Obama Drops Religious Rhetoric

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

A_Wanderer

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
12,518
Location
The Wild West
And I like it
I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is, although as I mentioned we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.
The Raw Story | Obama to Turkey: We are not a Christian or Jewish or Muslim nation

It is nice to hear somebody point out the US having a secular heritage.
 
Will be interpreted by the Fox bots as 'anti-Christian', but in reality, the years of kow-towing to right wing nuts was the aberration, and now we have the return to the values that the US constitution is actually based on.

I wouldn't even give Obama any particular credit for saying this, plenty of normal, non-crazy conservatives, from Richard Nixon to Ron Paul, have always said the exact same.

But, yeah, it's good to have a US President who does not hear voices in his head.
 
.
Turkey in Full

by ASLI AYDINTASBAS
New York Times (Op-Ed), April 6, 2009


As a Turkish journalist who for years covered the United States, I’ve spent the last few days repeatedly answering the inevitable question from my fellow Turks: “Does Washington see Turkey as a moderate Islamic republic?” That description may sound like a compliment to American ears. But in Turkey, it is an outright insult.

Since 2004, when the “moderate Islamic” formulation was innocently introduced by Colin Powell, the American secretary of State at the time, Turks have believed that Washington values Turkey’s religious identity over its secular democracy—that it would rather Turkey become a conservative American ally in the Muslim world than evolve into a European democracy. “Who describes Belgium or Britain as a moderate Christian country?” people ask here. In a nation where the religion-versus-state debate is the hottest topic, secularists have elevated the “moderate Islam” controversy to an all-encompassing theory. They claim that Washington supports—or, at least, that the George W. Bush administration supported—the Islamic-oriented government of the Justice and Development Party so that it might serve as a compliant model to the rest of the Muslim world. (Paradoxically, Islamic fundamentalists also hate the term “moderate Islam,” assuming that it implies a watered-down version of religion.)

Even if the “moderate Islam” conspiracy theorists were off base, it is true that ever since Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan came to power in 2003, Washington has viewed Turkey as a simplistic duality: pious masses led by the Justice and Development Party against the small secular elite and the military. As Americans banked on the government’s electoral majority, they lost touch with the rest of the population. No doubt President Obama was briefed, just as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was before she came here last month, to never speak of “moderate Islam.” And he hasn’t so far. In fact, he has done the opposite. The new American president—whose dark skin and Muslim middle name of Hussein have made him a folk hero here—went out of his way on Monday to acknowledge Turkey’s plurality in all its colors, and telling Europe that in welcoming Turkey it would gain “by diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith.” Mr. Obama’s visit to Ankara was a carefully calibrated series of messages and symbolic gestures that spoke to Turkey’s different segments. He met with the government leadership as well as opposition leaders from secular, nationalist and Kurdish parties. He pledged to support “Ataturk’s vision of Turkey as a modern and prosperous democracy," as he wrote in the guestbook at the mausoleum of the founder of secular Turkey.

In our eternal identity crisis, we Turks have lately been thinking only in opposites—that you are either secular or religious, Kurd or Turk, European or Middle Eastern. It took a young foreign leader on his first visit here to remind us that we are all of those things, and much more.

It wasn’t all roses, of course. In his speech to Parliament, President Obama urged Ankara to face up to the mass killings of Armenians in 1915, something most voters here object to. And Mr. Obama’s brief mention in Parliament that Turkey should undertake further democratic reforms seemed insufficient. Since 2007, Prime Minister Erdogan has become more authoritarian, lashing out at his critics, suing journalists and alienating liberal Turks who once supported him. Last Sunday, voters in municipal elections delivered a serious warning: the party’s overall support fell to 39%, from 47% two years ago. The elections revealed a divided map, four different Turkeys: the liberal coastline, the conservative inland, the ultra-nationalist middle and the Kurdish nationalist southeast. The Justice and Development Party will grow when it embraces all Turkey’s colors and shrink as it denies them.

