(02-16-2018 10:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 08:32 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]2) the hypocrisy of the Christian right, still statistically one of Trumps most solid bases of support. I know plenty of them who think no Christian could justify voting for Obama or Hillary, but are totally OK with supporting this guy.
Probably the lesser evil.
You got to remember, Obama and Hillary are pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, etc. None of the three are strong Christians. Maybe they are making their choices on the issues and not on moral judgments.
...because nothing is more important than hating gay people. That actually reinforces my point, at least from my perspective.
How do you know Obama and Hillary aren't strong Christians? I mean, maybe they aren't, but they belonged to and went to church didn't they? It seems like many on the Christian right think Strong Christian=Conservative Evangelical Christian. Yet many of the most active liberals and Dems I know are also devout Christians. They just don't go to the same churches people like Mike Pence (or my MIL) do.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not equating you with the "Christian Right"...
The very first thing you do is to equate opposing gay marriage with "hating gay people". Can you not even comprehend that some people can have a viewpoint counter to yours without attributing it to hate?
Personally, I support gay marriage. I see no reason gay couples should not enjoy the same rights and responsibilities in their relationships as hetero couples. I go a step further than even you, probably, and support plural marriage. Is the number two sacred to you? Why not three or five?
But I can understand that some people think marriage is between a man and a woman, and not attribute this attitude to hatred of gays. I really get tired of the ultra liberals attributing any different viewpoint to hate. Hate is one of the least common political motivators. I oppose illegal immigration, too, but I don't hate illegal immigrants.
Obama did belong to a church, but claimed not to be there for many of Wright's more incendiary sermons. After election, I know of no instances of him attending a BLT church in DC, nor of any other instances of him attending any other church except possibly for political purposes, such as Easter and Christmas. I think his BLT membership in Chicago was more for political purposes.
Pretty much the same for Clinton, just a different church listed on his CV.
I understand there are many liberal Christians. I've known a few. My experience is that they are liberals first, Christians second, and any conflict between religion and politics is decided in favor of the political. The opposite is largely true of the Religious Right, I think.
I am not a religious person. My personal journey has taken me from fundamentalist to atheist to deacon to agnostic. The church in which I was a deacon was a very liberal church, not in its politics but in its welcoming of people of a wide variety of viewpoints. To be clear, my agnosticism is not the same as Joy Behar's. I don't hate religious people. I may not agree with them, but I respect their right to their opinion without me attributing either hate or insanity to them.
(02-16-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 10:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 08:32 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]2) the hypocrisy of the Christian right, still statistically one of Trumps most solid bases of support. I know plenty of them who think no Christian could justify voting for Obama or Hillary, but are totally OK with supporting this guy.
Probably the lesser evil.
You got to remember, Obama and Hillary are pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, etc. None of the three are strong Christians. Maybe they are making their choices on the issues and not on moral judgments.
...because nothing is more important than hating gay people. That actually reinforces my point, at least from my perspective.
How do you know Obama and Hillary aren't strong Christians? I mean, maybe they aren't, but they belonged to and went to church didn't they? It seems like many on the Christian right think Strong Christian=Conservative Evangelical Christian. Yet many of the most active liberals and Dems I know are also devout Christians. They just don't go to the same churches people like Mike Pence (or my MIL) do.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not equating you with the "Christian Right"...
The very first thing you do is to equate opposing gay marriage with "hating gay people". Can you not even comprehend that some people can have a viewpoint counter to yours without attributing it to hate?
Personally, I support gay marriage. I see no reason gay couples should not enjoy the same rights and responsibilities in their relationships as hetero couples. I go a step further than even you, probably, and support plural marriage. Is the number two sacred to you? Why not three or five?
But I can understand that some people think marriage is between a man and a woman, and not attribute this attitude to hatred of gays. I really get tired of the ultra liberals attributing any different viewpoint to hate. Hate is one of the least common political motivators. I oppose illegal immigration, too, but I don't hate illegal immigrants.
Obama did belong to a church, but claimed not to be there for many of Wright's more incendiary sermons. After election, I know of no instances of him attending a BLT church in DC, nor of any other instances of him attending any other church except possibly for political purposes, such as Easter and Christmas. I think his BLT membership in Chicago was more for political purposes.
Pretty much the same for Clinton, just a different church listed on his CV.
I understand there are many liberal Christians. I've known a few. My experience is that they are liberals first, Christians second, and any conflict between religion and politics is decided in favor of the political. The opposite is largely true of the Religious Right, I think.
I am not a religious person. My personal journey has taken me from fundamentalist to atheist to deacon to agnostic. The church in which I was a deacon was a very liberal church, not in its politics but in its welcoming of people of a wide variety of viewpoints. To be clear, my agnosticism is not the same as Joy Behar's. I don't hate religious people. I may not agree with them, but I respect their right to their opinion without me attributing either hate or insanity to them.
