoting loathing of all white people and the belief that white people are the enemies of black people and must be destroyed. Then we saw nearly four years of active efforts to splinter this nation according to race, and then turn each racial faction against the others, while our “Justice” Department turned a blind eye to black intimidation of white voters and New Black Panther issuing of a Dead or Alive bounty on a white man.

    We have been warned off of discussion of black racism, and bludgeoned with vile and untrue accusations that it is really white people who hate and want to destroy the other race, while the dirty secret of Black Liberation Theology has been covered up and Obama’s religious beliefs sanitized to appear to be simple Christianity, as we understand it.

    • neocon1 September 3, 2012 / 3:46 pm

      California Democratic party chair John Burton compared Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan to Nazi Joseph Goebbels this morning in Charlotte, North Carolina.

      this guy??

      “California chefs condemn John Burton’s use of violent rhetoric, ask for apology”

      “Sexual harassment suit filed against John Burton”

    • freethinker September 7, 2012 / 4:40 pm

      You are an idiot amazona. President Obama’s mother and grandparents were white. They raised him. You do not know that these were “deeply held religious beliefs of more than 20 years.” You are merely speculating and I seriously doubt that this is a true statement. President Obama has in no way of “active efforts to splinter this nation according to race. . .”. You, Neo, the Tea Party and people with your thought process have done more to splinter this nation according to race than anyone else. There has been some truly vile and untrue accusations that have come from the far right – and shame on you. You write truly ugly things about this president and try to make it appear that he is the one causing this separation in our country. The truly ugly hatred from the far right has been breath taking. You take everything this president has said or tried to do and twisted it into something it isn’t. And yet, you just keep on writing ugly, hateful lies day in and day out about this man who has served this country with dignity and grace. Hopefully some day you will wake up and realize that you, not the President, are the one filled with anger and hate towards a man, a man who is an exemplary husband and father, and he is not the one pitting white against back. After all, half of his heritage is white. You cannot convince me that he did not love his mother and grandparents. But I am very convinced that you have a heart filled with hate and rage that this man was elected President of the US. What a bunch of garbage you posted above. I know – you are the smartest person on this blog. Well, good for you. Compared to Neo I will agree you are smarter than he but you have just as much hate and poison in you as does he.

      • Amazona September 7, 2012 / 5:08 pm

        Velma, your screeching insanity I’d really tiresome. If you think so much of Obama why don’t you take the time to read his books? They even come in audio book form so you can hear him read his own words in his own voice.

        Perhaps if you could find, beg or borrow a scintilla of intelligence or integrity you might actually find out what the hell you are bleating about before you come here and make——yet again—–a total fool of yourself.

        I refer to known fact according to Obama himself. It’s not my fault you are so ignorant of his life and his religion, and it’s not my fault you assume that I am as hate-driven and irrational as you.

      • tiredoflibbs September 7, 2012 / 8:28 pm

        My response to velma screed: YAAAAAAAAWWWWWWNNNNNN.

        Wow, can you be anymore of a mindless drone. You are simply in denial to the fact that obAMATEUR has divided this country along so many lines – race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, class, immigrants (legal vs illegal), etc. etc.

        obAMATUER’s whole campaign is one of attack, obfuscate, LIE and factionalize. He is targeting groups and isolating them.

        You simple denials do not change those facts. To you, denial is only a river in Egypt.

        Pathetic.

        oh, and we are still waiting for you to list obAMATEUR’s accomplishments and defend them.

  3. chrissyann September 3, 2012 / 4:47 pm

    Anyone can call themselves a Christian. Doesn’t make it so!

  4. Casper September 3, 2012 / 6:57 pm

    Can’t wait to see what you guys do when someone on the left attacks Romney’s religion.

    • Mark Noonan September 3, 2012 / 9:38 pm

      Casper,

      Attacks on Romney’s religion are attacks on the Mormon faith, as such. Whatever one wishes to believe about Mormonism the fact of the matter is that Romney lives the religion he professes – to be sure, as a human being he has probably failed again and again at it (we Christians are instructed that even a righteous man falls seven times a day), but Romney has clearly striven through his life to live up to the theology he claims as his own. Obama, on the other hand, is an entirely different case.

      Regardless of what one feels about Christianity, Obama claims the religion as his own and yet he has, by repeated action, violated the basic beliefs of Christianity. There’s a difference between trying and failing to live up to one’s highest ideals, on the one hand, and deliberately throwing those highest ideals aside in the pursuit of personal, political power. The former is just a regular human being – the latter is acting in a wicked manner. If Obama were to denounce the Christian faith that would be different – apostasy, but at least more honorable than claiming to be Christian while attacking Christianity.

      I cannot judge Obama’s soul – I can only judge his actions. Whatever his words are, his actions are anti-Christian and this must be stated because Obama is going to try mightily to sucker Christians in to believing that President Obama will be in action a Christian. That is false based upon past actions.

      • casper September 3, 2012 / 9:52 pm

        Mark,
        Bush also violated the basic beliefs of Christianity as does Ryan, yet you supported Bush and support Ryan.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 3, 2012 / 10:31 pm

        Casper,

        Neither Bush nor Ryan have violated any Christian teaching – they certainly have made mistakes and will make plenty more of them before they are called home, but neither of the men have done something in direct contravention of Christian dogma. Obama has. Repeatedly.

      • bardolf September 4, 2012 / 11:41 am

        “Attacks on Romney’s religion are attacks on the Mormon faith.” – Mark

        Well, no. Believe it or not, during the 1960’s the Mormon faith was trying to come to terms with the civil rights movement, the place for African Americans within the church, the Vietnam war and its version of Just War theory.

        The documented evidence for a radical change in heart, a repudiation of former doctrines about the origin of the races, allowing African Americans to participate more fully in the church … are available online.

        Mitt was in a respected position within the church and purposefully chose to NOT take a stand on anything controversial. Mitt has always planned to run for office just like Obama.

