Have you never read a thread before? =p

True, mankind has always been frustratingly dense.

I know you're not making arguments about his religion. But I'm not talking about you. I'm saying that people are fools if they think he's a Muslim. Honestly, I don't know what the guy is doing right now. If he has a copy of the Koran, cool. If he said a nice thing about Ramadan once, cool. But he's not a Muslim. He doesn't need to feed anything, other than himself (the dude loves hamburgers), because the bored media and boring general population will cook up their own stories (oooooo, a bad food metaphor, I'm done).

Trolls trollin' trolls.

I'll use this as my argument for the President's faith being Christianity as he has professed numerous times, though it doesn't matter. If he were Muslim and openly so it would make absolutely no difference in any way to whether or not the man is capable of leading our nation.

Yecti gets awesome points for linking John Green.

I was obviously stating that it should be apparent to any decent constitutional scholar that the "framers" embraced secularism. It has nothing to do w/ intelligence & I never stated that it did. It's quite obvious to anyone that can breathe that being religious doesn't disqualify one from being intelligent. Some of the greatest minds throughout history were religious.

Secularism, if by your meaning, in that government should not regulate religion.

You're free to define it as you like & I personally don't care so long as your definition is considered incorrect by those whose opinions have any bearing (e.g: the Supreme Court).

How has the Supreme Court defined Secularism?

Maybe I'm being impatient but I'm not sure why you would want a definition of secularism I propose to be considered wrong by the Supreme Court. It seems that a primary founding principle was to insure the independence of religion from government infringement.

And to insure the government against religious infringement.

i think Mentat is trying to say "Keep your religion out of my government/politics." rather than "Keep your government out of my religion."

although, i agree with both statements.

Well, my belief is, and I think examples of this sort of perversion are numerous, that the founders were more concerned with government perversion of religion and the subsequent use of that perversion. I need to more fully research that argument but the fact that the framers routinely used higher powers as a sort of justification for our founding principles has me looking in that general direction.

Good point, Wookie! Obama has so far preserved, protected, and defended the Constitution of the United States, just as he swore to do. Thus, it's probably reasonable to take him at his word on his religion as well.

Imagine that, MacFarlane.

Let suppose he is a Muslim, are the decisions and actions Obama has executed different from those that would have been made by a typical Christian/Catholic president? Personally I haven't see any evidence of this, but I don't take a very active interest in politics either. I would imagine any argument to this effect would be very difficult to prove conclusively.

So if the decisions/actions are the same, then we are just discussing the morality of lying or not being completely honest. Again there are plenty of examples of Presidents lying in recent years- from sex scandals to WMD's. Is this somehow worse?

Yecti, i would like to point out you have now ruined my life by posting that john green thing. i now have to watch hours of youtube clips of him and his brother, and also this other chick they linked to. also, i probably have to buy john green books now.

**** you.

Then again so did George W. Bush, so we know that doesn't mean anything.

I met him about 2 weeks ago.

I'll read the rest of the thread later, but in America what you're suggesting would prevent someone from taking the Office of President.

To get enough votes you HAVE to be overtly Christian.

Happily, the opposite seems to be true in Britland these days.

I'd be surprised if Obama was a Muslim, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he turns out to be an atheist.

Yes, he signed unconstitutional bills into law as well. Don't get me wrong, just because I criticize Obama's unconstitutional behavior that doesn't mean that I don't hold similar feelings towards most politicians.



Well, not according to recent history. You don't even have to be overtly patriotic to get elected anymore.

Threads like this make our muslim overlords kill kittens.

Examples?

Also, even if it is true, it's a good thing. Patriotism is ****ing stupid.

My primary example would be Barrack Obama was elected president. I thought that was clear. It doesn't even really seem questionable.

HE DIDN'T WEAR A FLAG PIN AND MIGHT BE MUSLIM **** THIS GUY

1. He is overtly Christian.
2. Define Patriot. (what you define it to be, not linked to dictionary.com)
3. Explain why you think he is not a Patriot.
4. Explain why this is important if not clearly implied by your answer to 3.

itt Wookie tries to find something bad about President Obama that is pertinent to the American populace

Result: failure

Regardless of your opinion of his religion I find this to be clearly untrue. I mean even the left is out there crying for him to go to church instead of playing golf on Sundays. If he was overtly Christian far fewer people would be confused about his religion.



I don't see the relevance. One can certainly be a patriot and not overtly patriotic. However, for the purposes of this discussion, I think the simplest definition of an American Patriot would be one whose actions are faithful to the founding principles of this country as well as serving to protect the nation and to the benefit of their fellow countrymen.



Again, I said he was elected despite not being overtly patriotic. He has certainly continued that tradition as president. But, since you're asking the question, I'll answer it. I don't believe any progressive can be a true patriot. I mean, you can't really hold deeply patriotic views of your country if your goal is to fundamentally transform it.



This could lead to an interesting philosophical discussion but I don't see the point, in this thread anyway. This has nothing to do with anybody's perception of "overt patriotism" or "overt Christianity".

[autotune]The President is a Muslim![/autotune]

Perhaps "overtly" is too strong a word now, but certainly not during the campaign trail. Then again, perhaps that is my view from a waaaaay more secular country. My point is that it is fairly obvious to most normal people that he is Christian. Because he has to be, if for no other reason.