To the bold - you probably weren't aware because it always appeared as if wearing his religion on his sleeve was not something he wanted to do, and, especially in comparison to his predecessor, it was less integral to his life. A quick Google search found that he attended church 18 times in his first 5 years in the WH, which is more than just Easter and Christmas (heck, he even skipped a Christmas service in 2013).
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...attendance
But even if his religion was not as pronounced as W's, I don't think Obama's Christian faith was just a CV booster - watching the way he spoke at numerous services, especially when he sang Amazing Grace, it seemed pretty clear that faith was not just some CV booster, but something he did care about and think about. Read a bit about it here:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/keeping-ta...-his-faith
Quote:And Obama even brought church into the White House. Three years ago the president began a tradition that few know about, and one that had never occurred before: he started hosting an Easter Prayer Breakfast, a moment of worship each year specifically with Christian leaders. There had been Passover Seders before and White House Iftars, events for Diwali, and services for other religious and non-religious traditions as well. But no president had gathered the Christian community specifically to mark its holiest day, and President Obama decided that an Easter event was past due. So he organized this breakfast, invited diverse Christian leaders from around the country, and offered brief remarks about what the death and resurrection of Jesus meant to him.
In 2010 Obama explained “what draws me to this holy day and what lesson I take from Christ’s sacrifice.” In 2011 he reflected on “The triumph of Palm Sunday. The humility of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. His slow march up that hill, and the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross …”
Again, compared to W he was a near atheist, but as someone who isn't religious in any sense of the word, I appreciated Obama's generally understated approach to faith.
(02-16-2018 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 10:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 08:32 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]2) the hypocrisy of the Christian right, still statistically one of Trumps most solid bases of support. I know plenty of them who think no Christian could justify voting for Obama or Hillary, but are totally OK with supporting this guy.
Probably the lesser evil.
You got to remember, Obama and Hillary are pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, etc. None of the three are strong Christians. Maybe they are making their choices on the issues and not on moral judgments.
...because nothing is more important than hating gay people. That actually reinforces my point, at least from my perspective.
How do you know Obama and Hillary aren't strong Christians? I mean, maybe they aren't, but they belonged to and went to church didn't they? It seems like many on the Christian right think Strong Christian=Conservative Evangelical Christian. Yet many of the most active liberals and Dems I know are also devout Christians. They just don't go to the same churches people like Mike Pence (or my MIL) do.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not equating you with the "Christian Right"...
The very first thing you do is to equate opposing gay marriage with "hating gay people". Can you not even comprehend that some people can have a viewpoint counter to yours without attributing it to hate?
Personally, I support gay marriage. I see no reason gay couples should not enjoy the same rights and responsibilities in their relationships as hetero couples. I go a step further than even you, probably, and support plural marriage. Is the number two sacred to you? Why not three or five?
But I can understand that some people think marriage is between a man and a woman, and not attribute this attitude to hatred of gays. I really get tired of the ultra liberals attributing any different viewpoint to hate. Hate is one of the least common political motivators. I oppose illegal immigration, too, but I don't hate illegal immigrants.
Obama did belong to a church, but claimed not to be there for many of Wright's more incendiary sermons. After election, I know of no instances of him attending a BLT church in DC, nor of any other instances of him attending any other church except possibly for political purposes, such as Easter and Christmas. I think his BLT membership in Chicago was more for political purposes.
Pretty much the same for Clinton, just a different church listed on his CV.
I understand there are many liberal Christians. I've known a few. My experience is that they are liberals first, Christians second, and any conflict between religion and politics is decided in favor of the political. The opposite is largely true of the Religious Right, I think.
I am not a religious person. My personal journey has taken me from fundamentalist to atheist to deacon to agnostic. The church in which I was a deacon was a very liberal church, not in its politics but in its welcoming of people of a wide variety of viewpoints. To be clear, my agnosticism is not the same as Joy Behar's. I don't hate religious people. I may not agree with them, but I respect their right to their opinion without me attributing either hate or insanity to them.
To the bold - you probably weren't aware because it always appeared as if wearing his religion on his sleeve was not something he wanted to do, and, especially in comparison to his predecessor, it was less integral to his life. A quick Google search found that he attended church 18 times in his first 5 years in the WH, which is more than just Easter and Christmas (heck, he even skipped a Christmas service in 2013).