      • freethinker September 4, 2012 / 11:52 am

        Who are you to judge Mark? Seriously, what gives you the right to judge a another persons religious beliefs? You have no right to judge anyone’s religious beliefs. Check out your Bible. What actions by President Obama are anti-Christian? Like judging someone else’s religious beliefs? What a bunch of hypocrites here at BFV.

      • Amazona September 4, 2012 / 1:52 pm

        “Mitt has always planned to run for office just like Obama.”

        Yet you, or at least people like you, also claim that while Mitt was planning to run for office he also did not pay his taxes.

        And define “always”.

      • Amazona September 4, 2012 / 1:58 pm

        Oh, Velma, pull your head out and take a breath, already!

        Do you know anything about Black Liberation Theology? Have you read up on it? Have you listened to any of Wright’s sermons? Have you ever read YOUR Bible? Can you square the teachings of BLT with the teachings in your Bible?

        Do you agree that there is a definition of Christianity? Do you agree that it is defined as the belief in Jesus Christ as our Savior, the Son of God, come to Earth to die for our sins? If not, how would YOU define this religious philosophy?

        If a religion claims to be Christian yet does not share these beliefs about Jesus Christ, can that religion truly be called “Christian”?

        If a religion claims to be Christian yet is based on things found in no Christian Bible, and teaches not love and forgiveness and redemption but hatred, vengeance, resentment and the killing of an entire race of people, do you call that religion Christian?

        But of course you know absolutely nothing about Black Liberation Theology, or the blatant racism it preaches, or the distortions of Christianity it represents. And furthermore, you don’t CARE, because all you want to do is kiss the feet of Obama and hurl insults at those who do not share your passion for him.

      • Amazona September 4, 2012 / 2:02 pm

        Do you want to see what passes for sense for dolf?

        ““Attacks on Romney’s religion are attacks on the Mormon faith.” – Mark

        Well, no.”

        Hmmm. Romney belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, also known as Mormons. This is his religion.

        And you claim that an attack on his religion is not the same as attacks on the Mormon faith.

        If someone attacks Mitt Romney’s religion, exactly what religion do you think they ARE attacking?

      • Robin Naismith Green September 5, 2012 / 10:11 am

        1

        Judge not, that ye be not judged.

        2

        For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24

        3

        And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

        4

        Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

        5

        Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

        6

        ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. September 5, 2012 / 5:44 pm

        “Neither Bush nor Ryan have violated any Christian teaching – they certainly have made mistakes and will make plenty more of them before they are called home, but neither of the men have done something in direct contravention of Christian dogma. Obama has. Repeatedly.”

        Mark you are treading on some dangerous ground. It would be very hypocritical of you to judge ANY political candidate by your religious beliefs. You don’t have any idea what happens after Death. You just believe that you are on a path to Salvation. Belief isn’t fact. Abortion isn’t the only issue in politics today and America is not a Catholic nation. You want to live in one? Move to the Vatican and blog from there.

      • neocon1 September 5, 2012 / 8:02 pm

        rubin nitwit greenteeth

        when satan quoted scripture to Jesus in the desert he was told “GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN”……I say the same to YOU!!

    • Amazona September 3, 2012 / 10:38 pm

      casper, your galloping dishonesty stinks up the whole blog. You have sunk so low you don’t even try to make sense or tell the truth, you just wallow in the gutter of your pathology and hurl snot-nuggets.

      For shame.

      But then you have no shame.

      • freethinker September 4, 2012 / 11:54 am

        “But then you have no shame”.
        Nor do you amazona. Nor do you.

      • Amazona September 4, 2012 / 2:08 pm

        Oh, Velma, go get a saucer of milk and get over yourself.

        I do not justify the killing of babies, as casper does. I do not try to play semantic games, such as what to CALL the callous setting aside of tiny, cold, hungry, frightened and probably hurting infants to die, uncomforted—-as if the terminology is what is important, not the cruelty or the dumping of human lives.

        I did not make the utterly shameless comment that “Bush also violated the basic beliefs of Christianity as does Ryan..”

        And I have not commented on what Obama says and does regarding his faith, whatever that might be, only upon what is public knowledge about that faith. You clearly are not smart enough to see the difference.

        And you clearly are such an Obamabot that you find nothing objectionable in admitting to being attracted to a church by its racist statements from its racist pastor, making that pastor a personal friend and father figure and adviser, and spending 20 years in a group whose very definition is one of racial hatred and anticipation of the deaths of its “white enemies”.

        Thank you for this illustration of YOUR core values. Evidently you, too, have found a church which calls itself Christian but preaches the antithesis of what most people believe defines Christianity.

  5. Cluster September 3, 2012 / 7:24 pm

    The relationship with the Deity, or religion if you will, is a very personal one, and shines brightest in moments when no one is looking. All you need to know about Romney are those personal stories shared at the convention. Taking a Thanksgiving dinner to a family in need and helping a dying boy write his will. Obama can share nothing as touching as those stories and has probably lived one of the most self absorbed lives as anyone.

    Obama also voted three times to uphold live birth abortion, and these is the cretin that small, insignificant people like Casper worship.

    • casper September 3, 2012 / 7:33 pm

      cluster,
      I don’t worship anyone. Ok, maybe Elway when he quarterbacked the Broncos, but dang the guy was good.

      My point is that the same people who are attacking Obama’s religion will be going nuts when someone from the left attacks Romney’s.

      Did you follow any of the stories about Obama and how he responded to the Colorado fire and the shooting? He did a wonderful job of listening to the victims and telling their stories.

      • tiredoflibbs September 3, 2012 / 10:04 pm

        Too bad obAMATEUR has put campaigning ahead of he victims of Hurricane Isaac. The only stories he is worried about right know are the false stories he is telling about Romney.

      • Amazona September 3, 2012 / 10:36 pm

        Awww, he listened to the victims.

        As for him visiting the fire in Colorado Springs this is my neck of the woods and no one wanted him here. It was so obvious that the sheriff had to reassure us that no, Obama “did not get in the way”.

        Sure, he did his grandstanding, unlike Bush, who understood that people have a job to do and shouldn’t be pulled off to provide support for a president who can only offer lip service and get some photo ops.

