BeliefWatch

A Post-Evangelical America

The religious building blocks of Obama's victory.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: AVelez1987 @ 02/26/2009 7:40:22 PM

    This article doesn't mention anything about the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, pagans, atheists, agnostics, etc. that support Obama. Only Christians are represented here. The opinions here also sound a bit paranoid and self-righteous.

  • Posted By: G35fun @ 01/01/2009 3:24:53 PM

    Today's religions and World leaders

    Titus 1:16

    They publicly declare they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort.

  • Posted By: G35fun @ 01/01/2009 1:23:43 PM

    Continued???
    Jesus warned about taking the wide path because of the easiness of it. We all are taking that path by giving away our ears to false religious and political leaders which only interest is having control of

    1. The World
    2. Money
    3. Our minds
    4. Our money

    Today???s world economy is a good sample of how much they care about us, the herd.

    They keep messing us up, they keep increasing prices of everything and they keep lying to us.

    What religious leaders have to say about it? Why aren???t they complaining or rising their voice to protect the herd?

    Because they are protecting themselves, their richness as stated in the last verse of Revelation 18:2-3:

    2 And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: ???She has fallen! Babylon the Great has fallen, and she has become a dwelling place of demons and a lurking place of every unclean exhalation and a lurking place of every unclean and hated bird! 3 For because of the wine of the anger of her fornication all the nations have fallen [victim], and the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the traveling merchants of the earth became rich due to the power of her shameless luxury.???

    As you all can see, we should NEVER expect today???s religion to take a stand against political parties or any type of government. They are leading all us through the wide path if we are NOT careful.

    So, it will be wise to question everything religious leaders say and do. You have the right to demand them to prove their words and acts with the Bible. You have the right to demand an explanation of the Bible as well, not just go to church and sit down to watch a good show and listen to a man acting like a crazy clown.

    I bet no one will ever believe or trust Jesus if he acted like today???s pastors act while giving their speech.

  • Posted By: G35fun @ 01/01/2009 1:23:18 PM

    As time passes I'm noticing a huge gap between Jesus teachings and modern, so called, Christians. I would like to have a Pastor, or any other religious denomination to show me where in the Bible was Jesus supporting the political parties or personalities of his times. As far as I know, he never sided with Cesar, Pilatus or even Jewish priests.

    He clearly stated his Kingdom didn???t belong to this world and warned his followers about all the pain they will face if they follow him and preach about his name and Kingdom. The Bible goes more deep and indicates what will happen to governments in the later day as prophesized in Daniel 2:44, that we are obviously living in.

    Also, I haven???t seen any religious denomination bringing up through their TV/Radio shows or pulpit other warnings like the ones register in Revelation chapters 17 and 18. Rather than providing true Bible teaching they rather spend time preaching about financial wealth and which political party choose. Again, far away from Jesus teaching and message about his Kingdom.

    Jesus warned his disciples about worshiping two masters because eventually one of the master would be rejected, like is happening these days. None of the world governments leaders are following Jesus model to serve to their countries. All of them claim they have a religious believe but they ARE NOT even accepting that only Jesus Kingdom is the real solution to today???s man made problems??? ironically their followers, all of them also claiming they believe in Jesus, are turning their back to Jesus to bring their support to another human which is as imperfect as us.

    Today???s religious leaders are blinds leading a blind. They are ONLY interested in making money and they have been doing that for ages, putting a huge burden on their followers. Jesus said that??? the??? son of the man??? didn???t even have a pillow to rest his head???. I wonder why modern evangelist have the face to wear expensive clothing or drive a Rolls Royce while the herd is suffering tough times. That goes to Catholic religion too with all their gold and expensive rituals and clothing.

    We all need to agree that today???s religion support war, support government and the increasing militarism??? main religions are in war today, Christian/protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Jewish, etc. Protestants killing protestants, Catholics killing Catholics, Muslims killing Muslims and??? all of them randomly. You have Chaplains baptizing soldiers in the field and blessing them and their weapons before they go out for destruction??? will Jesus ever do so?

  • Posted By: paulte @ 12/22/2008 12:10:25 PM

    This election was so unusual that it is hard to make too many generalizations based on religion. Obama did better than Kerry with Evangelicals but only marginally. And let us not forget that the other ticket had a woman on it. For some Evangelicals this was a real turn off. For many people Sarah Palin on the ticket ws a reason to vote for Obama or at least against McCain. I know of two people in my family (women actually) who voted this way.

    More Catholics voted for Obama than for Kerry (a Catholic himself). What is one to make of that? Catholics were given ambiguous guidance by their bishops in the document "Faithful Citizenship" which seemed to minimize the life issue. Also, I've read that something like 5 million people who go to church more than once a week and voted in 2004 (large majority for Bush) did not vote at all in 2008.

    Besides the Palin problem or maybe becasue of it many conservative voters did not vote this time around. The great turnout that was predicted never did actually materialize. For example in Ohio, a bellwether state, Obama got about the same amount of votes as Kerry but McCain got 300K less than Bush did in 2004.

    Obama won for three reasons, conservatives who sat this election out, an energized black electorate with 95% going for Obama and the white vote. Obama got 43% of the white vote to kerry's 41%. Whites consttute about 70% of the electorate. So 2% translates into a couple million votes.

  • Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/13/2008 3:54:32 PM

    Wow--I never realized what a subversive threat to our very national existence I was until I read some of the postings on this blog. I'm one of those "evangelical Christians" that have been trying to ruin everyone's life. Funny, I thought that by being a veteran, raising a family, holding down a job for the last 30 years, paying taxes and voting my conscience every election that I was in some way helping our nation. I didn't realize that by speaking my (conservative) mind on the issues of the day and voting my conscious instead of my pocketbook, that I was trying to install a Taliban-like system into this great republic of ours. Thanks for clearing things up.

    • Posted By: RodyMcN @ 11/14/2008 12:01:26 AM

      Unfortunately Andrew, anti-Christianity is one of the few ACCEPTED bigotries still left in the United States. Of course, there are plenty of others, but for some reason, Conservative Christians get all lumped together in a ball of intolerent, hateful, threatening, country destroying, superstitious folk who enjoy watching other people suffer. I would rather take on a bus load of Nazi skinheads than the Assembly of God folk down the street building a new home for the flood victims. Yes sir, any day of the week!

      • Posted By: LibertarianForObama @ 11/14/2008 1:53:22 AM

        Where to begin:

        the gripe isn't with Christians, I have no problem with Christians, the majority of my family are Christains, Hell I even dated a couple Christians over the years.... My issue is with those who feel entitled to have THEIR beliefs forced upon the rest of us as the laws of the land.

        Even if the founders of this nation were Christian (they weren't), they were well aware of the state of Europe at the time (the Church of England, Catholic France, The Holy Roman Empire, etc) which is why ideas such as the freedom of religion and the seperation of church and state were included in teh constitution....

        Again: a good example of a system dominated by religion: The Taliban.

        So I have noticed that you endorsed Wikipedia in a few posts, may I suggest that you check out the Holy Roman Empire? Seriously, read up on this and tell me how great a church dominated society would be in the 21st century.........

        • Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/14/2008 7:22:37 AM

          Which specific beliefs of Christians do you object to being made "the Law of the Land"? if you're referring to doctrinal beliefs, I'm in complete agreement that they have no place being codified into law (I don't know of any christians who would embrace this as this is the core of separation of Church and State) If, however, you're talking about social issues (abortion rights as an example), I'm in complete disagreement. These issues are in the appropriate domain of government regulation (as affirmed in Roe vs. Wade) and Christians have every right to speak out and seek appropriate legislation. This is not an example of trying to create a Church controlled government but simply weighing in on the issues of the day. Thanks for responding to my post in a reasonable manner--it's frustrating to be dismissed as a bigot without your points being addressed.

          • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/14/2008 10:53:13 AM

            How about Gay Marriage? This is a case of something that harms nobody, and yet the so-called Christians do everything in their power to keep Gays from enjoying the same rights as everyone else.

            • Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/14/2008 1:03:24 PM

              I think gay marriage falls into the social issues catagory. There is no historical basis for saying that marriage is anything other than a union of a man and a woman. As such it is open for discussion, referendum and legislative action. Having said that, it's none of my business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home --just don't expect me to call it something it isn't.

              • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/14/2008 2:13:12 PM

                "I think gay marriage falls into the social issues catagory. "

                And this is why evangelical Christians are getting such a hard time. You simply MUST stick your nose in other peoples' business...you can't seem to help yourselves. You've turned your religion into a tool of bigotry and self-righteousness intrusion.

                Obviously, it's your right to do so (even if you don't believe anyone different from yourself has rights), but don't be surprised at the backlash.

                • Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/14/2008 3:16:44 PM

                  You've attacked my stand but not my reasoning. Please address your reasoning why marriage should be re-defined. You seem to believe that this is not something that needs to be defended--but only accepted without debate. Since your view is contrary to historical interpretations--the onus is on you to defend a re-interpretation. I've not taken a stand against Civil Unions for gay couples which insure equality of legal protections--only a stand against re-defining marriage. Why does this engender such virulent outrage on your part?

                  • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/14/2008 4:01:52 PM

                    "You've attacked my stand but not my reasoning. Please address your reasoning why marriage should be re-defined. "

                    Sure. The 9th amendment...along with the first.

                    1st amendment: You are basing your push for legislation on your religious beliefs.

                    9th amendment: Rights listed in the BoR are inclusive, not exclusive. And peoples' rights trump your sense of outrage.

                    But that's hardly the point. The point is that you have decided to deny the rights of millions of Americans, based on your own religious values. Given that, you can hardly complain when people without that sort of attitude come down on you for it.

                    That's one reason Palin was such a monumental failure. The American people are pretty much sick and tired of the religious set trying to tell them what to do (except in the flyover states, but that's to be expected, I suppose). So enjoy Propositions 8 & 102 while you can...because I have a feeling that they won't last...and that it will be a long, long time before the religious right gets anything else they want. Hell, there's already a case being made to strip the Mormon Church of its tax-exempt status, for becoming financially involved in an election (prop 8)...and I think you'll see more of THAT, too.

                    And it's about time.