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...attendance
But even if his religion was not as pronounced as W's, I don't think Obama's Christian faith was just a CV booster - watching the way he spoke at numerous services, especially when he sang Amazing Grace, it seemed pretty clear that faith was not just some CV booster, but something he did care about and think about. Read a bit about it here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/keeping-ta...-his-faith
Quote:And Obama even brought church into the White House. Three years ago the president began a tradition that few know about, and one that had never occurred before: he started hosting an Easter Prayer Breakfast, a moment of worship each year specifically with Christian leaders. There had been Passover Seders before and White House Iftars, events for Diwali, and services for other religious and non-religious traditions as well. But no president had gathered the Christian community specifically to mark its holiest day, and President Obama decided that an Easter event was past due. So he organized this breakfast, invited diverse Christian leaders from around the country, and offered brief remarks about what the death and resurrection of Jesus meant to him.
In 2010 Obama explained “what draws me to this holy day and what lesson I take from Christ’s sacrifice.” In 2011 he reflected on “The triumph of Palm Sunday. The humility of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. His slow march up that hill, and the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross …”
Again, compared to W he was a near atheist, but as someone who isn't religious in any sense of the word, I appreciated Obama's generally understated approach to faith.
18 times in 260 Sundays. < 7%. Clearly devout. Does it say what the denomination(s) were? Were they all BLT?
Still smacks more of politics than faith to me.
Maybe Obama is one of these guys that place a higher value on "spirituality" than a traditional faith. I always thought that was a cop out.
Even in the depths of my atheism, i wanted my children to see, hear, and experience what it is to be in a church and see people who believe in something, in order that they could make an informed decision for themselves later in life, and so we joined that "liberal" church. I, still an atheist, attended church more times in the first 19 Sundays after joining than Obama did in five years. Maybe I just cared more for my kids.
I gradually learned to have tolerance for other viewpoints, as there was a wide variety of them there. I was in that church 12 years. Still not a fan of Bible based faith.
(02-16-2018 11:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 10:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Probably the lesser evil.
You got to remember, Obama and Hillary are pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, etc. None of the three are strong Christians. Maybe they are making their choices on the issues and not on moral judgments.
...because nothing is more important than hating gay people. That actually reinforces my point, at least from my perspective.
How do you know Obama and Hillary aren't strong Christians? I mean, maybe they aren't, but they belonged to and went to church didn't they? It seems like many on the Christian right think Strong Christian=Conservative Evangelical Christian. Yet many of the most active liberals and Dems I know are also devout Christians. They just don't go to the same churches people like Mike Pence (or my MIL) do.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not equating you with the "Christian Right"...
The very first thing you do is to equate opposing gay marriage with "hating gay people". Can you not even comprehend that some people can have a viewpoint counter to yours without attributing it to hate?
Personally, I support gay marriage. I see no reason gay couples should not enjoy the same rights and responsibilities in their relationships as hetero couples. I go a step further than even you, probably, and support plural marriage. Is the number two sacred to you? Why not three or five?
But I can understand that some people think marriage is between a man and a woman, and not attribute this attitude to hatred of gays. I really get tired of the ultra liberals attributing any different viewpoint to hate. Hate is one of the least common political motivators. I oppose illegal immigration, too, but I don't hate illegal immigrants.
Obama did belong to a church, but claimed not to be there for many of Wright's more incendiary sermons. After election, I know of no instances of him attending a BLT church in DC, nor of any other instances of him attending any other church except possibly for political purposes, such as Easter and Christmas. I think his BLT membership in Chicago was more for political purposes.
Pretty much the same for Clinton, just a different church listed on his CV.
I understand there are many liberal Christians. I've known a few. My experience is that they are liberals first, Christians second, and any conflict between religion and politics is decided in favor of the political. The opposite is largely true of the Religious Right, I think.
I am not a religious person. My personal journey has taken me from fundamentalist to atheist to deacon to agnostic. The church in which I was a deacon was a very liberal church, not in its politics but in its welcoming of people of a wide variety of viewpoints. To be clear, my agnosticism is not the same as Joy Behar's. I don't hate religious people. I may not agree with them, but I respect their right to their opinion without me attributing either hate or insanity to them.
To the bold - you probably weren't aware because it always appeared as if wearing his religion on his sleeve was not something he wanted to do, and, especially in comparison to his predecessor, it was less integral to his life. A quick Google search found that he attended church 18 times in his first 5 years in the WH, which is more than just Easter and Christmas (heck, he even skipped a Christmas service in 2013).
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...attendance
But even if his religion was not as pronounced as W's, I don't think Obama's Christian faith was just a CV booster - watching the way he spoke at numerous services, especially when he sang Amazing Grace, it seemed pretty clear that faith was not just some CV booster, but something he did care about and think about. Read a bit about it here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/keeping-ta...-his-faith
Quote:And Obama even brought church into the White House. Three years ago the president began a tradition that few know about, and one that had never occurred before: he started hosting an Easter Prayer Breakfast, a moment of worship each year specifically with Christian leaders. There had been Passover Seders before and White House Iftars, events for Diwali, and services for other religious and non-religious traditions as well. But no president had gathered the Christian community specifically to mark its holiest day, and President Obama decided that an Easter event was past due. So he organized this breakfast, invited diverse Christian leaders from around the country, and offered brief remarks about what the death and resurrection of Jesus meant to him.