        Tell us, casper, do you have the slightest concept of on what GROUNDS Black Liberation Theology is criticized?

        Do you agree that the stated foundation and goals of the stated theology of Obama’s stated church are distasteful?

        To try to compare the differences in dogma among mainstream Christian religions (and yes, LDS is one of these) with the vile, vicious, racial hatreds fomented and supported by BLT is so inherently dishonest it is a new low even for you.

        But since you are defending BLT, go for it. What’s YOUR favorite part, and where in the Bible do you find its teachings?

  6. Cluster September 3, 2012 / 7:45 pm

    In fact I don’t how anyone can vote three times to uphold the murder of a baby, the most innocent of us all, and still consider themselves to be a Christian.

    • casper September 3, 2012 / 7:55 pm

      Once again, cluster your talking points don’t jive with the facts.

      Home • Articles • Obama and ‘Infanticide’
      Obama and ‘Infanticide’
      The facts about Obama’s votes against ‘Born Alive’ bills in Illinois.
      Posted on August 25, 2008
      Bookmark and Share
      Summary

      Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of “supporting infanticide,” and the National Right to Life Committee says he’s conducted a “four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions.” Obama says they’re “lying.”

      At issue is Obama’s opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a “born alive infant” entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

      Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 “born alive” bills as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been “fully in support” of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

      We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session.

      Whether opposing “born alive” legislation is the same as supporting “infanticide,” however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama’s 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believes a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an “infant.” It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.”

      • Mark Noonan September 3, 2012 / 9:40 pm

        Casper,

        No Christian can have any other view than that elective abortion is wrong. By doing anything other than working to end abortion, Obama has set himself against Christian teaching. Period. End of story. No way around it. Can’t square the circle.

      • casper September 3, 2012 / 10:12 pm

        Mark,
        Until you are elected Pope, you don’t have the right to lecture anyone about who is Christian.

      • Amazona September 3, 2012 / 10:27 pm

        And neither do you, casper, yet you dare to announce that George W Bush was not a true Christian.

        You, who routinely lies, who exhibits gross hypocrisy, dare to pass judgment on the morality and religion of ANY other man, much less President Bush.

        How many of the wounded have you privately visited, to talk and to pray? How many families of the fallen have you reached out to in their grief? How many planes of returning military have you met, to thank them for their service? How many sleepless nights have you spend agonizing over the responsibility of your office?

        Yet you pass judgment on a man whose shoes you are not qualified to shine.

        You are in quite a death spiral here, cappy, spinning down and down into ever deeper levels of creepiness.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 3, 2012 / 10:29 pm

        Casper,

        I’m only pointing out that Obama’s actions are anti-Christian. How he stands with Our Lord is not for me to say. Now, show at least an ounce of guts and address the issue at hand.

      • Amazona September 3, 2012 / 10:30 pm

        Oh, so Obama now says he WOULD HAVE voted for a bill banning the murder of born-alive babies.

        But you know what? HE DIDN’T. And now it is all backtracking, trying to cover up his commitment to abortion on demand that is so strong, so overriding, that he believes it should extend right up till—-and after—birth.

      • Cluster September 3, 2012 / 10:47 pm

        Now, show at least an ounce of guts and address the issue at hand.

        Oh you are expecting way too much Mark. Liberals will never confront the issues head on. They will always spin and deflect and the liberal in attendance is one of the best at that.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 3, 2012 / 11:09 pm

        Cluster,

        I’m pretty sure I’ll be disappointed, but there is a hope that at least eventually Casper will step outside of liberalism…

      • tiredoflibbs September 4, 2012 / 6:36 am

        cappy the hypocrite: “you don’t have the right to lecture anyone about who is Christian”.

        And yet cappy with your lecturing to Mark, you said this:
        “Bush also violated the basic beliefs of Christianity as does Ryan”

        I didn’t know “the pope” was a government school teacher (who needs a union to protect his incompetence) from Colorado.

        Do you even read what you have written? Or, do you only live in the nanosecond you write your drivel?

        Really, really pathetic.

      • Amazona September 4, 2012 / 9:43 am

        tired, Colorado has enough problems without you saddling us with casper.

        No casper lives and “works” in Casper, Wyoming, a little city honestly known as “Wind City”. It is a conservative place, of oil and gas exploration and production and ranching, for the most part.

        He is a middle school teacher who loves to brag about how his students “love” him, and it is clear from his posts here that he teaches them a very distorted view of American history and the Constitution.

        He started off on this blog posturing as a decent though rather befuddled guy, leaning a little to the Left but hardly an ardent fellow traveler. Then he started getting goofier and goofier, mostly just sounding stupid rather than politically committed, quoting people wrongly so he could give really insipid and foolish responses,

        He was gone for a while, and now that he is back he is full voice as a rabid partisan, who will support Obama no matter what, who even finds Obama’s infanticide position quite acceptable—-after all, according to casper, it’s the WORD that is in question, “open to interpretation”. His lying has become routine and his perceptions of our rule of law and the political process in general is chaotic and disturbed.

        He is a mess, and lately has become quite despicable.

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. September 5, 2012 / 5:50 pm

        “No Christian can have any other view than that elective abortion is wrong. By doing anything other than working to end abortion, Obama has set himself against Christian teaching. Period. End of story. No way around it. Can’t square the circle.”

        Sure they can Mark. Because in most western religious teachings there is a thing called forgiveness. In one breath you can say Ryan and Bush are virtually absolved of any of the sins they’ve committed that you know nothing about and in the next you damn to your interpretation of an Afterlife of suffering any woman who has had an abortion. And who cares about Christian teaching? It’s not the president’s job to abide by your or anyone else’s religious beliefs it’s his job to be the chief executive and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Please show me in the US Constitution where it says the President or any other elected official had to align himself with Christian teachings?

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 6, 2012 / 12:23 am

        Diane,

        To be forgiven a person must first repent of his sins. Sincerely repent, ask forgiveness and it is given – indeed to the point, from what I understand, that God will remember our sins no more. If I’ve missed somewhere along the line where Obama repented of his sin of supporting abortion, then I’d be happy to be corrected and joyful that Obama has joined the Christian, pro-life side of the debate. Got any such evidence?