                    • Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/15/2008 11:29:38 AM

                      Thanks for your reply. Although I can't agree with everything you've said, at least we've engaged an a legitimate debate instead of simply name calling as so many of the posts have been. Our country is divided over this issue, and time will indeed tell as to the outcome. I've made an attempt to see the other side on this issue, and hope that you have done the same. Thanks again.

                  • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/14/2008 4:05:14 PM

                    " I've not taken a stand against Civil Unions for gay couples which insure equality of legal protections--only a stand against re-defining marriage."

                    Well, Michigan said they just wanted to go that route, then they passed a law forbidding any business from giving benefits to gay people's SOs...on the grounds that it "approximated" marriage. So we've seen that the religious right has an agenda, and they will not stop at civil unions. On a side note, their only industry is now collapsing. I guess God is on their side, eh?

                    "Why does this engender such virulent outrage on your part?"

                    Because we've already seen that "separate but equal" doesn't work.

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/14/2008 10:51:44 AM

        Isn't that the Assembly of God that has ties to the CofCC?

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/14/2008 10:50:40 AM

      "Funny, I thought that by being a veteran, raising a family, holding down a job for the last 30 years, paying taxes and voting my conscience every election that I was in some way helping our nation. "

      These are all admirable things. Keep them up, and don't try to tell me how to live MY life, based on YOUR religion, and we'll get along fine.

  • Posted By: John6:53 @ 11/07/2008 4:46:11 AM

    I think it would be better to refer everyone to Jeremiah 1:5. Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I dedicated you, or Luke 1:15 He will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb.Or even Luke 1:44 For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Doesn't sound like this is just some fetal tissue or group of cells to God. As a Catholic we recite the Nicene creed which says We believe in the Holy Spirit , the Lord, the giver of life. These aren't
    just empty words people can proclaim and then go about doing something else in their lives. Someone
    brought up the story of who cast the first stone. Well if you remember Jesus tells the woman to go and sin no more.In John 14:15 He says. If you love me you will keep my commandments. Its all about bringing our will into line with his. can the kingdom of God be divided.?It bothers me more that Joe Biden calls himself a Catholic. I'd like to call him on his faith. It's not a cafeteria. you don't pick what you want to believe or not. It's not a democracy,it's a monarchy with Christ as king.! To be blunt it's his way or the highway. There's no middle ground. I'd call Obama on his faith. But I strongly doubt he is a christian. Anyone who would support partial birth abortion and call themself a christian is either deluded or demonic. As to whether we sould help the poor as Obama says he will. We should, but on the heirarchy of social ills nothing trumps abortion.When we don't speak for those who can't, then the souls lost aren't just theirs.

    • Posted By: epryor @ 11/14/2008 5:04:14 PM

      All Christians pick and choose what they want to believe. That's why we have so many denominations. The Bible is so contridictory that one has to pick and choose. It can be used to justify just about anything, including murder. The Bible is full of murder of all kinds, including children, even supposedly from the mouth of God himself, and the justification-- being the wrong race/religion.

    • Posted By: midwestinMA @ 11/07/2008 1:48:58 PM

      "but on the hierarchy of social ills nothing trumps abortion"

      Oh really? And who, pray tell, is the one who decides the hierarchy. I think we fall into a problem there. I highly doubt Jesus (at least the loving version of Jesus I was raised to believe in) would agree the safety and rights of the living are any less important than the unborn.

  • Posted By: Progressive American @ 11/07/2008 11:15:25 AM

    There is a reason why the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is the Separation of church and state. "Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.[1] The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[2]" (wikipedia definition) The religious right would love nothing more than to do away with this American principle. Thomas Jefferson wrote "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

    The ideals that the founding fathers shared was that the US would be governed by Logic, Reason and Ethics. These principles are to keep the American people safe from religious doctrine.

    • Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/07/2008 11:31:33 AM

      The 1st amendment to the Constitution was separation of Church and State? What Constitution are you refering to?

      • Posted By: Progressive American @ 11/07/2008 1:20:59 PM

        The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

        • Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/07/2008 1:53:29 PM

          My point was that the phrase "separation of Church and State comes not from the Constitution but from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. Obviously the Constitution forbids an establishment of religion and guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. My concern is that the phrase "separation of Church and State" has been construed to mean an antipathy towards freedom of religious expression in the public arena which was not intended by the framers of the Constitution. The constraints are on the government--not those who express their religious views--i.e.--there is a freedom "of" religion and not a freedom "from" religion.

          • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/12/2008 2:29:29 PM

            "My point was that the phrase "separation of Church and State comes not from the Constitution but from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. "

            The wording is different, the meaning is the same. Quibble on semantics all you please, the first amendment builds, as Jefferson described it "a wall of separation between church and state". His description was accurate then, and it's accurate now.

            • Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/14/2008 2:13:46 PM

              OK--that addresses my 1st sentence--what about the rest?

    • Posted By: justapreacher @ 11/07/2008 11:45:27 AM

      Yes, they did believe in the separation of church and state, BUT they did believe in God, His sovereignty, His right(eous)ness, and they we should obey Him; you can find many, many examples of how they leaned upon, believed in, and espoused His word. Sure, they knew & believed that God is no respecter of persons, and neither should we be, we simply should respect and honor God. These facts cannot be disproven

      • Posted By: Esencia08 @ 11/07/2008 12:06:48 PM

        Most of the constitutional framers were Deists, not Christians per se. I won't call them "founding fathers" because that is a smack in the face to Native Americans.