It is wonderful that the president reminded Europeans that Turkey’s place is in Europe. But let’s hope he also reminds Turks that getting there requires more tolerance and reform. This trip will undoubtedly improve America’s popularity in the Muslim world—with Mr. Obama’s scheduled visit to the Blue Mosque here on Tuesday likely resonating far beyond Turkey’s borders. But so far, it has been all about us—our own democracy struggling between Europe and Islam.


--------------------------------------------------------------
Asli Aydintasbas is a former Ankara bureau chief of the newspaper Sabah.
 
I was just listening to Rush and he was reacting to this speech. Obama made a statement about how the US is not a Judeo Christian country and the religion of Islam has shaped the whole world even the U.S. and Rush DUMBfoundedly asked, "what do you mean Obama, how has this religion shaped this country?" At that point Rush answered his own question, "Well I guess they did give us 9/11. I guess they did help shape that hole in NY."

:|

Rush :down:
 
I was just listening to Rush and he was reacting to this speech. Obama made a statement about how the US is not a Judeo Christian country and the religion of Islam has shaped the whole world even the U.S. and Rush DUMBfoundedly asked, "what do you mean Obama, how has this religion shaped this country?" At that point Rush answered his own question, "Well I guess they did give us 9/11. I guess they did help shape that hole in NY."

:|

Rush :down:

and this guy is "the new face of the Republican Party" :yikes:

thats right, i forgot they hate us cause we're free. :rolleyes:
 
Rush DUMBfoundedly asked, "what do you mean Obama, how has this religion shaped this country?"

Well, really, all I'd need to do is drop one name:

Averroes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Averroës is a 12th century Andalusian Muslim scholar considered to be the "founding father" of Western secularism, along with being a noted influence on the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, who is probably the most important medieval Catholic scholar; and, since Aquinas predated the Reformation by several centuries, he'd be an important figure in Christianity, as a whole.

Ultimately, whether one wants to call the U.S. a "secular" nation or a "Judeo-Christian" nation, either way Averroës would still have had an indirect hand in shaping the nation, since he influenced both aspects.
 
but the fact is that The US is based on Judeo-christian principles, our constitution is based on biblical principals:

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - United States Supreme Court, 1892.


While making certain not to endorse any denomination of religion over another, the founders of this nation made it emphatically clear that the principles upon which this Nation was built are based squarely upon the Bible.

Virtually every one of the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of various Christian denominations: 29 were Anglicans, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 lapsed Quaker and sometimes Anglican, and 1 open deist--Dr. Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.

George Mason is called the father of the Bill of Rights, for he insisted that the first ten amendments be added to the Constitution. The purpose for such an addition? "The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth," Mason said.

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/heritage/heritage17.html

home: http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/heritage/
 
source?

also, other than the judicial tyranny of unelected, unaccountable judges in 1892, can you point out all the references to Jesus in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?
 
The discovery and founding of these United States of America was no accident.
As the articles, documents, and links listed here, America was founded
by people led by G-D, and influenced by HIS Holy Spirit. Read them to see AMERICA'S JUDEO CHRISTIAN HERITAGE. JUDEO CHRISTIAN HERITAGE


so we can agree that this website has a clear agenda and obvious bias?
 
i disagree, i do respect everyones opinions and belief about this matter, what i was doing is just to show facts about this matter thats all. i didn't not mean to go on and on about this
 
i disagree, i do respect everyones opinions and belief about this matter, what i was doing is just to show facts about this matter thats all. i didn't not mean to go on and on about this



please -- come here to post your opinions and debate about it. we've had this discussion before, and you'll find that several posters in here will agree with you. the more vigor and research you put into your posts, the more everyone will benefit. :)

my objection was not to your opinion but to how you posted a clearly opinionated paragraph and presented it as if it were fact.
 
i disagree, i do respect everyones opinions and belief about this matter, what i was doing is just to show facts about this matter thats all. i didn't not mean to go on and on about this

Yes, but let's be honest about the source. To say "what I was doing is just to show facts", is a little disingenuous.