      • Majordomo Pain September 7, 2012 / 7:32 am

        We remind you Mark that there is no religious test for holding public office in the US government. Clearly, to you, there is a religious test for you as a voter and there is no prohibition to that in the US Constitution. There are not enough people, voters, in America who hold your values, as a traditional literalist, to elect someone who will give your beliefs the power of Law. At one point, in the not so distant American historical past, those who felt as you do were a loud and vociferous majority. In the last fifty years, however, generations of young people have become more and more progressive in their thinking and We feel this will continue into the near term [say until 2050] when the exuberance of a well educated Youth Faction, technology and the connectivity of people will, to paraphrase Grover Norquist, “shrink Conservatism to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub.”

    • Amazona September 3, 2012 / 10:49 pm

      Whether opposing “born alive” legislation is the same as supporting “infanticide,” however, is entirely a matter of interpretation.

      Yeah, you can “interpret” whether that living, breathing, crying infant is a human baby, and you can “interpret” whether throwing it in the trash to die, or sticking it in a box in a room of dirty laundry to die, is really “infanticide”.

      YOU can. Decent people have no problem with this. But you do.

      YOU can reconcile this with whatever passes for humanity and decency in YOUR heart, but you are so far beneath the normal standards of decent, moral, human compassion that you share this equivocation with very very few.

      When did you abandon even the pretense of being a decent human being? Is it so important to you to defend Obama that basic honesty and humanity fall way down the list of your priorities?

      Could you really stand there, looking at a human baby, cold and hungry and crying, and coldly announce that its life or death are really just up to the “interpretation” of someone else?

      You know, I think you could.

      A decent human being would comfort it even knowing that it was fated to die soon, but not you, and not Barry.

      You really are disgusting.

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. September 5, 2012 / 10:17 am

        “No Christian can have any other view than that elective abortion is wrong. By doing anything other than working to end abortion, Obama has set himself against Christian teaching. Period. End of story. No way around it. Can’t square the circle.”

        Okay Mark you have opened this Pandora’s box.

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. September 5, 2012 / 5:51 pm

        It’s not the same Amazona it’s nothing more that the last gasping breaths of a worldview that is collapsing in upon itself from fayx morality claoked in a desperate desire to do whatever it takes to hold onto power they lost many years ago.

      • Majordomo Pain September 7, 2012 / 7:25 am

        This issue means nothing to voters who are undecided at this point.

  7. Cluster September 3, 2012 / 8:11 pm

    Once again the empty suit will be judged by his actions, not his rhetoric. From the Fact Check article:

    Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 “born alive” bills as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been “fully in support” of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

    He actually did vote in opposition, meaning he does support killing babies, but like most squishy, unprincipled liberals, he “says” he WOULD have been fully in support of blah, blah blah.

    I judge a man by his actions, not is rhetoric.

    • casper September 3, 2012 / 8:17 pm

      “I judge a man by his actions, not is rhetoric.”

      As do I. Obama refused to vote for a bad bill even though there were parts of it he supported.

      • Amazona September 3, 2012 / 10:52 pm

        Yeah, a bill to prevent the throwing of living human babies in the trash was a “bad bill”——what a crock.

        And you lie. You simply lie. He admitted that he defended the practice because he thought that banning it might lead—or, horrors!!—to considering OTHER infants as human beings, too, and safe from the butchery of abortionists.

    • casper September 3, 2012 / 8:20 pm

      I agree he was brilliant in Green Mile. I liked him even more in Daredevil were he played the part of Kingpin.

    • neocon1 September 4, 2012 / 5:06 am

      RIP
      he will be missed.

  8. dvindice September 3, 2012 / 9:27 pm

    The only religion that lil obama believes in is politics. The Gov is his only god.

    • neocon1 September 4, 2012 / 1:45 pm

      The Gov is his only god

      right behind allah babba

  9. Cluster September 3, 2012 / 9:43 pm

    One thing that has always bothered me is that liberals, democrats, the media, celebrities, etc., have always held Obama to a very low standard simply because of his skin color. Everything he does is acceptable, never a critical word and only praise, because to be critical would of course be accepting him for simply an individual, of which he is not according to many. He is the fist black president, and we all know that democrats and liberals have a very low regard for black peoples ability to lead a productive life on their own. They treat black people like children, hence the absence of criticism that might hurt his feelings, or Heaven forbid someone would think they are racist.

    • casper September 3, 2012 / 9:48 pm

      I’d say you try to hold Obama to a much higher standard. You attack his citizenship, his religion, and his birth. Standards you would never set for a Romney or McCain.

      • tiredoflibbs September 3, 2012 / 10:00 pm

        Cappy, Romney or McCain have not spent the time, effort or cash to hide or redefine their past as obAMATEUR HAS.

        It is clear you don’t hold obAMATEUR to the same standards as you did Bush. All proggies for that matter don’t. The classic example is the debt and deficits. You proggies complained how much Bush spent and about his deficits and his contribution to the debt. But with the obAMATEUR, you and the rest of the mindless drones ignore the FACTS that he has outspent Bush in less than three years with deficits over $1 TRILLION EACH YEAR and added more debt than the first 42 Presidents combined!

        Presidents are to be held to a higher standard, but you and t
        Your fellow mindless drones give him a pass.

        Pathetic.

      • Amazona September 3, 2012 / 10:23 pm

        Oh, what an idiot you are. No one has “attacked” Obama’s birth, you moron. A very legitimate question was asked, the same one that was asked of John McCain. McCain provided answers—Obama did not, till pressured, and then his “answer” was inconclusive.

        Yes, we know, you find the Constitution terribly inconvenient at times, but like it or not it is still the law of the land, and it does lay out eligibility requirements. If Romney’s birth had been in doubt, he would have been questioned on that, too.

        I understand that the whole topic of native born citizen vs natural born citizen is just wayyyy over your head, but it is a valid concern. In Romney’s case there is no question of either—he was born in the United States and both his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. Obama, maybe the first and definitely not the second.