In 2010 Obama explained “what draws me to this holy day and what lesson I take from Christ’s sacrifice.” In 2011 he reflected on “The triumph of Palm Sunday. The humility of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. His slow march up that hill, and the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross …”
Again, compared to W he was a near atheist, but as someone who isn't religious in any sense of the word, I appreciated Obama's generally understated approach to faith.
18 times in 260 Sundays. < 7%. Clearly devout. Does it say what the denomination(s) were? Were they all BLT?
Still smacks more of politics than faith to me.
Maybe Obama is one of these guys that place a higher value on "spirituality" than a traditional faith. I always thought that was a cop out.
Even in the depths of my atheism, i wanted my children to see, hear, and experience what it is to be in a church and see people who believe in something, in order that they could make an informed decision for themselves later in life, and so we joined that "liberal" church. I, still an atheist, attended church more times in the first 19 Sundays after joining than Obama did in five years. Maybe I just cared more for my kids.
I gradually learned to have tolerance for other viewpoints, as there was a wide variety of them there. I was in that church 12 years. Still not a fan of Bible based faith.
The number of times Obama attended church is in line with past presidents, except W, and W was a big outlier because of his evangelical take on the faith. Bush attended church 120 times in 8 years, which is less than your 19 times (avg of 15 times per year for W).
Reagan rarely attended church while in office, and no one seems to chide him. One thing about attending church as POTUS is that there are significant security issues that you must burden the church with - that was one reason Reagan didn't attend church while in office. Regardless, the amount of time someone spends publicly in a place of worship should not count for/against their faith or spirituality. I think there was likely some Bible verse about how people who just make a show of their faith in public aren't really all that great...
If Obama's faith was just for show, why did both of their children get baptized? Why were the Obama's members of a church in Chicago (United Church of Christ) for 20 years, well before he ran for POTUS.
Just read a bit a bout Obama's faith and spirituality - it runs counter to your belief, built upon nothing really, that it is all for show.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/us/as-...lines.html
(02-16-2018 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]You got to remember, Obama and Hillary are pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, etc.
I had a good friend in high school with a slightly younger brother. The younger brother thought he was very clever, so he made a shirt that read "Abort your fetuses!" to draw the distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion. He occasionally wore the shirt in public, which I found rather astonishing.
(02-16-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I understand there are many liberal Christians. I've known a few. My experience is that they are liberals first, Christians second, and any conflict between religion and politics is decided in favor of the political. The opposite is largely true of the Religious Right, I think.
I think both sides are willing to pick-and-choose the parts of their religious texts that they believe support their views. I think the founders understood this, hence the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
(02-16-2018 11:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]18 times in 260 Sundays. < 7%. Clearly devout. Does it say what the denomination(s) were? Were they all BLT?
Still smacks more of politics than faith to me.
I have no idea how religious Obama or Clinton are and I don't think church attendance is reflective of how religious someone is. I'm not really religious at all, but I go to church almost every week (my wife sings and my kids go to sunday school). So I go far more often than my wife's parents and grandmother, who undoubtedly consider themselves to be pretty devout. I don't think that is a particularly good measure of anything. By the same token, I don't judge Trump's religiousness based on the frequency with which he attends church.
(02-15-2018 11:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If we hold everybody to the strict fidelity plus no lying standard, we run a risk of a Washington populated only by Mike Pence.
I think that is probably overstating things a bit! Plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum who don't cheat on their spouses, and most of them aren't nervous about being in the same room with a non-spouse MPS.
(02-16-2018 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 11:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 10:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]...because nothing is more important than hating gay people. That actually reinforces my point, at least from my perspective.
How do you know Obama and Hillary aren't strong Christians? I mean, maybe they aren't, but they belonged to and went to church didn't they? It seems like many on the Christian right think Strong Christian=Conservative Evangelical Christian. Yet many of the most active liberals and Dems I know are also devout Christians. They just don't go to the same churches people like Mike Pence (or my MIL) do.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not equating you with the "Christian Right"...
The very first thing you do is to equate opposing gay marriage with "hating gay people". Can you not even comprehend that some people can have a viewpoint counter to yours without attributing it to hate?
Personally, I support gay marriage. I see no reason gay couples should not enjoy the same rights and responsibilities in their relationships as hetero couples. I go a step further than even you, probably, and support plural marriage. Is the number two sacred to you? Why not three or five?
But I can understand that some people think marriage is between a man and a woman, and not attribute this attitude to hatred of gays. I really get tired of the ultra liberals attributing any different viewpoint to hate. Hate is one of the least common political motivators. I oppose illegal immigration, too, but I don't hate illegal immigrants.