        • Posted By: Livingwithcommonsenseandreason @ 11/09/2008 7:40:55 PM

          How can "founding fathers" be a smack in the face to Native Americans ?? We're not talking about founders of this continent. We're talking about founders of our GOVERNMENT, the Native Americans had NOTHING to do w/the founding or establishment of our government so you comment is irrelevant.

        • Posted By: Progressive American @ 11/07/2008 1:19:06 PM

          They are the founding fathers, because Founding fathers refers to the creation of the American Democracy.

      • Posted By: Livingwithcommonsenseandreason @ 11/09/2008 7:39:27 PM

        Not true... obviously you don't know very much about the beliefs of the founding fathers. Many of them did not believe in any established religion. Most were DEISTS who believed in "a god".. not particularly the Christian god or a god that embodied itself in human form or with human characteristics. Most likely the "god(s)" they referred to were simply a force of nature. Those who did believe in some existance of god but NOT religion were praciticing FREEMASONS. . So all the way around your "theory" is wrong.

  • Posted By: trogers @ 11/09/2008 10:50:33 AM

    The separation of church and state was one of the most important ideas of the founding fathers. We all can worship as we wish without fear of retaliation by the government for our beliefs. But for decades that has not been good enough for evangelicals who want to impose their beliefs in the classroom, in business, in the bedroom and in all levels of government. They have every right to their own religious beliefs , but no right to try to make them the official and sanctioned religion in America. No one has been able to persuade the evangelical movement that their efforts are contrary to the constitution and to the will of the majority of the American people. So we have a large minority which will never change their mind about their role to convert society into their religion. They are right and everyone else is wrong. With that entrenched mindset the political future will look alot like the past; a divided country, red vs. blue, white vs minority, religion against religion, conservative vs. liberal, and worst of all hate vs hope. We can all speak to God in our own way but we will never be able to agree on what he is saying.

    • Posted By: LibertarianForObama @ 11/13/2008 1:28:30 AM

      This is probably the best post I have seen on this topic in any forum. I have die hard Catholics in my family who supported the McCain/Palin ticket (much to their own dismay) for thier Chrisitian beliefs alone. I keep telling them that they should only be concerned with their own lives rather than supporting the idea of having their beliefs forced upon the masses. I am fairly certain that Jesus wouldn't want to be associated with such a system.....

      Though, luckilly for us reason preveiled this time.......

      • Posted By: RodyMcN @ 11/14/2008 12:15:31 AM

        You are correct. Jesus would rather be associated with a group that believes in Partial Birth abortion and that infants who survive abortion do not have a right to life. Yeah, that's a certainty. I'm glad to hear that some in your family voted their conscience, and not just followed the herd of sheep because it was "cool".

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/14/2008 11:40:46 AM

          "I'm glad to hear that some in your family voted their conscience, and not just followed the herd of sheep because it was "cool"."

          So...nobody that disagreed with you was actually voting their conscience.

        • Posted By: LibertarianForObama @ 11/14/2008 2:05:41 AM

          I think it's great that the GOP are hitching thier wagon to Palin, between Palin and Joe the Plumber, you guys should have 2012 in the bag. Ha Ha HA

        • Posted By: LibertarianForObama @ 11/14/2008 2:04:27 AM

          Yeah, it's all about being "cool"....

          Here we go again with the abortion issue, you know because Bush has done so much to prevent abortions in his two terms, oh wait... he was too busy starting a false war and stealing to crusade for the cause that swindles you and your ilk into voting for him....

          Once again you completely missed my point (not surprising): Just to spell it out to you Jesus provided you people with free will, Jesus wouldn't endorse forcing your beliefs ojnto others, and I am quite certain that he wouldn't want to be associated with the misdeeds of Bush or with Sara Palin and the mob of small minded bigots who support her. In fact I am fairly certain that Jesus was shaking his head theoughout the witch hunts, the crusades, the inquisitions, the entire reign of the Holy Roman Empire, the seven year war, and everytime the GOP use his name to get votes from his morer fearful followers.........

  • Posted By: Paela @ 11/10/2008 12:29:54 PM

    Obama is a professing Christian. There is a big difference between a professing Christian and a real Christian. He is also a cafeteria Christian - those who are of the opinion that they can just pick and choose whatever they like about Christianity and discard what they don't like. They also think it's good to add in a few Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu beliefs, and anything else. Time, God, and Jesus Christ will separate the wheat from the chaff.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/14/2008 10:58:39 AM

      I see...so YOU get to decide who the REAL Christians are.

      So, what, God retired and left you in charge?

    • Posted By: LibertarianForObama @ 11/13/2008 1:31:47 AM

      What did Jesus say about preaching to the gentiles? True Christians indeed.....

    • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/10/2008 6:04:26 PM



      "Paela": True Christianity, as I understand it, includes "judge not". You're looking like chaff to me.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/10/2008 2:51:09 PM

      What, he doesn't hate enough for you?

  • Posted By: RodyMcN @ 11/12/2008 3:49:40 PM

    "Evolution deniers are no different than holocaust deniers and need to be treated as such."

