The following was Posted June 06, 2009 in World Net Daily (HERE ). I have seen it before, but thought it was worth re-reading."We're no longer a Christian nation." – President Barack Obama, June 2007
"America has been arrogant." – President Barack Obama
"After 9/11, America didn't always live up to her ideals." – President Barack Obama
"You might say that America is a Muslim nation."– President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009
Thinking about these and other statements made by the man who wears the title of president … I keep wondering what country he believes he's president of.
In one of my very favorite stories, Edward Everett Hale's "The Man without a Country," a young Army lieutenant named Philip Nolan stands condemned for treason during the Revolutionary War, having come under the influence of Aaron Burr. When the judge asks him if he wishes to say anything before sentence is passed, young Nolan defiantly exclaims, "Damn the United States! I wish I might never hear of the United States again!"
The stunned silence in the courtroom is palpable, pulsing. After a long pause, the judge soberly says to the angry lieutenant: "You have just pronounced your own sentence. You will never hear of the United States again. I sentence you to spend the rest of your life at sea, on one or another of this country's naval vessels – under strict orders that no one will ever speak to you again about the country you have just cursed."
And so it was. Philip Nolan was taken away and spent the next 40 years at sea, never hearing anything but an occasional slip of the tongue about America. The last few pages of the story, recounting Nolan's dying hours in his small stateroom – now turned into a shrine to the country he foreswore – never fail to bring me to tears. And I find my own love for this dream, this miracle called America, refreshed and renewed. I know how blessed and unique we are.
Is Shariah law coming to a court near you? Get "Stealth Jihad" – Robert Spencer's expose about efforts to quietly establish the Muslim system in Amerca
But reading and hearing the audacious, shocking statements of the man who was recently elected our president – a young black man living the impossible dream of millions of young Americans, past and present, black and white – I want to ask him, "Just what country do you think you're president of?"
You surely can't be referring to the United States of America, can you? America is emphatically a Christian nation, and has been from its inception! Seventy percent of her citizens identify themselves as Christian. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were framed, written and ratified by Christians. It's because this was, and is, a nation built on and guided by Judeo-Christian biblical principles that you, sir, have had the inestimable privilege of being elected her president.
You studied law at Harvard, didn't you, sir? You taught constitutional law in Chicago? Did you not ever read the statement of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark "Federalist Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.": "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers – and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation – to select and prefer Christians for their rulers"?
In your studies, you surely must have read the decision of the Supreme Court in 1892: "Our lives 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."
Did your professors have you skip over all the high-court decisions right up till the mid 1900s that echoed and reinforced these views and intentions? Did you pick up the history of American jurisprudence only in 1947, when for the first time a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a "wall of separation between church and state" was used to deny some specific religious
expression – contrary to Jefferson's intent with that statement?
Or, wait a minute … were your ideas about America's Christianity formed during the 20 years you were a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ under your pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Is that where you got the idea that "America is no longer a Christian nation"? Is this where you, even as you came to call yourself a Christian, formed the belief that "America has been arrogant"?
Even if that's the understandable explanation of your damning of your country and accusing the whole nation (not just a few military officials trying their best to keep more Americans from being murdered by jihadists) of "not always living up to her ideals," how did you come up with the ridiculous, alarming notion that we might be "considered a Muslim nation"?
Is it because there are some 2 million or more Muslims living here, trying to be good Americans? Out of a current population of over 300 million, 70 percent of whom are Christians? Does that make us, by any rational definition, a "Muslim nation"?*
Why are we not, then, a "Chinese nation"? A "Korean nation"? Even a "Vietnamese nation"? There are even more of these distinct groups in America than Muslims. And if the distinction you're trying to make is a religious one, why is America not "a Jewish nation"? There's actually a case to be made for the latter, because our Constitution – and the success of our Revolution and founding – owe a deep debt to our Jewish brothers.
Have you stopped to think what an actual Muslim America would be like? Have you ever really spent much time in Iran? Even in Egypt? You, having been instructed in Islam as a kid at a Muslim school in Indonesia and saying you still love the call to evening prayers, can surely picture our nation founded on the Quran, not the Judeo-Christian Bible, and living under Shariah law. Can't you? You do recall Muhammad's directives [Surah 9:5,73] to "break the cross" and "kill the infidel"?
It seems increasingly and painfully obvious that you are more influenced by your upbringing and questionable education than most suspected. If you consider yourself the president of a people who are "no longer Christian," who have "failed to live up to our ideals," who "have been arrogant," and might even be "considered Muslim" – you are president of a country most Americans don't recognize.
Could it be you are a president without a country?
*Stealth Jihad" – Robert Spencer
37 comments:
Thnk-you for re-posting this. Too many people have no idea what BO is all about and how much he hates our country!
It's odd, this posting of very short quotes and then completely making up the meaning of it. There's no context to any of those quotes.
As one example; "You might say that America is a Muslim nation."
What Obama actually said was; "And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."