Obama did belong to a church, but claimed not to be there for many of Wright's more incendiary sermons. After election, I know of no instances of him attending a BLT church in DC, nor of any other instances of him attending any other church except possibly for political purposes, such as Easter and Christmas. I think his BLT membership in Chicago was more for political purposes.
Pretty much the same for Clinton, just a different church listed on his CV.
I understand there are many liberal Christians. I've known a few. My experience is that they are liberals first, Christians second, and any conflict between religion and politics is decided in favor of the political. The opposite is largely true of the Religious Right, I think.
I am not a religious person. My personal journey has taken me from fundamentalist to atheist to deacon to agnostic. The church in which I was a deacon was a very liberal church, not in its politics but in its welcoming of people of a wide variety of viewpoints. To be clear, my agnosticism is not the same as Joy Behar's. I don't hate religious people. I may not agree with them, but I respect their right to their opinion without me attributing either hate or insanity to them.
To the bold - you probably weren't aware because it always appeared as if wearing his religion on his sleeve was not something he wanted to do, and, especially in comparison to his predecessor, it was less integral to his life. A quick Google search found that he attended church 18 times in his first 5 years in the WH, which is more than just Easter and Christmas (heck, he even skipped a Christmas service in 2013).
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...attendance
But even if his religion was not as pronounced as W's, I don't think Obama's Christian faith was just a CV booster - watching the way he spoke at numerous services, especially when he sang Amazing Grace, it seemed pretty clear that faith was not just some CV booster, but something he did care about and think about. Read a bit about it here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/keeping-ta...-his-faith
Quote:And Obama even brought church into the White House. Three years ago the president began a tradition that few know about, and one that had never occurred before: he started hosting an Easter Prayer Breakfast, a moment of worship each year specifically with Christian leaders. There had been Passover Seders before and White House Iftars, events for Diwali, and services for other religious and non-religious traditions as well. But no president had gathered the Christian community specifically to mark its holiest day, and President Obama decided that an Easter event was past due. So he organized this breakfast, invited diverse Christian leaders from around the country, and offered brief remarks about what the death and resurrection of Jesus meant to him.
In 2010 Obama explained “what draws me to this holy day and what lesson I take from Christ’s sacrifice.” In 2011 he reflected on “The triumph of Palm Sunday. The humility of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. His slow march up that hill, and the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross …”
Again, compared to W he was a near atheist, but as someone who isn't religious in any sense of the word, I appreciated Obama's generally understated approach to faith.
18 times in 260 Sundays. < 7%. Clearly devout. Does it say what the denomination(s) were? Were they all BLT?
Still smacks more of politics than faith to me.
Maybe Obama is one of these guys that place a higher value on "spirituality" than a traditional faith. I always thought that was a cop out.
Even in the depths of my atheism, i wanted my children to see, hear, and experience what it is to be in a church and see people who believe in something, in order that they could make an informed decision for themselves later in life, and so we joined that "liberal" church. I, still an atheist, attended church more times in the first 19 Sundays after joining than Obama did in five years. Maybe I just cared more for my kids.
I gradually learned to have tolerance for other viewpoints, as there was a wide variety of them there. I was in that church 12 years. Still not a fan of Bible based faith.
The number of times Obama attended church is in line with past presidents, except W, and W was a big outlier because of his evangelical take on the faith. Bush attended church 120 times in 8 years, which is less than your 19 times (avg of 15 times per year for W).
Reagan rarely attended church while in office, and no one seems to chide him. One thing about attending church as POTUS is that there are significant security issues that you must burden the church with - that was one reason Reagan didn't attend church while in office. Regardless, the amount of time someone spends publicly in a place of worship should not count for/against their faith or spirituality. I think there was likely some Bible verse about how people who just make a show of their faith in public aren't really all that great...
If Obama's faith was just for show, why did both of their children get baptized? Why were the Obama's members of a church in Chicago (United Church of Christ) for 20 years, well before he ran for POTUS.
Just read a bit a bout Obama's faith and spirituality - it runs counter to your belief, built upon nothing really, that it is all for show. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/us/as-...lines.html
Agree with the fact that church attendance for a POTUS has security challenges. But when Candidate Obama was faced with some of Jeremiah Wright's statements, his defense was that he had not heard them since he was not there. I think membership in a BLT church, a prominent black church, was needed for his political aspirations. Didn't mean he had to attend every week or believe.
As for the girls, maybe they wanted to be baptized. I certainly hoped my kids would make that choice on their own. maybe they did. None of them were ever baptized in that church, although one was baptized in a different church.
And we have not determined Michelle's part in all this. Maybe she took the girls to church every week. or sent them.
I wonder how many times the Obamas have been to church in the 13 months since he left office? Do you have a number on that?