        No one questioned Obama’s religion till it came out that it openly promotes racial hatred and violence, and declares all white people to be “enemies” of all black people. You may feel quite comfortable with this, but it does seem like a poor choice of belief for the leader of the nation.

        If you know of any other President who has had these questions about his eligibility and his commitment to serving the nation, please quite being so coy and spit it out. Who, when, and what, exactly, leads you to believe that any prior president had a loyalty to a cause that included the extermination of most of the citizens of the country.

      • neocon1 September 4, 2012 / 5:12 am

        catspuke

        You attack his citizenship, his religion, and his birth. Standards you would never set for a Romney or McCain.,

        Why is that?

        1. he is and was born and raised as a foreign national.
        2. he is and was raised as a muslim.
        3. good evidence he was born in kenya.
        4. he is a confessed CRIMINAL = doper.
        5. he is an accused sodomite.
        6. re was an active participant in a hateful racist cult for half of his life.
        Romney or mcLame are NONE of those.

    • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. September 5, 2012 / 10:18 am

      Oh really? That is laughable Cluster even coming from you.

  10. casper September 3, 2012 / 9:44 pm

    Since no one else on this blog wants to mention labor day let me post this:

    • bardolf September 4, 2012 / 11:48 am

      Casper, you don’t understand.

      Labor Unions used to be good but now they are bad. They used to support the low salaried worker, now they support the thuggish union bosses. They used to fight for a 40 hour week, now they fight for the right to do no work at all, just sit on their bums and get paid.

      Of course Labor Day used to be celebrated on May 1 with the rest of the world showing solidarity for murdered US striking workers, but that was a long time ago when the poor still had ambition beyond American Idol.

  11. Cluster September 3, 2012 / 10:02 pm

    Isn’t it ironic that the libral in attendance mimics the ad of Obama, by repeating the same things said four years ago? Liberals truly are stuck on stupid, and continue to ignore MLK’s Dream. Because ackowledging such would be tantamount to opening the gates of the plantation.

    • casper September 3, 2012 / 10:10 pm

      Cluster,
      you do realize that MLK died while supporting worker rights don’t you? His dream continues.

      • Amazona September 3, 2012 / 10:59 pm

        No, casper, his dream is, if not dead, in serious decline.

        His dream was of a nation where a man is judged by his character, and not by the color of his skin, and it is a dream that millions of white people shared with him.

        It has been stomped into the dirt by officially promoted and recognized racism from the White House down, by a president who was only attracted to a quasi-Christian church by the racist rhetoric of its white-hating pastor and who has since his election openly worked to divide Americans according to skin color and ethnicity and then turn them against each other.

        Now if a black person dares to try to live by Dr. King’s words and example, he is attacked as being “not black enough” because he doesn’t hate people for the color of their skin. He is excoriated as an Uncle Tom, as a House N****r, as a “traitor to his race”.

        And people like you contribute to this climate of hate and divisiveness.

      • neocon1 September 4, 2012 / 5:16 am

        catspuke

        YOU do realize MLK was a Republican?

  12. Cluster September 3, 2012 / 10:17 pm

    I guess what’s even more disturbing is that the liberal in attendance has forgotten what MLK’s dream was.

    • neocon1 September 4, 2012 / 5:18 am

      cluster

      the FBI thought MLK to be a communist.
      If that is true then al Ubama must be way left of joe and mao.

      • bardolf September 4, 2012 / 11:44 am

        The FBI would think anyone with the belief that the richest society in history should provide for the poor was a communist.

      • neocon1 September 4, 2012 / 1:49 pm

        no baldork

        it is when the GOVERNMENT STEALS wealth from one group to GIVE to another group who did no work for it that it is COMMUNISM!!

      • Amazona September 4, 2012 / 1:50 pm

        dolf, better to shut up and let people think you might be an idiot than post and prove that you are.

        This is such a silly, petulant, whimper it is beneath even you. But it does illustrate the depths of your political ignorance, and for that I thank you. It’s always nice to have you step up and make my argument for me.

        Do you mean the “richest SOCIETY” or the “richest NATION”? Because if you mean society, then yes, there is a moral obligation for members of that society to care for the less fortunate. If you mean the richest nation, then no—not unless the nation is established on the premise of the government redistributing the wealth of some to provide for others—and that is a pretty succinct summary of communism.

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. September 5, 2012 / 1:36 pm

        “it is when the GOVERNMENT STEALS wealth from one group to GIVE to another group who did no work for it that it is COMMUNISM!!”

        Republicans call that tax reform . . .

  13. Ricorun September 4, 2012 / 7:15 pm

    Pardon me if I’m stating the obvious, but as I look at the list of comments over the last couple of weeks it seems to me that most of the ones contributed by the “conservative majority” were made by the same small handful of dedicated hangers-on. And almost half the word space offered by them were contributed by one person (you go girl!). Are we witnessing B4V’s swan song?

    Anyway, to quote James, “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead.” That is something I take to heart very much. But to be perfectly honest, my faith is more ecumenical than my specifically Catholic affiliation, or even my broader Christian affiliation: I believe there are many roads up the mountain besides those. So angels Maroni and white salamanders don’t mean all that much to me. The part of James’ quote I key on is the works part, cuz IMO if you do the works you have to believe in something greater than yourself — you can see the mountain at least. In that respect one can’t help but admire Mitt Romney. Another thing I take to heart is this verse from Matthew: “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.” In other words, don’t seek attention. Any attempt to do so is likely motivated by vanity more than faith. And that’s another reason why I admire Mitt Romney — he’s perpetually in the spotlight so stuff comes out. But to his great credit he has consistently downplayed his works benefiting others. For those and other reasons, I LIKE this guy!

    • Cluster September 4, 2012 / 7:36 pm

      Rico,

      I agree. I have always had a skeptic eye towards those who wear their religion on their sleeves. Those personal stories about Mitt were very moving, genuine and a real glimpse into his heart.

      I like him even more now.

    • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. September 5, 2012 / 11:12 am

      I now fully understand Mark Noonan and what he wants for America. Here’s a quote from Michael Voris and a link to the Archdiocese of Detroit telling him to stop using the word “Catholic.”

      “The cancer must be eliminated, and the only way to prevent a democracy from committing suicide is to limit the vote to faithful Catholics. Only a true Catholic nation in fact will survive, can survive, because only truly Catholic people will be the ones looking at God & not staring in the mirror. When they cast their their votes, they cast them with an eye to what God desires, not fallen human nature. But as the body politic continues to be ravaged by the cancer of ignorant self-centered voters, it becomes more and more clear that a national euthanasia is occurring.”

      Catholic nation? Really, Mark? Only the weakest among people allow their personal demons to con them into believing piety is the only means by which to exert self control. Good day.

      • Amazona September 5, 2012 / 11:56 am

        ” a link to the Archdiocese of Detroit telling him to stop using the word “Catholic.” ”

        In other words, he has been identified as a loon WHOSE WORDS DO NOT REPRESENT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and he has been instructed to stop claiming they do.

        So just how do the words of a lunatic who is openly disowned by the Church represent the Church? Much less Mark Noonan?

        This is probably the most blatantly dishonest post you have ever posted, and that is saying a lot.

        You lie when you claim that this hateful screed represents what Mark Noonan “wants for America” and then you ignore the fact that the Church has disavowed this man and his claims.

        Of course you also lie when you declare “The essence of the Conservative agenda, “We’ll tell you what to do. And we’ll lie to get the weak to believe what we believe.”” Anyone intelligent enough to understand the “conservative agenda” understands that it is a return to Constitutional governance, and anyone intelligent enough to understand the Constitution knows that it is all about NOT being told what to do.

        Anyone with the integrity to research the history of the two competing political systems quickly learns that it is the LEFT which tells people what to do, and which lies to get the weak to accept their bogus claims.

      • Amazona September 5, 2012 / 5:14 pm

        The lead paragraph from your link, major pain:

        ” For many years faithful Catholics have wished that bishops would take strong action to correct the myriad of Catholic persons and entities who, while claiming to be Catholic, act against the faith, especially regarding issues of Catholic morality. ”

        So yes, the Catholic Church has denounced this man and what he says. Therefore, what he says does not represent any aspect of any Church teachings.

        You people seem to be having a hard time with this. Could it be that you are so rabidly anti-Catholic that you just jump on any excuse to slime the Church and Catholics in general even when you have to lie to do it?

        …not that that would be a departure from your usual M.O.

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. September 5, 2012 / 5:55 pm

        I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with Mark agreeing with this man so much he posts his video.

      • Amazona September 5, 2012 / 6:32 pm

        On the thread LIBERTY AND PROSPERITY, Spook published an article with which he disagreed, to prompt discussion about what it said.

        I know this concept is quite alien to you lock-stepping and increasingly goose-stepping Leftists and Pseudo-Leftist supporters, but you might watch and learn

      • Majordomo Pain September 5, 2012 / 6:27 pm

        We, Ouselves, are not anti-Catholic; We are anti-Theocracy. To defend free thinking persons both the religious and the irreligious from the slavery of government married with religion is Our chief purpose.

      • neocon1 September 5, 2012 / 7:52 pm

        moredumbo

        you Morons sure LOVE islam…….dont you know you will be the first they murder?

      • Majordomo Pain September 7, 2012 / 7:59 am

        We, Ourselves, of the Collective abhor theocracy in all its forms. Those who use Islam to wield political power as in Iran are no less guilty than the Koch Brothers who would use the arcane religious fear and the ignorance of the blind to free thinking to make the wealth of America theirs and theirs alone.

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. September 5, 2012 / 1:29 pm

        Amazona, Mark posted the video as red meat for his readers without knowing anything about Voris than he is a conservative and shares a religious belief. I would appreciate Mr Noonan saying for himself he does not believe what Voris professes both in the video which is nothing more than bigoted pap for the intellectually immature, and in his comments. And this is the essence of the conservative agenda; the desire to tell others what to do, how to believe and how to live as long as you have comfort and an air of moral pomposity. Your ideology is the same of a bully.

        The Left, as you call it, is not forcing stright people into gay marriage. The Right IS denying the ability to marry to same sex couples. The Left isn\’t forcing people to have abortions but the Right is and has been since Roe seeking to force women to carry a child to term that they do not want. The Left isn\’t trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens but the Right wants you to have an arsenal in your basement and constantly fans the flames of polarization that pushes the mentally ill toward violence. So don\’t tell me madam what Progressives do. I would suggest you take the beam out of your own eye first.

      • Amazona September 5, 2012 / 5:37 pm

        “The Left, as you call it…”

        What do YOU call it? Are you aware of the fact that it is a political system, based upon a collectivist approach to governance, in which the central government is unrestricted regarding size, scope and power?

        Are you aware of the fact that this particular political philosophy IS defined as “Leftist”?

        Or are you going to try to apply your infantile game-playing to this, too, and invent some whole new dictionary of political terms?

        “….. is not forcing stright (sic) people into gay marriage. The Right IS denying the ability to marry to same sex couples.” —-but not denying equal legal protections to same sex couples, just the hijacking of one WORD.

        Yes, all this squealing and hysteria is not about “rights” after all, but merely the use of a WORD, in hopes that slapping the word onto a relationship for which it has never been applied will somehow convey legitimacy and normalcy.

        ” The Left isn\’t forcing people to have abortions but the Right is and has been since Roe seeking to force women to carry a child to term that they do not want.”

        And here we come to the crux of the matter—the childish whining “BUT I DON’T WANT TO!” wahhh wahhhh wahhhh. The mantra of the pro-abortion female: “I am mature enough to engage in sexual activity but not to take responsibility for it. I define womanhood as nothing more than the freedom to spread ones’ legs but not as having the maturity, integrity or morality to accept responsibility for what occurs when one does. I talk a lot of very noisy talk about female autonomy but when it comes right down to it, when I get into a situation I don’t WANT I have to run to an authority figure to solve my problem for me. I insist that women must be treated with respect and dignity, and at the same time I demand that they be treated as helpless, incompetent and weak, and simply unable to endure a few weeks of inconvenience to save the life of an innocent child.”