There's a lot of context for that statement, where he explains what that means and how he frames his view of the broader Muslim world.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/obama-signals-themes-of-mideast-speech/
Still, in this one particular example, the quote is completely made up. It's wording is twisted to make it seem like Obama said something nefarious. That's a completely dishonest and dispicable thing to do. Then it gets picked up and repeated on blogs, and the bloggers who don't even bother to check to see if it's accurate.
Then you have somebody say that "Obama hates our country". I suspect a lot of "conservatives" actually believe that.
I understand criticism of policy and such. What I find beyond bizare is this idea that somehow, the president actually "hates" his home country.
At the very least.. at least check to see if what somebody claims Obama said is actually what he said. I suppose that doesn't make the propaganda as effective.
"You might say that America is a Muslim nation."– President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009"
Except, Joe, President Obama never uttered those words. I challenge you to find them anywhere in his speeches. You won't because he never said them. I checked on this with Snopes.
Boone claims Obama said "you might say that America is a Muslim nation" when he was in Egypt. But he NEVER said that!
What Obama actually said was: "The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, 'The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.' And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch." You can read it yourself here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/
See? That's whole different bucket of oats. And by the way, he also didn't say, "We're no longer a Christian nation." His quote was distorted and taken out of context.
In 2006, not 2007, Barack Obama did utter those exact words in a keynote address for the "Call to Renewal" conference sponsored by Christian Sojourners magazine in Washington, D.C.
In context their meaning is considerably different, however:
"Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation — at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."
The awkward phrase, "at least, not just," was a result of Obama misspeaking. As written, the passage was supposed to begin: "Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation."
Obama also NEVER said "America has been arrogant." That's just a fact.
I think Boone is referring to a speech the President gave in France. Obama really said "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive. But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad." You can read it here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-at-Strasbourg-Town-Hall/
In 2006, after the Dixie Chicks criticized President Bush, Pat Boone, himself an entertainer, said: "If I were the president of Iran, if I were Osama bin Laden or any of the terrorist organizers and I could have my wish list totally... I couldn't ask for anything better than for America's entertainers to bash their president, denigrate him, make him seem like an idiot and a self-serving fool, and then have the media go along with it and promote it like crazy and try to undermine the whole war effort."
He also said: ""I think it's outrageous for any of these performers to be bashing our president the way they are." Read it yourself: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50330
There is a lot of crazy stuff on the internet these days, but it's important to make sure it's true.
Promoting these half quotes that have been taken out of context and even making stuff up is just plain dishonest.
I forgot to include in my post that I checked on the exact quotes and got the information that refutes what Boone claimed from Snopes and Media Matters.
SK & Tom: Paraphrase is a legitimate method of conveying a writer's or a speaker's points, when using a whole quote is cumbersome. That is universally accepted in composition.
I would agree that it can be a dangerous course if context is not considered.
With that in mind I present the original quotes from which Pat Boone's paraphrases were taken.
Speaking to a Turkish press conference April 6, 2009, as part of a tour to boost U.S. relations with Muslim countries, President Obama sparked controversy by dismissing the notion that America considers itself Christian in nature - unlike 62% of Americans in a recent Newsweek survey.
"Although ... we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation," said Obama. "We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
I'm not sure who "we" is, I certainly consider America a Christian nation with roots directly planted in the Judeo/Christian belief systems.
June 2007: "Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers,"
The use of the words, "At least not just" seem to imply that the fact that those other than Christians live here somehow negates our origins and our heritage.
April 3, 2009, Strasbourg, France: "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."
Someone who shows arrogance is...is...is...you guessed it: ARROGANT! Its a different form of the same word.
In Cairo: "And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals."
He was prepareing to tell us about his wonderful plan to outlaw "torture," (speaking specifically of waterboarding) assuming that all Americans consider waterboarding to be torture. Since we practiced waterboarding we had left our ideals.
I am an American and do NOT consider waterboarding to be torture.
I will concede that there is not direct quote that can be shown to mean that "America is a Muslim nation," but there are plenty of references by Obama emphasizing Muslimism and contrasting it to a diminuating of Christianity that it is reasonable to conclude (although not definitive) that BO considers Muslimism to be a significant part of our nation's history and make-up, although Muslims actually make up much less than 3% of the population.
So, while Mr. Boone's words may not have been EXACT quotes, they captured the essence of what many believe to be a proper interprettion of President BO's own words.
The concepts presented in his essay stand on their own merit.
"I'm not sure who "we" is, I certainly consider America a Christian nation with roots directly planted in the Judeo/Christian belief systems."
But, Joe, our law are not founded on the Christian religion. We are a nation of LAWS, not men. This is the important distinction. Our Constitution, on which this country's laws is founded, does not in any way, shape, or form conform to any Christian doctrine or tenets.
Obama is correct, that we are not just a nation of Christians, we are also a nation of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Atheists, and all groups whose beliefs we respect.
JOE wrote: "The use of the words, "At least not just" seem to imply that the fact that those other than Christians live here somehow negates our origins and our heritage."