    This is absolutely one of the most ignorant and unthoughtful statements I have seen in some time.
    To compare the THEORY of evolution to the reality of the Nazi holocaust is like comparing UFO's to the events of September 11th. Are you sure your real name is not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
    My hope is that you are not even closely associated with the teaching profession. Frightening indeed!!

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/12/2008 4:28:49 PM

      You don't even know what a theory is, do you?

      • Posted By: RodyMcN @ 11/12/2008 6:27:43 PM

        Your not a real Doctor, are you?

        Let's just keep asking each other stupid questions OK?

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/13/2008 9:22:25 AM

          So the answer is "no, you don't understand what a theory is".

          • Posted By: RodyMcN @ 11/13/2008 11:37:30 PM

            For example, Evolution.

            • Posted By: RodyMcN @ 11/14/2008 12:39:09 AM

              Wikipedia sums it up pretty well. "In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is just a claim with the additional suggestion that the claim isn't sufficiently justified to be more than a theory."

              • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/14/2008 10:56:51 AM

                When scientists discuss a theory, they are not using the common usage. They are using the definition that states: An item of knowledge that fits in with all other items of knowledge without contradiction".

                For example, there's a law of gravity, and a theory of gravity. The law of gravity gives the gravitation force between objects. The theory states, basically, that if you step off a building, you'll fall.

                So step off a building. It's only a theory, right?

              • Posted By: LibertarianForObama @ 11/14/2008 2:13:00 AM

                Well then we need to amend this theory in the constitution. Al lin favor of instituting Evolution Day as a national holiday, Say: I.

        • Posted By: RodyMcN @ 11/12/2008 6:34:40 PM

          Excuse my improper English. I meant "you're" not "your". Few people in the forum would have caught it, but none the less, I wanted to correct myself. :^}

    • Posted By: LibertarianForObama @ 11/13/2008 1:50:11 AM

      Two things: I am fairly certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad is an evolution detractor himself, so I am not understanding your comparison here.... Surely you;re aware that Islam is a continuation of Christianity, and not a form of Atheism. Please tell me you're not one of those people who believe that Christians own the concept of God....

      PS: Do you doubt the existence of UFOs?

      • Posted By: RodyMcN @ 11/13/2008 11:47:58 PM

        I am not surprised that you do not understand the comparison especially with the "Islam is a continuation of Christianity" line. I think you missed the entire context in response to a previous post. Think before you react so quickly. Actually, Jews also believe in one God. These are what are called "monotheistic" religions. There is a lot of information on the web available to you.
        PS UFO's could be true, and there is some evidence they COULD exist, but are not proven to exist. Kind of like Evolution I wonder if Ahmadinejad believes in UFO's? That would complete the circle..

        • Posted By: LibertarianForObama @ 11/14/2008 1:42:40 AM

          Yes all three religions worship ONE god and this god is the SAME god. have you ever met as Jew or a Muslim (I'm guessing you havn't).

          You're right there is NO hard evidence that UFOs exist, just like there is no evidence that YOUR god exists, understand?

          Like you said: Full circle.

  • Posted By: LibertarianForObama @ 11/13/2008 1:36:35 AM

    To all those who support the notion of a "Christian America":

    Imagine if Islam was the predomininent religion in America, would you endorse faith based politics in this scenario? I thinkl not.

    Your beliefs are yours alone, and they are yours to have, though I will ask you kindly not to push them on me via governemnt. A good example of a system dominated by religion: The Taliban.... Seriosuly, religion mixed with politics is a bad concoction...... It's 2008 (time to move forward).

    • Posted By: RodyMcN @ 11/14/2008 12:52:51 AM

      I wish that the "Founding Fathers" and signers of the US Constitution (the vast majority being professing Christians) had heeded your advise. Maybe things will change more than we can imagine.

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/14/2008 10:54:03 AM

        Learn a little history, Cletus. The founders were Deists.

      • Posted By: LibertarianForObama @ 11/14/2008 1:46:37 AM

        Ha, nice try.

        The vast majority of our founding fathers were Deists, and those who associated themselves with Christianity did so with the teachings alone. Concepts such as immaculate conceptions and resserrections went against the age of reason (the Enlightenment, the era in which this nation was founded). Take my advice: until you learn your history; You should spend more time reading and less time blogging.

    • Posted By: LibertarianForObama @ 11/13/2008 1:40:00 AM

      ::correction:: "predominant" (I need to call it a night)

  • Posted By: dufferdoo @ 11/07/2008 4:45:57 PM

    LIKEITIS, I am truly sorry, but you are absolutely deluded. First of all, the Inquisitions are wildly exagerrated as to their severity. Were there abuses- yes, but nowhere near the degree as claimed. The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE war after centuries of Islamic aggression against Christian pilgrims and peoples. Again, there were occasionally abuses and excesses, but if not for the Crusades, Europe would have become Muslim. Finally you say ALL missionary efforts are identical to imperialism. Presumably, heathens would have been better off cannibalizing each other and offering human sacrifices in the scores of thousands. Yeah, that BAD OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH!!

    Examples of attacks by atheists? Really, are you serious?? Ok, how about the purges of Lenin, the mass starvation of the Ukraine by Stalin, the pogroms of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Chairman Mao's cultural revolution, Castro, the Shining Path, all the tin horn Marxist dictators of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.... so far, 100 million victims and counting. Next time get your facts straight before you display for the whole world your colossal ignorance.