I don't think your impassioned defense of Obama's religiosity is going to change me much. But we have traveled far afield, and I would like to get back to JAAOs and his assumption of "hate" on the part of the Religious Right. Most Christians I know say "Hate the sin, not the sinner", and certainly many of them will consider gay sex a sin. But JAAOs makes the assumption that they "hate gay people". I get really tired of leftists telling me I hate this or that. I think they hate me. Let's talk about hate for a while.
Be careful people... you can be charged with wire fraud if you make disparaging remarks about politicians on social media.
Russians indicted
Finally, Russians indicted in the "Russia probe".
They tried to help Trump and Sanders against Clinton. Does this mean we will get get a separate Sanders-Russian collusion investigation? Another Special counsel?
I guess we owe a debt of thanks to the DNC. If not for their collusion with the Clinton Campaign, the Russians may have swayed the nomination to Sanders.
Quite a few liberals have believed for a long while that Russians helped promote Sanders and Stein to hurt Clinton. This confirmation wasn't all that shocking. I have a friend who was a huge Sanders/Stein supporter. Leading up to the election, he posted multiple links to negative stories re: Clinton on facebook where he wrote something to the effective of "I don't know if this is true, but it sounds like it could be." Pretty sure at least some of them were propagated by Russians.
It surprised me to see the Russians also tried to hurt Cruz and Rubio to help Trump.
(02-16-2018 05:55 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]"I don't know if this is true, but it sounds like it could be."
I fear that sums up the state of political discourse.
(02-16-2018 11:30 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]You got to remember, Obama and Hillary are pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, etc.
I had a good friend in high school with a slightly younger brother. The younger brother thought he was very clever, so he made a shirt that read "Abort your fetuses!" to draw the distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion. He occasionally wore the shirt in public, which I found rather astonishing.
(02-16-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I understand there are many liberal Christians. I've known a few. My experience is that they are liberals first, Christians second, and any conflict between religion and politics is decided in favor of the political. The opposite is largely true of the Religious Right, I think.
I think both sides are willing to pick-and-choose the parts of their religious texts that they believe support their views. I think the founders understood this, hence the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
(02-16-2018 11:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]18 times in 260 Sundays. < 7%. Clearly devout. Does it say what the denomination(s) were? Were they all BLT?
Still smacks more of politics than faith to me.
I have no idea how religious Obama or Clinton are and I don't think church attendance is reflective of how religious someone is. I'm not really religious at all, but I go to church almost every week (my wife sings and my kids go to sunday school). So I go far more often than my wife's parents and grandmother, who undoubtedly consider themselves to be pretty devout. I don't think that is a particularly good measure of anything. By the same token, I don't judge Trump's religiousness based on the frequency with which he attends church.
(02-15-2018 11:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If we hold everybody to the strict fidelity plus no lying standard, we run a risk of a Washington populated only by Mike Pence.
I think that is probably overstating things a bit! Plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum who don't cheat on their spouses, and most of them aren't nervous about being in the same room with a non-spouse MPS.
To the last paragraph - remember, no lying was a part of the discussion.
(02-16-2018 08:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 11:30 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]You got to remember, Obama and Hillary are pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, etc.
I had a good friend in high school with a slightly younger brother. The younger brother thought he was very clever, so he made a shirt that read "Abort your fetuses!" to draw the distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion. He occasionally wore the shirt in public, which I found rather astonishing.
(02-16-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I understand there are many liberal Christians. I've known a few. My experience is that they are liberals first, Christians second, and any conflict between religion and politics is decided in favor of the political. The opposite is largely true of the Religious Right, I think.
I think both sides are willing to pick-and-choose the parts of their religious texts that they believe support their views. I think the founders understood this, hence the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
(02-16-2018 11:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]18 times in 260 Sundays. < 7%. Clearly devout. Does it say what the denomination(s) were? Were they all BLT?
Still smacks more of politics than faith to me.
I have no idea how religious Obama or Clinton are and I don't think church attendance is reflective of how religious someone is. I'm not really religious at all, but I go to church almost every week (my wife sings and my kids go to sunday school). So I go far more often than my wife's parents and grandmother, who undoubtedly consider themselves to be pretty devout. I don't think that is a particularly good measure of anything. By the same token, I don't judge Trump's religiousness based on the frequency with which he attends church.
(02-15-2018 11:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If we hold everybody to the strict fidelity plus no lying standard, we run a risk of a Washington populated only by Mike Pence.
I think that is probably overstating things a bit! Plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum who don't cheat on their spouses, and most of them aren't nervous about being in the same room with a non-spouse MPS.
To the last paragraph - remember, no lying was a part of the discussion.
Given the depth and ferocity of the pervnado at this point in time, Pence's policy about being in the same room doesn't sound like an entirely stupid one that it seems to be continuously portrayed as.