The key words: "seem to imply" mean that YOU believe that they "seem to imply" and not what Mr. Obama's intent is. Because you THINK he's implying something doesn't make it true. You and other conservatives don't like this president, so you'll find nefarious implications in anything he says, even whe he doesn't say it. Doesn't make it so. And it is dishonest.
JOE wrote: "I am an American and do NOT consider waterboarding to be torture."
Well you're wrong. Simple. Plenty of Americans thought it was okay to murder a black man if he looked at a white woman or whistled at her. Didn't make it legal.
We hanged Japanese prisoners of war for waterboarding. And the International Red Cross as well as the Geneva Conventions and Generals Petraeus and Powell and the Military Code of Justice all say waterboarding is torture. Just because you say you believe it's not torture, doesn't stop it from being a crime.
JOE wrote: "So, while Mr. Boone's words may not have been EXACT quotes, they captured the essence of what many believe to be a proper interprettion of President BO's own words."
I could "capture the essence" of what you wrote--saying you approve of torture--as a proper interpretation of your beliefs. You sanction torture.
Would you like that "essence" to represent your beliefs? I don't think so.
What Boone did was patently dishonest, but because you hate the president, you have no problem with his dishonesty.
I guess that gives people the right to "interpret" the "essence" of anything you say, no matter how it injures your reputation.
I sure wouldn't allow people to "interpret" or work with the "essence" of my words. I would hope people would use my EXACT words to represent what I say.
SK: I hate the president's POLICIES. I don't even know him. I don't know you, either, therefore I don't hate you.
I disagree with you, that's all.
I also think you play games with what people say as well as the best of them.
I was educated before the government "took over" public schools.
Whenever we read a novel or an essay we were asked, "What did YOU think the author meant."
We answered that question by telling the teacher what we thought he/she meant.
You can neither ALLOW nor DISALLOW people to interpret your work.
Fact is, we ALWAYS, in fact we MUST interpret what we read or hear. We do that in light of our personal experiences, beliefs and viewpoints.
You do, too. If you think you don't, you are kidding yourself.
Mr. Obama's words mean exactly what they say.
There is no "interpreting" this:
"Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers,"
That is clear and that is true. We are a nation of all religions. And no religion. We respect everyone's beliefs and even no beliefs.
What is open to "interpretation" on that very clear statement?
If the United States declared itself as a "Christian" nation, then Christians would have dominion and privileges over every other religion. Christians do not.
That would be unAmerican.
There are, to be sure, more self-identified Christians than any other religion, but that doesn't mean our laws have a preference for Christian belief.
This may be where the misunderstanding is.
Christianity is the dominant religion of the US, but it is not the ONLY religion, and America doesn't give even the dominant religon a preference in our laws or our public traditions.
Why do Christians feel so insecure?
SK: You were doing very well in the discussion department until that last little barb: Why do Christians feel so insecure?
We don't. We are very secure in the knowledge that the precepts upon which this country was formed were Judeo/Christian.
Not one person I have ever met has been so stupid as to believe that everybody who has ever lived in America is or has been a Christian. We might be hard nosed, but we are not as stupid as some would like to believe.
U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said:
"[W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it."
As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained in the majority opinion of Holy Trinity Church vs U.S.:
"[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world."
And after a long disourse about Christianity in America: "These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."
I have in my posession hundreds of statements by the founders that express similar perspectives on our founding.
The laws on which this country depends are taken from the Judeo/Christian world view.
It has become fashionable among those whose agenda is to restrict or eliminate religious thought, specifically from the public square, to rewrite the history of the United States to pretend that the laws are merely secular in nature.
That is not the case, demonstrable through the writings of the men who pledged and gave their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.
Brewers majority opinion date should have been Feb. 29, 1892.
Joe, Great post...Each to his own. Me thinks that if some people had their way we would not have any reminders of our past heritage. I had a great retort to the comments made on this post, starting with the buildings of Washington DC,but to what avail???? Stay well.....
Tapline: See, the people who built those buildings: the capitol building; the Supreme Court building; the Washington monument; the Library of Congress; the Lincoln Memorial; the Jefferson Memorial...all of which have Bible quotes and passages permanently ENGRAVED in them, did not know any better. They, all born closer to the actual formation of the country than modern liberals, thought we WERE a Christian country.
Too bad Tom and SK were'nt there to set them straight. They know so much more about our country than our founders ever could have.
Joe - I think you play games too.
Sue: You do?
Joe - 'I think you play games, too'
That was me, with the lower case 's'
sue: I knew it was you and not Sue, who wouldn't have used a small "s" but would have used a large "S." But being somewhat lysdexic and having particularly slippery keys on my keyboard I accidently used the large "S" instead of the small "s."
Ooops.
What is the difference between these statements by Justice Brewer:
"Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions."
and what President Obama said:
"Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation — at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."
What Mr. Obama said "We're not JUST a Christian nation because other religions exist and flourish here. The predominant religion is Christian--so there are more Christians than any other religion but it isn't the only religion.
I don't see any difference. Obama is saying what Brewer said.