"Faithful to the founding principles" of freedom of religion? Ding!
"Protect the nation" well, he's Commander in Chief of the largest single armed force on the planet, so I'd say he's doing that militarily. By protect against change you don't approve of... well, maybe not, but he doesn't care about you.



That's just flawed. You can love your country but realise it's not perfect. The logical conclusion of your statement is that a Patriot never wants to change things. He is perfectly happy with the way things are. Nothing could be better.

That's bull**** and you know it.

Your country, like mine, has flaws. We do well, we're all lucky to be born in the West, to be able to criticise our governments without fear of repression, to have nice things and have clothes on our back and food in our bellies but things can always be better.



[/quote]

If a poll about "what religion do you think X person is" has nothing to do with "overt Christianity (or religiousness of any sort)" then you're missing the point.

Obviously agnostic Christian.



...so that's exactly no one except maybe Ron Paul.

No, a patriot can very well champion change. Take slavery for example. The framers could not have won the slavery debate at the same time they were trying to form a republic. However, the ground work to end slavery was laid and that change was eventually won. Other laws which are constitutionally founded, such as the Civil Rights Act, although imperfect, are also examples of "patriotic change". Progressive change, on the other hand, requires minimizing the rights of some to deliver to others. I don't believe that is an example of patriotism. I also purposely kept my definition restricted to American Patriotism because that is the context in which we are discussing it. My definition would clearly not work in many countries and would need to be broadened a bit. Basically the section regarding founding principles would need to be removed. It is essential to include them with regards to America because the founding principles of our country were in opposition to government oppression and tyranny.



No, you missed the point. I was saying that whether or not he is overtly patriotic or Christian has nothing to do with the discussion you're interested in regarding why Barrack Obama is or is not a patriot.

I notice you missed quoting the bit about being faithful to the founding principals about RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

What you're saying is that you have your own rather specific definition of what an American Patriot should be, what things he should do based on your own ideas - for example that he can change some things you don't like about America and be an American Patriot, but he cannot change things you like and still remain an American patriot.

It sounds like an American Patriot is defined as someone who likes stuff you like. What about the other Americans? Do they have to have their own Patriots?

And while we're talking about what he can and can't change, where's the line? Can he change things you only slightly dislike? What constitutes an un-American-Patriotic change? Is there a sliding scale, or is it more black and white?

It's kinda like the question of "how far away from the WTC can you build an Islamic centre without it upsetting you?" isn't it? Apparently 2 blocks and round a corner is too close, but maybe 5 blocks is ok?

This is pretty much how Wookie uses language in general.

I did so, primarily, because I really don't like lengthy point, counter-point discussions. I also didn't see a point to a response. I agree that a founding principle is religious freedom from government infringement.



Although it would be nice to take credit for America's founding principles, I can't. They aren't my ideas. They are a set of ideas that I ascribe to. That doesn't mean that they still can't be discussed and debated, just as they were over 200 years ago. And so far as other Americans being patriots or not, I don't think just any American can be a patriot. If an American meets my previously stated definition then they are a patriot in my mind. It's an exclusive category and most of us (Americans) do not meet the criteria I laid out.



I gave previous examples of patriotic change. Slavery was evil and unpatriotic because it infringed upon the liberty of human beings. It is patently un-American to consider people property. Un-patriotic change would be FDR's New Deal because it infringed upon people's private property rights. I mean, really, under what authority in the Constitution can the federal government take property from one person, solely to give it to another?



I don't know what the answer is building it at ground zero despite extreme local and national outrage seems callous. And I do consider a building struck on 9/11 to be ground zero. Christ, they purchased the building at a discount due to the damage it sustained.

What is this thread even about?

The poll asks whether we think he's a Muslim or a Christian or something else. People tell you why they think he's a Christian, to which you say things like, maybe he's just a bad Christian or a bad Muslim because he does or doesn't do this or that, not forgetting to slip in that you think he's unpatriotic (or "overtly patriotic" as you put it, and then you suggested he's not patriotic enough to uphold his vow and that patriotism and trying to modify societal functions are mutually exclusive), and if I'm reading you right you're insinuating that Obama is deliberately confusing (aka misleading) people about his religious stance, by not going to church on Sundays and whatnot, perhaps in order to hide that he's either a Muslim terrorist sympathizer or a closet atheist lying about being religious, originally in order to get elected as President.

All the while you purportedly don't care about what his religion is. I think I'm far more confused by what you're trying to get across than by Obama's personal views on religion.

So it's ok for anyone who isn't the Government to infringe on religious freedom?

Better yet, if the Government isn't allowed to interfere with things based on people's religion, how can it interfere with the building of the Islamic Centre a few blocks away from the WTC?

And while we're at it must we still be calling it Ground Zero? How are you every going to get over it if nearly a decade later you're still giving it such a depressing name? But that's an aside.




What's the point of being a Patriot (something you believe to be a VERY GOOD THING) if it's purely based on a system of beliefs that by your own admission A MINORITY of Americans ascribe to? If it were so good, so simple, so unifying and right, MOST people would think like you?



I take it the New Deal was a kind of "take from the rich, give to the poor" sort of thing? Because helping those less fortunate than yourself is un-American?



So you agree, that there comes a point when it's far enough away not to offend people? How far then? Care to mark it on a map?

Man this ship is soaking with Godbotherers!

Jump out while you still can!