    • Posted By: neeka @ 11/08/2008 1:11:54 PM

      I completely agree. It's sad that in school we aren't presented with both sides. When I learned about the Crusades it was from the perspective of Christians slaughtering others only because they weren't Christian themselves. As far as Catholic missionaries, are you kidding, they were always portrayed as power hungry inhumane tyrants. The bias against Christians is incredible.

      • Posted By: LibertarianForObama @ 11/14/2008 2:08:32 AM

        It sounds like you were well educated there... The crusades were all about landgrabs, slaughter and the unabated greed of an empire using religion as an excuse for its tyranny, sound familiar?

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/13/2008 2:17:52 PM

        And, historically, it was earned.

    • Posted By: Mirabhai @ 11/10/2008 6:29:17 AM

      Sorry, Dufferdoo, but there's no historical basis for your views. (I'm a professor of medieval studies, and I'm basing my opinion on contemporary documentation, not on my religious biases.) The Crusades were so savage and destructive that they claimed untold human lives before the Crusaders even reached the Middle East -- so many Jews were brutally slaughtered by Crusaders in the Rhineland that many Jews simply killed themselves and their children rather than be slaughtered by them. The story of the Crusaders after they arrived in the Middle East is a sad farce full of betrayal, land grabs, and greed -- even other Christians were not spared, as the Byzantines quickly learned to their sorrow. As is extremely well documented in pilgrimage narratives that you can read yourself if you visit a public library, Christian pilgrims had been visiting their holy places uninterruptedly, while local Eastern Christian communities pursued their religious lives in relative peace ("relative," for instance, to the persecution that was experienced by non-Christians in Europe in the same period).

  • Posted By: scrybe74 @ 11/06/2008 5:49:32 PM

    I am a 34 year old African American who has been raised all of my life in a deeply religious, born again Christian household. My former pastor with whom I disagreed with on many issues but deeply respected taught our congregation 3 things that I will always remember: 1.) you CAN disagree with someone and co-exist. Jesus did this time and time again. I find it extremely disappointing that that evangelical movement represented in the media these past several years were and in some cases still are so intolerant of other beliefs, cultures, social and political ideas. 2.) God is more powerful, more loving, more forgiving and more graceful than anything in this world. He taught us this to understand his position of being pro-choice and yet anti-abortion. He did not believe that it was the role of the church, the house of God, to rule people. To tell people who or what they were or how to live their lives. God is perfect but we are far from it and have no place making decisions for others. Instead he was an activist in a different way. To bring Christ's message to those women who were at the crossroads of making the decision to abort or not. To minister to them instead of intimidating them. To love them instead of threatening them or taking away a right given to them by our government. Since we the people are the government does it mean that Christians shouldn't let there opinions be heard in the legislature? No...by all means we should. But we live in a country of many cultures, religions and beliefs. Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesars. In other words - accept that we live in such a society where people's beliefs are not our own and let us live peacefully among them. Implore them to see our beliefs without judgment but accept it and move on when they do not. 3.) The separation of Church and State is for our benefit. It is for that reason that we should not want our Christian belief and ideology to RUN our country of poly-ethnic and polytheistic society. Why? Because we would not want a government ruled by a religion other than our own. We would not want to be under the rule of Muslim or Jewish or Baha???i or Hindu belief systems. Is it because those beliefs are wrong or evil or ignorant? NO.....it is because we are citizens and deserve to practice our faith in peace. It is a foolish assumption that putting Christian beliefs into our power system is a good thing. It opens the door for another religion to take control....and we are then no different than the countries in the Middle East. Countries where your religion and your government are one and the same. Where individual rights do not matter. As Christians we have our own shameful history of Christian rule gone awry (Spanish Inquisition)

    To be continued???

    • Posted By: OhioGal @ 11/07/2008 8:51:12 AM

      You are so correct!

      You have only to look to Europe where Christianity is almost not practiced at all to see the effects of forcing a specific practice of religion. Religion has flourished in this country because people were free to follow their own beliefs and to practice or not practice religion as they see fit.

      • Posted By: RodyMcN @ 11/14/2008 1:00:45 AM

        Don't worry, Europe will has a new religion coming to town in the vacancy of Western Christianity and it's called Islam. But don't worry, I'm sure it will not be forced on anyone.

  • Posted By: MegaDeath @ 11/06/2008 4:20:47 PM

    As long as Obama KEEPS his campaign promise to Spread the Wealth, that's all the people need. Obama promised to give free money from the people with millions and the rich politicions and give it to us. Obama promised to buy our homes that were being foreclosed and he promised free medical, prescriptions and dental coverage. There is no need for us to work and pay taxes when Obama will pay for what we need.

    • Posted By: jackpotjones @ 11/06/2008 4:50:03 PM

      You are a fool, not to mention a terrible listner.

      • Posted By: RodyMcN @ 11/14/2008 12:42:10 AM

        Yeah, and what a terible spellr.