And of course everyone knows this quote by John Adams concerning the Treaty of Tripoli:
"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 Musselmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."
And this by Jefferson:
Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
Jefferson didn't just reject the Christian belief that the Bible was "the inspired word of God"; he rejected the Christian system too. In Notes on the State of Virginia, he said of this religion, "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites" (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, "Politics and Religious Illiteracy," Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33).
So to end this discussion: There are more Christians than nonChristians in the US, so in that sense it is a predominantly Christian country. But America was not founded on the Christian religion.
SK: Not once have you ever read from me that America was founded on the Christian religion. We were founded on the principles of the Judeo/Christian ethic.
Jefferson was but one of our founders, and by no means the one who sets the standard for everything we are or have been.
In fact, he seems to be the left's selectively used standard, since there are certain elements of his philosophy that they are quite willing to leave out of the record.
Jefferson, indeed, rejected the mysticism of Christianity. But he made it VERY clear that he respected the attitudes and teachings of Jesus, while disavowing those acts attributed to Him that we call miracles.
He wrote: "The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses."
What has happened here is that you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you believe what you do based on your proofs as I have proven what I believe based on mine.
Yours are irrefutable in your mind, as mine are in my own mind.
I think you are the reason for the split in our country, and you think I am.
So how do we solve this?
I suggest a compromise: you come over to my way of thinking, and then we'll have perfect unity.
Some good points made. One that I might just have to take is Joe's claim that "Paraphrase is a legitimate method of conveying a writer's or a speaker's points, when using a whole quote is cumbersome. That is universally accepted in composition."
It is patently obvious, as some have pointed out, that the quotes that Joe has used in the original post are not even in the same universe of what Obama actually said. They are condenced and re-worded in order to skew their meaning. That's patently obvious.
So this gives me a really good idea. What I can do is take things Joe has said, re-word them.. and turn them into some really amusing meanings.. because "paraphrasing is fair".
Joe, of course, is free to complain that I'm completely mis-representing his meaning, but that's a hollow complaint because I'm simply "conveying" Joe's real meaning... according to me. It's also fair that I do not point out that I'm paraphrasing Joe. I'll just say I'm directly quoting him, without allowing any readers to know that I'm not.
And if I turn the snark off.. I'd say that it's really absurd to claim that one sentence that Obama uttered is too "cumbersome" and therefore a legitimate target to paraphrase. Is it really too difficult to directly quote one sentence in the English language, rather than paraphrase it?
It's just beyond ridiculous... and it's also dishonest when you look at the original post of Joe's and see that he's not even pointing out that the quotes are paraphrased. He's posting them as if they are direct quotes, and that's a total lie.
As I said.. it's more effective propaganda when you lie in that manner. It get's people to say "See! Obama hates America".
Sad.
Tom, Tom, Tom! I didn't write the post, I STOLE IT! It is pure, unadulterated, unapologetic cut-and-paste!
I didn't quote anybody in my post.
I will concede, without malace, that Boone's quotes are not accurate, in that they are collective representations of President BO's positions. Perhaps they should not have been put in quotes.
I will not concede that they do not represent the total context of what President BO has said over and over and over again.
Therefore, the point of the post remains the same: President BO has demonstrated, said and written that this is not a Christian nation when it is, that we have acted arrogantly on the world stage, when we have actually helped more countries than any other nation that has ever existed, that we need to live in harmony with a particular brand of evil barbarians who will continue to seek to destroy us no matter what we do or don't do.
President BO is amateurish, sophomoric, unskilled at anything at all...not even speaking in public without his TP (which I know others have used...but most were able to speak off the cuff, he is not...GB maybe not so much).
He continues to select people to work along side of him who have sordid pasts, socialist tendencies (some communist tendencies), and who "forgot" to pay their taxes, etc.
President BO has clearly stated that he, a "constitutional lawyer," thinks the Constitution is a flawed document telling the government what it cannot do instead of what it can do. Then he swore an oath to defend it. (I wonder which it will really be).
He continues to make decisions that violate the Constitution, but that have not yet been challenged before it.
He operates by "decree" to a greater extent than any president in our history. That's more in line with what despotic dictators do than the leader of a Constitutional Republic.
I think it is safe to ask the question whether or not he has contempt for the heritage of this country. I think it is safe to ask the question, "Could it be you are a president without a country?"
The original purpose of my comments was to point out that what Boone quoted in his essay were half quotes--the half of the quotes he used to make Pres. Obama look like he hates America, and this one that has quotes around it...:
"You might say that America is a Muslim nation."– President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009
...is completely made up, since Snopes has researched it, and that quote could not be found in any of Obama's speeches.
Therefore, my argument is that Boone deliberately tried to mislead his readers and imply that Mr. Obama disrespects his country, and Boone does this by using half quotes [where the entire quote would clarify or change the meaning] and where Boone apparently made a quote up entirely.
Whether or not our laws are based on Judeo-Christian tradition is not part of the discussion, nor is the fact that the predominant religion of the country is Christianity part of it either.