        “The Left isn\’t trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens …..” a lie

        “….but the Right wants you to have an arsenal in your basement….” an even bigger and significantly more stupid lie

        “… and constantly fans the flames of polarization that pushes the mentally ill toward violence. ”

        And a hat trick, cramming three lies into one breathless tirade of overall hysteria and dishonesty. But—-fanning the flames of polarization? You mean like belonging to a church that preaches the gospel of killing all its “white enemies” ? You mean like making a speech to Latinos in which you instruct them to consider other Americans their “enemies”? You mean like trying to set up a lynch mob for a man who had not even been accused of a crime, and putting out at bounty on his life? And so on…

        No, Diane, you lie and you lie and you lie. The sad thing is, I think this IS your reality. The happy thing is, it is no more real than your tatas, and like them is nothing more than some weird pathetic effort to be significant.

        “So don\’t tell me madam what Progressives do.”

        Why not? It is a matter of historical record. Just because you have chosen to simply ignore the true, actual, definition of the term and substitute some airy-fairy rainbow and unicorn fantasy for the brutal truth about the Progressive Movement does not alter reality, any more than does your elaborate and rather sad fantasy life among demons and other figments of sad sick imaginations.

        ” I would suggest you take the beam out of your own eye first.”

        See, this is what happens when you try to use Biblical quotes as ‘gotchas’ for people you identify as Christians—you just look like an idiot.

      • Amazona September 5, 2012 / 5:46 pm

        On the thread LIBERTY AND PROSPERITY, Spook published an article with which he disagreed, to prompt discussion about what it said.

        I know this concept is quite alien to you lock-stepping and increasingly goose-stepping Leftists and Pseudo-Leftist supporters, but you might watch and learn

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. September 5, 2012 / 6:06 pm

        Okay here’s a simple question for you Amazona. Was Bill Clinton the best President on the economy in the last 20 years?

      • Amazona September 5, 2012 / 6:31 pm

        No

      • Majordomo Pain September 7, 2012 / 7:24 am

        Interesting. On the US economy, We, Ourselves, of the Collective, rank the Presidents of the last 20 years in this order:

        Clinton [For working with an opposition majority in Congress to create an unprecendented modern rate of growth and employment.]
        Obama [For using Keynesian economic theory to stimulate an economy in Recession.]
        Bush [For using the economy as a distraction for the unnecessary war in Iraq which nearly bankrupted the US economy.]

      • neocon1 September 5, 2012 / 7:51 pm

        duane vaseline

        Was Bill Clinton the best President on the economy in the last 20 years?

        NO
        the GOP congress was, KKKlintoon had no choice but to go along.

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. September 5, 2012 / 5:57 pm

        I am aware that you are a foaming post menopausal idiot who needs to take her meds before she has an infarction. Calm down Amazona you’ve lived most of your life and I’d hate for a blog to be the cause of your demise.

      • Amazona September 5, 2012 / 6:30 pm

        It is always funny to see someone who postures as a “woman” attack a real woman using sexist verbiage. Sexist and ageist, my oh my aren’t you a poster child for the enraged impotent howling Left?

        And really, all your silly little temper tantrum does is point out that you cannot address any actual issue, but you really do have an unlimited emotional sewer bubbling with hate and anger.

        At least you have the comfort of knowing that your “enhancements” mean you can never drown in it…………….

      • neocon1 September 5, 2012 / 8:06 pm

        ROTFLMAO………

        And really, all your silly little temper tantrum does is point out that you cannot address any actual issue, but you really do have an
        unlimited emotional sewer bubbling with hate and anger.

        At least you have the comfort of knowing that your “enhancements” mean you can never drown in it…………….

        IMPLANTS?
        do dead demons swim?
        can they drown?
        how do you operate on a demon?

      • Amazona September 5, 2012 / 6:23 pm

        Let me see—–a plastic person in a plastic body in a pretend job with pretend credentials for a pretend newspaper “in hell” who consorts with demons is actually lecturing others on “intellectual maturity”?

        Oh, and someone who also evidently believes this bizarre distortion of truth:

        “And this is the essence of the conservative agenda; the desire to tell others what to do, how to believe and how to live as long as you have comfort and an air of moral pomposity. Your ideology is the same of a bully. ”

        OK, we already know that you have no actual understanding of “the conservative agenda”, and merely slap this little phrase on anything that is contrary to your dedication to irresponsible hedonism and self-indulgence, but every time you misstate it so baldly you only add to the body of evidence that you are a complete freakin’ moron.

        “The Conservative Agenda” is to return the United States to a Constitutional form of government. Period. Among this large group are many smaller groups, with many different personal and social agendas, but the one thing that bonds them as being part of “The Conservative Agenda” is their belief in the Constitution as the law of the land for the United States.

        And the Constitution of the United States codifies and guarantees more personal liberty than any other form of government in the history of man.

        What you keep sniveling about is not some sinister effort to deprive you of personal freedom, but of objections to having YOUR morality imposed upon us by an oppressive and overly powerful central government.

        You pay lip service to liberty, but in fact you object to it. You fight the freedom for citizens of this country to make their own laws, demanding instead that YOUR chosen massive and powerful central government have absolute authority to impose YOUR values on everyone.

        Yours is the ultimate hypocrisy, as it bleats about freedom while trying to deny it to others. From denying the right to life to innocent children whose only mistake is the one of being conceived by pathologically selfish, immature and self-centered females to telling us what kind of light bulbs we can use, what kind of toilets we can flush, what kind of cars our manufacturers can build, what kind of fuel we can put in them, what kinds of jobs are guaranteed by the government and which are targeted, how we have to build our houses, and even how and where and what kind of health care we can get, it is all about ruling elites imposing their wills on us.

        It is telling businesses how they have to be managed, from choosing the CEO of GM to forcing banks to loan money to people they know can never repay it (bad mortgage risks) to denying loans to people who have an excellent chance of repaying it—business start-ups.