(02-16-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The very first thing you do is to equate opposing gay marriage with "hating gay people". Can you not even comprehend that some people can have a viewpoint counter to yours without attributing it to hate?
Sorry for the slow response, just haven’t had a lot of time to contribute lately.
Yes, I was a bit glib going from opposing gay marriage to hating gays. Certainly there are people opposed to gay marriage who would not describe themselves as hating gays, and probably have some conflicted feelings if they have gay friends or relatives. Attitudes on this issue have shifted rapidly in the last 10-15 years. Hell, I probably would have said I opposed it 20 years ago and still considered myself a progressive on the LBGT issues.
However, to me there’s s difference between a person who when asked says they personally oppose gay marriage and someone who makes it a litmus test issue, which is what we were discussing. People to whom it’s so important to deny people they don’t know the right to marry that they are willing to overlook so many other violations of their supposed moral standards – mocking the disabled, attacking gold star families, bragging about sexual assault, affairs with porn stars and playmates, lewd sexist and misogynistic comments, weird sexual comments about his own daughter and random pre-pubescent girls, bragging about the size of his genitals in a presidential debate, and on and on. They are willing to swallow all that just to prevent a gay couple somewhere from having a legally sanctioned marriage. To me that seems more like hate.
But even if for the sake of argument I grant you that the above alone STILL shouldn’t be called hate: I think that more often than not when someone is that committed to opposing gay marriage, they have other attitudes which DO amount to hate. The VPOTUS being a good example, but there are countless others.
IMHO, of course.
(02-22-2018 11:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO, of course.
The only relevant part of your post. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to present that as fact.
I have a question. Is the objective of the "Russia" probe to see that justice is done, or simply to find some way to "get" Donald Trump? Because IMHO it's looking a lot more like the latter than the former.
(02-22-2018 11:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The very first thing you do is to equate opposing gay marriage with "hating gay people". Can you not even comprehend that some people can have a viewpoint counter to yours without attributing it to hate?
Sorry for the slow response, just haven’t had a lot of time to contribute lately.
Yes, I was a bit glib going from opposing gay marriage to hating gays. Certainly there are people opposed to gay marriage who would not describe themselves as hating gays, and probably have some conflicted feelings if they have gay friends or relatives. Attitudes on this issue have shifted rapidly in the last 10-15 years. Hell, I probably would have said I opposed it 20 years ago and still considered myself a progressive on the LBGT issues.
However, to me there’s s difference between a person who when asked says they personally oppose gay marriage and someone who makes it a litmus test issue, which is what we were discussing. People to whom it’s so important to deny people they don’t know the right to marry that they are willing to overlook so many other violations of their supposed moral standards – mocking the disabled, attacking gold star families, bragging about sexual assault, affairs with porn stars and playmates, lewd sexist and misogynistic comments, weird sexual comments about his own daughter and random pre-pubescent girls, bragging about the size of his genitals in a presidential debate, and on and on. They are willing to swallow all that just to prevent a gay couple somewhere from having a legally sanctioned marriage. To me that seems more like hate.
But even if for the sake of argument I grant you that the above alone STILL shouldn’t be called hate: I think that more often than not when someone is that committed to opposing gay marriage, they have other attitudes which DO amount to hate. The VPOTUS being a good example, but there are countless others.
IMHO, of course.
FTR, I do not oppose gay marriage, and did not oppose it 20 years ago. I also am fine with plural marriage, and any kind of marriage that does not involve inanimate objects or animals. I really don't care about marriage. If nobody married, that would be fine with me. If you and your special other(s) of whatever sex, or religion want make your own arrangement, fine with me. NOMB.
But my personal beliefs notwithstanding, I think you are succumbing to a stereotype when you think that so many people on the right are single issue voters and that issue is gay marriage. Just not that big a deal to most people, left or right. Well, it is a big deal to some on the left, like yourself. Seems to be a bit of a litmus test for you. You keep bringing it up like it is some sort of identifier of good people and bad, defined by their acceptance of GM.
I did not vote for Trump. But I don't give much of a damn about his sleeping with playboy models, etc. I bet you didn't care much for similar behavior from Democrats (Kennedy, Kennedy, Clinton, Weiner, Spitzer, Edwards, yada yada yada), but continued to vote your straight tickets. If not, your defections were probably not because of their lack of morals. Maybe because the were weak on guns or gay marriage. How you ever voted against a Democrat on the basis of morals? If so, who?
I think you make a mistake when you characterize the choice many religious people made in 2016. It was not so much FOR a philandering egotist, as it was AGAINST the party of pro-choice, or as they see it, murdering children. Of course, there was much more contributing to that upset - a desire for real change, a hope that a change in leadership would bring about real change in America. Even you must acknowledge that Hillary was the "More of the Same" candidate. I can hardly blame the desire to avoid more of the same on hating gay marriage.