Boone, IMO, was being dishonest when he wrote his essay, and counted on people taking his word as the truth.
Here's an example of that sort of deception:
"Some government programs seemed so worthwhile that borrowing to fund them didn't bother us."--Ronald Reagan
Now, one way out would be to raise taxes so that government need not borrow or print money."--Ronald Reagan
"Some say shift the tax burden to business and industry."--Ronald Reagan
Those quotes from RWR are taken out of context but could be used to show that RWR favors taxing and spending. But those quotes are only partial quotes. I did what Boone did.
As an example of how insidious Boone's action is, just read "Krystal's" comment:
Krystal said...
Thnk-you for re-posting this. Too many people have no idea what BO is all about and how much he hates our country!
She thanks you for posting this deception and actually believes, as a result of reading Boone's dishonest quotes, that the President of the United States "hates our country." Absurd.
So Boone has accomplished what he set out to do: Present half truths, innuendo, and at least one made-up quote in order to prove his mistaken and prejudiced belief that the President of the United States hates the United States.
Krystal believes it. I wonder how many other people who did not research Boone's essay will be convinced by his misrepresentations and dishonesty.
SK and Tom: Go back a look at some of the comments you have left on some of my other posts. Both of you have engaged in what you now decry: trying to make my words mean what they do not mean by re-writing them or assigning meaning to them that was not intrinsic to them.
I'm not defending Boone...in fact I have condeded that he should have left off the quotes.
The actual point of his post is quite valid.
I have read Krystal's blog and do not consider her to have missed the point of Boone's statemnets which I iterated in my comment above.
You two are feigning outrage, and it is not necessary to do so.
Relax.
Your fear of what I post is unfounded.
Your need to be my post-police and correct everything you perceive as error is unnecessary.
There couldn't possibly be error in what I post, or else I wouldn't post it, right?
You, too.
Instead of reacting to the post with your emotions, try reacting with understanding.
President BO HAS said that we are not just a Christian nation.
President BO HAS said that the ideals we thought were ours should not have been and has re-written what our ideas are.
President BO HAS implied that our identity as a nation could as well be Muslim as anything else.
President BO HAS said that we have behaved arrogantly.
President BO HAS apologized to nations around the world for America's "behavior," even though we have helped more nations than any other country in history.
(What country gave more money and supplies to Haiti than America? What has given more aid after natural disasters around the world than America? We should apologize for that?)
President BO HAS criticized the very Constitution he took an oath to defend.
It has been my practice to watch every speech of President BO's that I could find, both when televised live and when available on the Internet. I also read the transcript whenever I can find it.
I have heard his tone, watched his arrogant body language and heard his words.
I think it is very appropriate to wonder what country he thinks he is president of.
As to your right to paraphrase my words: have at it.
But remember, I qualified my permission for people to paraphrase me by admonishing them not to use the paraphrase to reflect what was not meant by the actual quote.
Here's the thing. If you talk about me (and I'm not at all sure why you would) as a raging conservative, however you said it you would be correct.
If you talk about me as being hateful, you would be dead wrong.
If you talk about me as disagreeing with you on points political, you would be right.
If you talk about me as being politically hypocritical you would be wrong.
But right or wrong, don't make the mistake of overestimating my influence.
Don't be afraid.
I'm a harmless, loveable little fuzzball.
You believe that, don't you?
Joe said: " Both of you have engaged in what you now decry: trying to make my words mean what they do not mean by re-writing them or assigning meaning to them that was not intrinsic to them."
So, I just want to be clear, posting a paraphrase of what somebody said, stripped of context, with no links to the original quote, then completely making up the meaning of said mis-quote is something I engage in.
Actually.. no. When I post something somebody says on my blog, I cut and paste the actual quote after verifying it is accurate. I link back to the original source. I then argue the merit of said quote. You might think my method and yours are exactly the same, but they are not. Nice try though.
I found your blog from a comment you left at Doug Gibbs. Doug is the poster child for the typical "conservative" technique. What he does is delete off all comments on his posts, and then he'll create a whole new post on what one of those deleted comments said. Rather than quote the comment, he makes up a new version of what the person said so that he can argue against that, rather than what they actually said. He thinks he wins arguments that way.
It is the only reason I post comments on his blog, because it's really hillarious to be referred to as the "anonymous liberal" over and over.
Anyway.. the bottom line is that even bloggers should be accurate in their quoting and attributions. If they actually have an argument, it should be easy to make their point even when arguing against factual information.
I see the Boone' mis-quotes (actually they are heinous lies) are still in your original post, without correction.
Tom: I didn't post Boone's essay to change his quotes. I posted it because it is what he wrote and because his over-all point (that President BO does not like the America of history) is true.
If you want his quotes changed, I suggest that you copy and paste the article to your blog, make the changes you want to make and make yourself feel good.
You are usually one of the better "discussers," and that's why I have entered into this discourse with you.
But to focus so much on the alleged "misquotes" and to miss the point of the article is somewhat out of character for you.
Is it your opinion that President BO accepts that we are a Christian nation in the historic sense?
Is it your opinion that President BO has not implied or said that America is arrogant?
Is it your opinion that President BO thinks we have always lived up to our ideals? What about the waterboarding issue (which is what he was leading up to)?
Is it your opinion that President BO thinks we might be able, in a sense, to consider ourselves a Muslim nation?
Present your arguments...I'm listening.
SK: You quote BO as saying, "We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers..."
But we are NOT a Jewish nation. Your own argument precludes that.
Nor are we a Muslim nation. Your own argument precludes that.
We are not a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation and a nation of nonbelievers. Your own argument precludes that.
Besides, I thought you were mad at Pat Boone because he said BO said we were a Muslim nation, you said he didn't say that, yet you present a quote in which he said that very thing.
"Then you have somebody say that "Obama hates our country". I suspect a lot of "conservatives" actually believe that.
"I understand criticism of policy and such. What I find beyond bizare is this idea that somehow, the president actually "hates" his home country." (Tom)
There is a certain amount of ODS....about a quarter to a third (in my estimation) as much as the BDS we experienced over the previous six years.
Personally, I've applauded Obama for continuing the NSA Surveillance Program and going to court to protect its secrecy.
I've applauded the fact that in a single year he's endorsed double the drone attacks the previous administration conducted in 6 years!
I applaud the ratcheted UP use of rendition and the fact that Obama has increased deportations of those here illegally (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030404037.html).
I have opposed his administration's inane attempt to try the architects of 9/11 in a civilian Federal Court, blocks away from Ground Zero. I have opposed this administration's wrongful prosecution of the three Navy Seals for bloodying the lip of the terrorist who slaughtered American contractors in Fallujah, Iraq.
I opposed Bush's Keynesian overspending and I oppose the hyper-Keynesianism being engaged in now by dolts who insipidly blamed a Keynesian implosion in 2008 on "Capitalism" and "de-regulation."
Barack Obama, like GW Bush seems like a very collegial fellow. Unlike G W Bush, Barack Obama has a seemingly endless parade of friends, from Van Jones, to Bill Ayers to his chosen Pastor (the pastor who married him and baptized his children), Jeremiah Wright, who really DO, without question hate America.
JMK: I would probably disagree somewhat with your ODS/BDS ratio, but I certainly agree with the drones. As for the Keynesian economics, we're joined at the hip on that one (which might be uncomfortable for one or more of us).
One last time, Joe.
We have more self-identified Christians in American than any other religious sect. But we also have Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, nonbelievers, etc. That does not make this "A Christian Country." It makes us a country with a lot of Christians in it.
We also have more (barely) white people in America, but also black, brown, yellow and red.
Do you refer to America as "A White Country?" We are a country with [for now] a predominantly white population, but we also have millions and millions of US citizens of other races.
Mr. Obama was correct and injured no one [he is a Christian himself] when he said America is not JUST a Christian country.
SK: From your own comment, "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation — at least, not just."
In your mind this is the same as saying, "...we are no longer just a Christian nation?"
Did he, or did he not say exactly what you quoted, "...we are no longer a Chrsitian nation...?"
I mean, that's what he said, right?
It's not entirely clear what he said.
I thought he said, "...we are no longer a Christian nation...," but you seem to think he said, "...we are no longer a Christian nation..."
When I prepare roast beef, I season it with salt, pepper, chile powder, oregano and maybe a little thyme.
When someone asks me what I had for dinner, I say, "I had salt, pepper, chile powder, oregano and a little thyme."
"You had what?" they'd respond.
"Well," say I, "It was more roast beef than those seasonings, but I can no longer call it just roast beef. I have to include all the other seasonings (very good things, by the way), too. In fact, since it is no longer JUST roast beef, I can no longer think of it as roast beef."
We are a Christian nation...that is we are a nation that was founded on and continute to rely on the Judeo/Christian ehtic.
Do we have other religions and cultures represented in our population? You betcha...and proudly so.
But we are not a nation of Jews and a nation of Muslims and a nation of Hispanics and a nation of Italians and a nation of atheists and a nation of Hindi.
We have some of all of those things and more, but we are a Christian nation.
You may argue 'till you are blue in the face, but your arguments will be false and ineffective. They will be wrong.
You are wrong and President BO is wrong.
We still are a Christian nation, not because Christians out number the others, but because we are subscribers to the Judeo/Christian ethic.
Joe; "Is it your opinion that President BO thinks we might be able, in a sense, to consider ourselves a Muslim nation?"
As has been pointed out several times, reading Obama's actual quotes, rather than Boone's lying about it, it is clear he is pointing out the nation has citizens who identify with many different religions, and no religion as well. That's all there is too it.
Once it was pointed out that Boone's quotes were, in fact, mis-quotes designed to skew Obama's meaning, you claim that regardless of the mis-quotes, the characterization of Obama's view is correct in your opinion. That's fine. You can make any claim that you like about Obama, but you're not substantiating it at all.