    • Posted By: Livingwithcommonsenseandreason @ 11/09/2008 10:59:09 PM

      You're delusional. He NEVER promised to buy up the mortgages...that was McCain. He NEVER , EVER promised FREE healthcare...he promised AFFORDABLE healthcare and he never promised anyone FREE money or that money would be taken from the rich and given to the poor. He's not Robinhood. Taxing the rich at a higher rate because they can AFFORD it means that more tax money can pay for infrastructure, schools, education and programs that will help to increase job growth.

      Wow... morons of your caliber are actually ALLOWED to vote ?

    • Posted By: whatisreal? @ 11/06/2008 7:04:16 PM

      Okay, so you are sore you lost, got it!

      Step up, be responsible in what you are saying, and be yourself, not Fox news or Drudge or thos who survive off of haterd and misinformation.

    • Posted By: Mac58 @ 11/06/2008 5:32:40 PM

      All presidents that have run for office ALWAYS promise more than they eventually deliver on. It's called telling the people what they want to hear. They all lie, no matter what party they're for and it will always be like that because it's necessary to convince people to vote for them. In every election I've seen...every single canidate has said that they will lower taxes, yet by the end of their term....taxes are usually higher than when they first came into office. That's just the way it is.

  • Posted By: tbourlon @ 11/07/2008 9:52:37 AM

    I have to disagree with you on Catholics, there's no way that "slightly more than half" are pro-choice. However, many Catholics are opposed to the conflict in Iraq and want to bring our troops home, which I think overrode any problems they had with Obama's pro-abortion stance.

    • Posted By: Livingwithcommonsenseandreason @ 11/09/2008 8:19:42 PM

      Strange.. I'm originally from the northeast and all the time I lived there the status quo was that almost all Catholics ( Irish, Italian, Portuguese and so forth ) were die-hard Democrats and only WASPS were of the Republican persuasion. I've never known it any different. It was always Catholics and minorities that voted for the likes of the Kennedys, Dukakis, Kerry, etc. I'd never heard of a Catholic/Irish/Italian/French/Polish/Portuguese or other minoirty Republican.

      • Posted By: RodyMcN @ 11/14/2008 12:29:16 AM

        That all started to change after JFK because of the Democratic swing toward legalized abortion. Unfortunately, many Catholics only label themselves as Catholics because of tradition, and not a deep-hearted belief in Church teaching. Most practicing Catholics have aligned with Republican and Constitutional type politics because of their opposition to abortion.

  • Posted By: jdarr67 @ 11/07/2008 10:11:03 AM

    The author conveniently left out the fact that blacks overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage in California. 70% of blacks voted against gay marriage. Are they narrow minded? Or are they, too, concerned about the left forcing their morality on the rest of us?

    • Posted By: Livingwithcommonsenseandreason @ 11/09/2008 7:58:15 PM

      I only have one thing to say : RELIGION STUNTS PROGRESS. That is why secular nations such as the majority of the EU are SOOOOOO far ahead of the US with respect to rights, freedoms, technology and progress.... because there is NO RELIGION standing in the way.

      • Posted By: neeka @ 11/10/2008 3:06:47 AM

        First of all the U.S. is the only superpower and the most technology advanced in the world. Listen, I lived and traveled in Europe for 4yrs. Many countries are beautiful and I did love many things about different cultures.But you know the irony, the most beautiful art in Europe is when they had some spirituality in their souls.

        • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/13/2008 2:59:28 PM

          The most technologically advanced? Have you not noticed that most of the electronics and cars that Americans use are from Asia? It has been this way for the past 30 years. Where have you been?????

          • Posted By: neeka @ 11/13/2008 9:15:09 PM

            I looked it up and yep you're right. We rank number seven now..So here we are with why many people (including evangelical Christians) voted for Obama We don't want to sink anymore.Christians and everyone else just want an intelligent President. I'm a Christian and that was my reason for voting for him. It was the economy stupid, not religion that motivated us evangelical Christians.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/12/2008 2:32:45 PM

          "First of all the U.S. is the only superpower "

          Yeah, those silly Russians are no problem at all.

    • Posted By: floridacadman @ 11/07/2008 10:23:09 AM

      More like the church forcing its morality on everyone else. Its none of anyones business what anyone else does in their bedroom.
      So get out of it.

      • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 11/07/2008 12:14:01 PM

        True,to only a point. The government will not allow you to smoke crack in your bedroom,nor will it allow other ''marital''arrangements such as those we saw with the state seizure of minor-aged children at a religious polygmamist sect in Texas recently. It will not allow you to keep a sawed-off shotgun in your bedroom. In point of fact,there are a wide array of things the government will not allow you to do in your own home and deem them illegal if you did so.[pass to the other end of the gay marriage debate for example,liberal voters in Massachusetts and California comtemplated ''smoking police'',where you would not be allowed to smoke in your own home].
        Back to California,and in the supreme irony that trumps even the gay marriage imbroglio,those seen as the most tolerant of gay [and thus human] rights as they vest themselves in a legislature filled with gays,lesbians,Buddhists,Unitarians and others,are being prepared to be held in contempt by a federal judge for the ''criminal neglect''of the states prison population, where hundreds have and are already dying in pain and the '' withholding of even basic medical care''. The Geneva Conventions very definitions of ''torture''include the withholding of such care. Thus an entire state government including its AG ,Buddhist Jerry Brown,stand guilty of abetting torture in its state prisons.