(02-22-2018 11:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]However, to me there’s s difference between a person who when asked says they personally oppose gay marriage and someone who makes it a litmus test issue, which is what we were discussing. People to whom it’s so important to deny people they don’t know the right to marry that they are willing to overlook so many other violations of their supposed moral standards – mocking the disabled, attacking gold star families, bragging about sexual assault, affairs with porn stars and playmates, lewd sexist and misogynistic comments, weird sexual comments about his own daughter and random pre-pubescent girls, bragging about the size of his genitals in a presidential debate, and on and on. They are willing to swallow all that just to prevent a gay couple somewhere from having a legally sanctioned marriage. To me that seems more like hate.
To me it seems like a massive assumption about what their supposed moral standards are, plus the equating of a large number of things which can for a number of reasons be not remotely equal...
As an example, I would 'think less morally' of someone who makes 'bad comments' or has affairs etc, but unless those comments become legislation, I don't really care as much as I would about legislation.
Also many of those who WOULD equate them would have had trouble picking between Trump and Clinton as both were tainted based solely on that, so the decisions were made based on issues OTHER than that.
As an example... I'm socially quite liberal, but I put up with social conservatives because I don't think the government can really change how people feel or act, especially when those beliefs are increasingly popular... which is also why I support fiscal conservatism because I don't think the government can keep the wealthy from trying to avoid taxes.
(02-22-2018 04:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2018 11:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]However, to me there’s s difference between a person who when asked says they personally oppose gay marriage and someone who makes it a litmus test issue, which is what we were discussing. People to whom it’s so important to deny people they don’t know the right to marry that they are willing to overlook so many other violations of their supposed moral standards – mocking the disabled, attacking gold star families, bragging about sexual assault, affairs with porn stars and playmates, lewd sexist and misogynistic comments, weird sexual comments about his own daughter and random pre-pubescent girls, bragging about the size of his genitals in a presidential debate, and on and on. They are willing to swallow all that just to prevent a gay couple somewhere from having a legally sanctioned marriage. To me that seems more like hate.
To me it seems like a massive assumption about what their supposed moral standards are, plus the equating of a large number of things which can for a number of reasons be not remotely equal...
As an example, I would 'think less morally' of someone who makes 'bad comments' or has affairs etc, but unless those comments become legislation, I don't really care as much as I would about legislation.
Also many of those who WOULD equate them would have had trouble picking between Trump and Clinton as both were tainted based solely on that, so the decisions were made based on issues OTHER than that.
As an example... I'm socially quite liberal, but I put up with social conservatives because I don't think the government can really change how people feel or act, especially when those beliefs are increasingly popular... which is also why I support fiscal conservatism because I don't think the government can keep the wealthy from trying to avoid taxes.
I think the “bad comments” made about me by Clinton and other leading Democrats ( and a lot os smaller fish) just heightened my resolve to never, never, never, never vote for Hillary, no matter the opposition. didn’t mean I had to vote for Trump, nor did I, but for those trying to present him as a bad choice, he was not the choice - he was the alternative to a bad choice.
I actually like Trump better now that I did on Election Day, despite the barrage of negative crap, some self-inflicted, some made it by his enemies. I think the whole collusion myth is a witch hunt, and I think if we had had a Mueller investigating the Obama campaign and Administration in 2009, we would have had just as many indictments for lying to the FBI, etc. as now. But I am not going to get on my moral high horse about things he did years ago, or thing slanted in a bad light by an antagonistic media.
Not directed at me ... so of course I will respond!
(02-22-2018 12:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I have a question. Is the objective of the "Russia" probe to see that justice is done, or simply to find some way to "get" Donald Trump? Because IMHO it's looking a lot more like the latter than the former.
For me, the object of the Russia probe is to figure out what happened and prevent Russia (or any other country) from interfering in the same way again. I think Russia picked sides this past election, but it doesn't mean they will pick the same side in the future. Let them interfere with their own elections! Beyond that, I trust the professionals in the DOJ, 99.9% of whom (perhaps higher) are honest public servants who are not and would never pursue an agenda. Whatever Mueller's team decides, I can live with, even if the conclusion is that Trump did nothing wrong.
(02-22-2018 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I did not vote for Trump. But I don't give much of a damn about his sleeping with playboy models, etc. I bet you didn't care much for similar behavior from Democrats (Kennedy, Kennedy, Clinton, Weiner, Spitzer, Edwards, yada yada yada), but continued to vote your straight tickets. If not, your defections were probably not because of their lack of morals. Maybe because the were weak on guns or gay marriage. How you ever voted against a Democrat on the basis of morals? If so, who?
I voted against Bill Jefferson in the LA-2 election in both 2006 and 2008. Sad admission that I voted for Edwards in the 2008 Democratic primary, never would have done that if I had known he cheated on his wife.