Your views about Obama seem to be based on similar such flimsy "evidence".
That said, you are continuing to allow Boone's lying to stand on your blog. That says a lot. Sure, I'm free to point out that what Boone did on my blog, and I have done it. But, this is your blog, and to leave those lies there, and you know they are lies uncorrected, is indicative of you. That's all. I'm not demanding anything, just saying that some people intentinoally post falsehoods, and some people refuse to correct errors when they are discovered. Those people should be understood to be.. shall we say.. ethically challenged.
By the way.. this "Judeo/Christan ethic" is not something that is unique to Jews or Christians. It's a meaningless term.
Tom: Usually you seem quite rational, but when you say, "By the way.. this "Judeo/Christan ethic" is not something that is unique to Jews or Christians. It's a meaningless term." you are not being either rational or truthful.
Judeo–Christian (sometimes written as Judaeo–Christian) refers to a set of beliefs and ethics held in common by Judaism and Christianity.
Robert L. Heim; ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLL FORT LEAVENWORTH KS in his Masters thesis on the relevance of the Judeo/Christian ehtic in the Army wrote: "...the author considered the lives of five outstanding biblical leaders from within Judeo-Christian history. Joshua, David, Daniel, Nehemiah, and Jesus of Nazareth to determine if the qualities of decision making they manifested in their lives endorsed the general qualities of decision making as framed by the professional Army ethic. The analysis revealed that the four values of the professional Army ethic are easily contained in the Judeo-Christian values system."
You might also be man enough to consider:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0304/prager_2004_03_30_04.php3
Did or did not President BO say, "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation...?"
"...you are continuing to allow Boone's lying to stand on your blog. That says a lot."
Nothing I could say or do would change your opinion of me, largely because you had it formed before you ever visited here. That's called, "prejudice," and you're full of it.
Frankly, I don't really care what you think of me, for I am not the issue in this post.
Either you are not intelligent enough to have grasped the point of the post or you deliberately want to read it selectively to further your own agenda.
Now do your little pout party, or level your accusations, or pontificate away or whatever else you think it is you are doing, if it makes you feel better.
Now quit being a gleeking, knotty-pated gudgeon, and state your case and be done with it.
“We are a Christian nation...that is we are a nation that was founded on and continute to rely on the Judeo/Christian ethic..” (Joe)
That is absolutely 100% true.
THAT is the ONLY context in which the phrase “Christian nation” has any real meaning.
It has nothing to do with the number of Christians in the population, nor that of any other religions, nor with the establishment of any “state religion.”
<
<
<
“As has been pointed out several times, reading Obama's actual quotes, rather than Boone's lying about it, it is clear he is pointing out the nation has citizens who identify with many different religions, and no religion as well. That's all there is too it...” (Tom)
No, the phrase “Christian nation” is ALWAYS used in the context of this nation’s roots and common morality being forged from the Judeo-Christian ethic.
That is undeniably historically accurate, as this nation was forged on that belief system and that common morality, as made clear in the Declaration of Independence; "All men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
<
<
<
“By the way.. this "Judeo/Christan ethic" is not something that is unique to Jews or Christians. It's a meaningless term.” (Tom)
The concept of Judeo–Christian values promotes the very accurate concept that there is a shared intersection of values based on the Hebrew Bible (“Old Testament”), brought into our culture by the founding generations of Biblically-oriented Protestants, that is fundamental to American history, cultural identity, and institutions. It does not rest on a claim that the two religions are either identical or interchangeable.
That analysis points to the historic importance of the Judeo-Christian ethic in the development of western civilization
The Common Law itself is both based on and influenced by the Judeo-Christian ethic.
The emphasis on liability based on fault is the underlying ethical foundation. There is something called civic morality, a shared body of values based on the Judeo-Christian and ancient republican traditions, that is the underpinning of western society. The history of Western Civilization was intimately bound up with individual responsibility - an individual had an obligation to be a consciously good person.
That "other traditions share this morality," is demonstrably untrue, as by comparison, the morality of the Islamic tradition is completely and utterly incompatible with Western Judeo-Christian values.
And NOT merely the brutality with regard to some of the more draconian punishments (ie. stonings) meted out by Sharia Law to adulterers and homosexuals, as well as thieves, rapists and murderers, but, for instance, with regard to Sharia’s insistence that “a contact be considered void unless there is actual proof that both sides have reached an accord based on a mutual and full understanding of the terms of that contract,” should that contract subsequently be challenged.
That flies in the face of the Judeo-Christian rooted Common law that stipulates that “each side be responsible for fully understanding said contract afore affixing their signatory to it.” Yes, the personal responsibility implicit in the precept, “Let the buyer beware,” is a vital component of the Common Law, which is itself rooted in Judeo-Christian morality.
So, it IS a very meaningful term. It was to both T Jefferson and B Franklin (two non-denominational Deists) and is to me, a non-religious, "lapsed Catholic," who rejected Catholicism at age 11 and who today is also probably best defined as a "non-denominational Deist."
“We also have more (barely) white people in America, but also black, brown, yellow and red.
“Do you refer to America as "A White Country?" We are a country with [for now] a predominantly white population, but we also have millions and millions of US citizens of other races. (Shaw Kenawe)
Well, the 2008 population demographics for the USA are; Non-Hispanic whites - 66%, Hispanics 15%, African Americans 14%, Asian Americans 5%. Why are so many white people seemingly ashamed of their background? I see no existing historical context that would justify such a feeling.
Where exactly does the rationalization for such a a viewpoint come?
"We still are a Christian nation, not because Christians out number the others, but because we are subscribers to the Judeo/Christian ethic."
No. Our laws are based on The Constitution, which is a secular document, not a religious one.
We are a secular nation.
And you can argue forever against this, but you wont' be correct
Just because we are a nation that has a lot of Christians in it doesn't make us a Christian nation. Our laws are not based on the Christian Bible.
Our laws are not based on the 10 Commandments or the Declaration of Independence.
The US is a religious western democracy, no question about that, but our laws are not based on religious laws--but on the greatest document men ever created, The US Cosntitution--a secular document.
“No. Our laws are based on The Constitution, which is a secular document, not a religious one.” (Shaw Kenawe)
The basis or grounding of ALL of America’s Founding documents can be found in these initial words of the Declaration; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
That made clear that ALL of America’s Founders saw that NONE of our rights devolved from government, but instead were INNATE and “natural rights” that we were all born with, “endowed by our Creator.”
Secularism, as enshrined in the 1st Amendment that enshrined FREDOM of RELIGION FROM any/all government action IS a Western tradition.
It DOES NOT exist in ANY Muslim nation ruled by Sharia Law. It is, in fact, the sole purview of Western Civilization.
Our laws all devolved from the English Common Law, which in turn was devolved from the Judeo-Christian morality.
The Western emphasis on liability is based on fault/personal accountability is the underlying ethical foundation of the Western tradition, which includes the Common Law and that which was derived from it (ie. the U.S. Constitution). The history of Western Civilization has been intimately bound up with individual responsibility, with the individual having an obligation to be a consciously good person.
That DOES NOT exist within the cannons and traditions of, say, Sharia Law, as just one example.
Why would anyone deny the obvious?
The Western tradition is and long has been "the LIGHT of the world."
It is starkly different from the morality of other traditions, such as that codified in Sharia Law.
And that is almost certainly why while the West eradicated chattel slavery over two centuries ago, chattel slavery STILL exists throughout the Arab-Muslim world, across all of sub-Saharan Africa and much of Asia to this day!
The U.S. Constitution rooted in the idea that ALL of our individual rights are INNATE and "endowed to us BY our Creator," NOT from government and which enshrined individualism and private property rights is indeed, as many scholars refer to it as, "A 5,000 year leap." It does seem to be at least that much of an advancement in human morality and personal ethics.
No one on earth, not Nietzsche, NOT Marx, has ever been able to offer a rationale for collectivism comparable to the one offered by America's Founders in favor of individualism and private property rights.
Divine providence?
While I don't believe in that, I certainly believe that it is at least "a 5,000 year leap" in the advancement of mankind.
SK: You are quite right that the Constitution is the greatest document MAN has ever created.
You are obviously schooled in the view that it is a secular document, written for a secular society.
You have been taught that the founders were careful not to let their "religion" creep into our Constitution or our laws.
You have been taught that our laws were based on a northwestern European model of jurisprudence, one that had no relationship to religion in general and Christianity in particular.
You have been taught wrong.
How do I know this?
I know this because I have read the writings of our founders, themselves, not what someone said about them.
They are available to you online and in libraries across the nation.
My guess is that they knew more about where they got the ideas for our Constitution than either you or any other contemporary historian, unless you have studied time-travel and mind reading.
To find how the signers of the Declaration of Independence viewed the nation they were founding, read the works of: John Adams; Samuel Adams; Josiah Bartlett; Charles Carroll; George Clymer; Benjamin Franklin; John Hancock and Benjamin Harrison.
To discover the thinking of those who signed the Constitution, read the works of: George Washington; Nicholas Gilman; Abraham Baldwin; William Blount; Nathaniel Gorham; William Jackson; James Madison; Samuel Johnson; Robert Morris; Charles Cotesworth Pinckney; and James McHenry.
To find out about those who formulated some of our earliest laws and where they got their ideas, read the works of men like: Ethan Allen; Patrick Henry; Chief Justice John Jay; Chief Justice John Marshall; Thomas Paine; Henry Knox and others.
Don't read what some conservative or liberal historian has said they believed, read their own words.
None of them was shy about their religious beliefs, and the ones who had none were not shy either.
I challenge you to read at least as many of their original works as I have and then come back here and tell me that they did not use the influence of their faith (or lack thereof) in formulating our founding documents and our laws.
If you accept the challenge with an open mind (something I know all liberals cherish), you will learn the truth and the truth will set you free with a freedom you've never known before.
Post a Comment