Do you really expect that website to be based purely on facts and no agenda?

the founders of this nation made it emphatically clear that the principles upon which this Nation was built are based squarely upon the Bible.

How does the Constitution square up against the Bible? Where are our laws about lust, honoring mother and father, or coveting our neighbor's house?
 
Considering the context of Obama's "shaped by Islam" statement (i.e., immediately followed by "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country—I know, because I am one of them"), I think most likely his intent was to point out that Muslim-Americans have made significant contributions to our country, which is certainly true, rather than to argue for an influence of 'Islamic thought' as such on American political thought.

That said...
Averroes...has been described as the founding father of secular thought in Western Europe.
...I'm not really any fonder of statements to this effect than I am of implications that the US Constitution was somehow based on the 'Founding Fathers'' interpretation of the Bible. Averroes was a rationalist, yes, and strongly influenced by Aristotle; he argued, very controversially for his time, that the interpretation of religious law (sharia) should be reserved for those trained in the demonstrative methods of Aristotelian philosophy, rather than the dialectical and rhetorical methods of theologians, which he openly scorned. But ultimately this was an argument about who ought to have authority to intepret sharia as the law of the land, not whether sharia ought to be the law of the land; he considered 'revelation' and 'philosophy' complementary, reconcilable. While he did become a strong influence on the Christian High Scholastics, neither in his time nor theirs did anyone argue for actual secularism, political neutrality in regards to religion, as we'd now understand that. Really one might just as well argue that 'Plato was the father of secularism,' and you'd be just about as correct and incorrect in saying so.

None of which is to deny the enormous influence of the 'Islamic world' on the medieval 'Christian world'...in mathematics, medicine, agricultural technology, philosophy, many aspects of civil law and so on.
 
Last edited:
I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is, although as I mentioned we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values..

Well said.

So in the spirit of ideals and values, no wisecracks from me about the good Reverend Wright.
 
...I'm not really any fonder of statements to this effect than I am of implications that the US Constitution was somehow based on the 'Founding Fathers'' interpretation of the Bible. Averroes was a rationalist, yes, and strongly influenced by Aristotle; he argued, very controversially for his time, that the interpretation of religious law (sharia) should be reserved for those trained in the demonstrative methods of Aristotelian philosophy, rather than the dialectical and rhetorical methods of theologians, which he openly scorned. But ultimately this was an argument about who ought to have authority to intepret sharia as the law of the land, not whether sharia ought to be the law of the land; he considered 'revelation' and 'philosophy' complementary, reconcilable. While he did become a strong influence on the Christian High Scholastics, neither in his time nor theirs did anyone argue for actual secularism, political neutrality in regards to religion, as we'd now understand that. Really one might just as well argue that 'Plato was the father of secularism,' and you'd be just about as correct and incorrect in saying so.

I did anticipate this response, and, on the surface, I'd say that this interpretation is correct. Averroës, himself, wasn't the paragon of modern secularism. On the other hand, by "Founding Father," I meant that he laid the cornerstone upon which successive philosophers laid the foundation for secularism, due to the central tenet of Averroism being the separation of philosophy and religion and the influence that philosophy had on Western philosophy through at least the 16th century.

Very simplistically, without Averroës, we do not get Aquinas. And without Aquinas, we do not get John Locke, who was the greatest influence on the American Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution, and, coupled with Rousseau, has the greatest pre-modern influence on the American psyche.
 
Obama made a very similar speech months and months ago, before he was elected. I know this because my wingnut aunt sent me an e-mail forward (which quoted him completely out of context, naturally) condemning him for being "anti-Christian."

I sent a "reply to all" message reminding everyone that the First Amendment explicitly states that the U.S. does not have an official state religion.

My aunt actually stopped sending me political e-mail forwards for a while.
 
Very simplistically, without Averroës, we do not get Aquinas. And without Aquinas, we do not get John Locke, who was the greatest influence on the American Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution, and, coupled with Rousseau, has the greatest pre-modern influence on the American psyche.
True, they're all part of the same evolving intellectual conversation, and Averroes definitely has a place in it. It's just that, mostly on account of the number of truly boneheaded variants of the 'democracy/secularism/etc. is a Judeo-Christian idea' argument floating around out there--where immersion in that intellectual milieu is treated as if it were merely incidental to personal religious belief and observance, or resurgences of what are in fact longstanding debates and tensions within the tradition are hysterically made out to be its death knell--I tend to distrust arguments that smack of intellectual determinism; that when Notion X was first clearly articulated 1200 years ago, obviously it made that idea's contemporary relatives inevitable, and they've served us pretty well haven't they, so we'd better not break faith (literally) with Thinker X...except of course to the extent that that's already happened, which people making these types of arguments tend to be rather blind to. (Now how's that for a run-on sentence?) But I'd agree that our views of the proper relationship between church and state couldn't possibly look quite the same without Averroes.

Not that Rush Limbaugh likely had any of these concerns in mind... :lol:
 
Last edited:
Not that Rush Limbaugh likely had any of these concerns in mind... :lol:

That's because he's not all that bright, as none of us should be all that surprised about. :wink:

I also wouldn't overlook Averroës' influence on Western Christianity too much either. Aquinas thought he was so important as to not refer to him by name, instead calling him "The Commentator" alongside Aristotle, who he deemed "The Philosopher." In addition, as probably one the highest compliment Dante awarded "virtuous pagans," he was placed in Limbo in Dante's Inferno. Of course, he wasn't the only Islamic nor non-Christian philosopher (e.g., Avicenna & Maimonides) to have a significant impact in these days, but, as an example for the purposes of this thread, I think Averroës alone makes my original point valid, while making Rush, as always, a blithering buffoon.
 
More good signs
Amidst all of the American flags and presidential seals, there was something missing when President Barack Obama gave an economic speech at Georgetown University this week -- Jesus.

The White House asked Georgetown to cover a monogram symbolizing Jesus' name in Gaston Hall, which Obama used for his speech, according to CNSNews.com.

The gold "IHS" monogram inscribed on a pediment in the hall was covered over by a piece of black-painted plywood, and remained covered over the next day, CNSNews.com reported.

The Washington Times' Belief Blog asked the university about the presidential request:

Julie Bataille from the university's press office e-mailed me that the White House had asked that all university signage and symbols behind the stage in Gaston Hall be covered.

"The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they've done for other policy speeches," she wrote. "Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn't high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context."

While the "IHS" directly behind where Obama spoke was covered over, CNSNews.com said the monogram was still visible in 26 other places in the hall during his speech. Those areas just weren't as prominent.

The Belief Blog talked with the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Institute at Georgetown University, who said he didn't think "this is motivated by theology, but by communications strategy."

The blog also talked with Catholic University spokesman Victor Nakas, who felt a bit more strongly on the subject:

"I can’t imagine, as the bishops’ university and the national university of the Catholic Church, that we would ever cover up our religious art or signage for any reason," Mr. Nakas wrote. "Our Catholic faith is integral to our identity as an institution of higher education."
Jesus Missing From Obama's Georgetown Speech | NBC Washington
 
John Adams:

“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”


~John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress


"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

~October 11, 1798


"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."

~ December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson


"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell."

~[John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |
 
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Thomas Jefferson
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I think these are more important.
 
Obama :up:

Why are John Adams' personal beliefs important here? :scratch:

:wave:

The fundamental beliefs that founded this great country have been questioned, and minimized, by revisionist with an agenda.

"John Adams (October 30, 1735 – July 4, 1826) was an American politiciansecond President of the United States (1797–1801), after being the first Vice President (1789–1797) for two terms. He is regarded as one of the most influential Founding Fathers of the United States."

*Waits* for the village square protest: "his influence is subjective!:yell:"
 
Instead of extremely biased websites and a bunch of out of context quotes, why don't we talk about the Constitution itself.

HOW is the Constitution Christian Judeo? Why aren't all the 10 commandments incorporated?
 
John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli which included this piece
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
America has a tradition of being a secular state, that should be preserved.
 
Back
Top Bottom