        It is denying religious freedom, telling Catholics they have to pay for contraception and Jews in San Francisco they cannot circumcise their sons. It is restricting the expression of religious belief, such as forbidding crosses on public property and not allowing prayer or even a minute of silence during which students might pray in public schools. It is trampling on both tradition and religious belief by banning Christmas displays on public property and demanding that Christmas breaks in schools be renamed something unrelated to the actual meaning of the holiday.

        it is one trampling upon personal liberty after another, which you find quite acceptable, because it is all in line with what YOU like or don’t like.

        What is increasingly obvious is the genital focus of what you people call “freedom”. It’s as if nothing matters to you if it does not relate to the various ways you can indulge your sexual appetites and avoid responsibility for their outcomes. None of the things I mentioned above strike you as offensive intrusions upon personal liberty by the Left, but you do manage to become quite shrill about anything that is related to peepees, hoohaws, or any combination of or relationship to them. As long as you can mix and match any body parts in any way, and have someone else come in and take care of any inconvenient outcomes, and role play with definitions that you invent, that is all that matters to you.

        You are not the first hedonists to whine that you ought to be able to do whatever you want to do, but I think you may be the first generation of self-indulgent pleasure seekers to demand official sanctions for your antics, and maybe even the first so deeply invested in lying about people who do not share your desperate need to define yourself by your genitalia and what you do with it.

      • Amazona September 5, 2012 / 12:00 pm

        And of course a bogus persona in a plastic body, with invented credentials, and an imaginary job with a nonexistent newspaper, who lives in a bizarre fantasy world where she is really a demon living in Hell, has established her credibility on so many levels.

        No wonder she feels so comfortable spouting even more lies—lies form her comfort zone, her reality (such as it is) and truth would probably burn her if she were to wander too close to it.

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. September 5, 2012 / 1:34 pm

        At no point in my life or Afterlife have I said I was a demon. My boss is a demon; many of my friends and acquaintances are too. There are a litany of otherworldly sentient beings here in Hell. If my life and Afterlife are so ridiculous can you imagine how many of us here in Hell feel about your curious belief in angels? Oh, and by the way angels do exist, but they don’t like Humans very much. Logic dictates that people of Faith like you Amazona believe in a Heaven of reward and to do so means you must believe in a Hell for those who don’t kowtow to the deity in which you believe? If I’m a made up story, with a “plastic body” then what does that say for your religious beliefs?

        And before you get angry about me questioning your faith consider the post here where we are currently debating . . .

      • Amazona September 5, 2012 / 5:17 pm

        Awww, Diane, what a pweshuss wittow essay.

        Plastic body, plastic brain, plastic persona, just a whole plastic package of nonsense.

        As for what YOU are having the slightest effect whatsoever on any belief of mine, religious or otherwise—nope. You do not know what I believe so you can just quit inventing that, too.

        Just scoot on back to your role-playing, and keep on ignoring the snickering every time you come on with some other absurdity.

  14. dennis September 5, 2012 / 3:12 pm

    This critique of Obama is so flawed it’s hard to understand any serious person, let alone any Christian who is even a nominal student of the Bible, giving it the time of day. The video relies completely on the biblical illiteracy of its audience to make its case. We are expected to consider Obama an “anti-Christ” on the say-so of Mr. Voris and his blatant personal prejudice. He repeatedly refers to “authentic Christianity” vs. “phony Christianity” but nowhere is a basic definition of Christianity established, nor the teachings of Christ referenced as a starting point to establish the credibility of his assertions.
    I waited until the very end to hear a single verse of Scripture cited to make his case, and then it was a gratuitous reference to Christ’s admonition “If ye love me, keep my commandments. The obvious next question is, “Okay – what are Christ’s commandments?”
    Of course to answer that would do nothing to help his case, especially if one spends any time studying the many examples and parables by Jesus about what exactly it means to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.” These, in fact, are the two great commandments upon which the entire Law and Prophets rest. How to live with that love as a motivating factor for every deed and word is the ultimate challenge for any Christian.
    It seems the working criterion of Christianity for both Mark and Mr. Voris is the abortion issue, and perhaps secondarily homosexuality – certainly not love for God or one’s fellow man. Search the Word of God from beginning to end and there are very few references to either abortion or homosexuality. By contrast there are literally thousands of admonitions to compassion and caring for the poor. In fact, in Matthew 25 Jesus offered one single criterion that will determine whether a person is saved or lost: How they treat Him, in this present life, in the person of the poor, the needy and the social outcast.
    Using good exegesis it’s impossible to make a compelling biblical case for full legal personhood for a fertilized ovum. In the Old Testament the loss of the unborn, presumably even at or near full term, within the context of a physical conflict was to be compensated as a property loss, not punished as a murder. However there also are enough references to make a case for the unborn as God’s creation, worthy of cherishing. But the paucity of biblical evidence is itself a strong argument for leaving abortion as a private matter between every person and God – not a matter for demagoguery, much less for legislation and criminalizing.
    As for being “pro-life”, the term would carry more weight if it were applied to all God’s children already born on this earth as much as the unborn. As things stand, it’s mostly a convenient hook for religious and political demagoguery, devoid of any actual moral or ethical value – much less the quality of love and compassion for fellow human beings in crisis. This is no defense of abortion, but rather an observation regarding the supposed moral high ground claimed by the evangelical and political right wing. That moral high ground is a fiction.
    Regarding Voris’s and others’ remarks regarding Obama’s Christianity, suffice it to say the Bible speaks of the “accuser of the brethren” and no Christian should be a partaker of his spirit, much less his work.
    The New Testament book of James was cited above by Rocorun – I would reference this, also from the same book: “With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? Can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water. Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.” James 3:9-13

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 6, 2012 / 12:26 am

      Dennis,

      I believe the Bible had something to say about the slaughter of the innocents being rather horrible. Sorry, old friend, but killing children rather trumps any pretended concern for the helpless. Until baby-murdering ceases to be a platform plank of the Democrat Party, no Christian in good conscience can be a Democrat.

Comments are closed.