        What did Jesus ,[speaking from a Christian outlook as it applies to the focus of Millers article] remark upon regarding the treatment of prisoners who comprise ''the least'' in Matthew,Mark and especially,Luke?

        Where are the boundries of ''tolerance''by those who claim to freely possess it,indeed,demand it of others, when faced with such an obvious paradox to their own values?

        National Public Radio ''Morning Edition'' Nov.07,2008

        • Posted By: Livingwithcommonsenseandreason @ 11/09/2008 11:03:57 PM

          We're talking of people who have common sense and reason...you , however are dwelling on the deviant which are only a tiny fraction of the population and trying to generalize their behavior as that of the general population. Apples and oranges.

  • Posted By: jdarr67 @ 11/07/2008 10:13:37 AM

    What the author left out of this article was how the black community in California overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage. 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8. Just because people voted for Obama, it does not indicate America has moved left of center. Blacks don't want the left imposing their view of morality on them any more than anyone else.

    • Posted By: panda69 @ 11/08/2008 1:50:31 PM

      Allowing gay marriage is not an imposition of morality on anyone -- If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one! Banning gay marriage is an imposition of morality.

      • Posted By: Livingwithcommonsenseandreason @ 11/09/2008 7:52:20 PM

        It's also a violation of civil rights and an endorsement of hate and bigotry. Gay marriage is in exactly the same position interracial marriage was a mere 40 yrs ago. That is why I can't for the life of me figure why blacks... who went through an exactly similar circumstance....bigotry, denial of rights and civil liberties are willing to do the same to another minority group of citizens. In my book that makes them hypocrites and just as vile as the whites who denied them their rights. They seem to forget .

        • Posted By: neeka @ 11/10/2008 2:55:14 AM

          Race and homosexuality are completely different. Gay people can experiment with being straight or bisexual but a black person can't wake up one day and experiment being white or Asian. When gay people have to work over 200 yrs in the fields w/o pay and be defined by the Supreme Court as only 3/5ths human then lets compare the two. Besides interracial marriage is still between a male and female.

          • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/13/2008 2:55:04 PM

            Your lack of comprehension of sexual identity is obvious. Why should gay people experiment with heterosexuality or bisexuality? Usually, when homosexuals attempt to pass for anything other than what they are, they fail miserably. Just think of Michael Jackson passing as a straight, white male.

            • Posted By: neeka @ 11/13/2008 8:59:43 PM

              Whatever...then explain Anne Heche, okay? Also I'm sure many people know of girls in college who proclaimed they were a lesbian as a freshman but by junior year they were back with men. As far as Micheal Jackson, I agree he could never pass as a straight, white male but he really can't pass as a black, male or a white female or black female either or anything now but an alien freak.

          • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/12/2008 2:32:06 PM

            So what? Keep your bigotries to yourself. Gay marriage harms nobody, with the exception of faoming-at-the-mouth bigots who are obsessed with what other people do behind closed doors...and then the "harm" is nothing more than an ego-driven bit of outrage.

            • Posted By: neeka @ 11/13/2008 8:54:53 PM

              What homosexuals do behind closed doors is their business, I agree. I was responding to the ridiculous comparison of what African-Americans had to endure and what homosexuals had/have to endure.

  • Posted By: floridacadman @ 11/07/2008 10:03:25 AM

    Christian religion has been used since its inseption to justify unjust behavior. That is why it has no place in politics. People believe whatever is most convenient for them at the time. Thats why the right wing is a walking, talking contradiction in terms and have no real credability.

    • Posted By: Livingwithcommonsenseandreason @ 11/09/2008 8:03:41 PM

      I agree... the religious can justify any behavior no matter how immoral, unjustified, heinous or vile by attaching the name of their god to the cause.

      • Posted By: rexymeteorite @ 11/10/2008 2:35:05 AM

        Talking with a religious person:

        Them: What is your stance on god?
        Me: Well, I am agnostic.
        Them: Whats that (look of recoil, probably pondering 'is this guy one o' them a-rabs i been hearin so much about')
        Me: It means that I believe in a higher power, just not the christian sense of god.
        Them: Well did you know that the bible says ....... (I actually do not know any quotes from the bible)
        Me: Thats great, but I am not a Christian, so umm, the bible is just a book to me.
        Them: JUST A BOOK? Well the bible says .......
        Me: See, once again, the bible is just a book to me, it may not be to you but thats all it is to me.

        Do you see where you get caught in a justification loop. I believe that the bible is a fictional book, so when you quote the bible to prove something to me its like quoting Harry Potter to prove something about physics, it just doesnt work out.

        • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/13/2008 12:04:11 PM

          I get the same reaction when I tell people I believe in Unitarianism ( the belief in the single personality of God, in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity). The concept that someone could believe in the Creator but not believe in salvation or the bible is enough to make a "believer's" head spin like Regan in the "Exorcist".

  • Posted By: smr68 @ 11/12/2008 8:06:48 PM

    Who can remember when a political candidate ignited such hope and energy as Obama? It has been 50 years! It is about time a voice was able to be heard over the judgmental narrow minded ramblings of the fundamental group. I can only hope that the freedoms our fathers and grandfathers gave their lives to protect will once again be preserved.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse