Make No Religion?

[layoutshooter]

Osama Obama has come out of the closet and stated the he FIRMLY backs the building of mosque near "Ground Zero" He based his remarks on the grounds of "religious freedom". Even going as far to recall times when Catholic and Jewish houses of worship were once opposed.

Why did he REQUIRE a CATHOLIC university to COVER UP Crucifixes that would have been seen behind him while he spoke IF he TRULY believes in "Religious Freedom"?

Does that mean that he will NOT remove his shoes when HE enters that mosque to speak?

Anyone wanna bet? Does the word hypocrite come to mind? Like he believes in ANYTHING that our Constitution stands for anyway.


"Harkening back to earlier times when the building of synagogues or Catholic churches also met with opposition, Obama said: "Time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values and emerge stronger for it. So it must be and will be today."




Full story below.



Obama makes clear support for ground zero mosque - Yahoo! News

 

[chefdennis]

As has been ponted out, he is a worthless pos...and as has also been pointed out, if it gets built, there will be all kinds of trouble there, I'd look for it to be destroied in some way...fueling the further fight of the jihadist here in America...but then again, barry is working to destroy the Constitution and the the country a we know it....

 

[Turtle]

Why did he REQUIRE a CATHOLIC university to COVER UP Crucifixes that would have been seen behind him while he spoke IF he TRULY believes in "Religious Freedom"?

Because if left uncovered and in plain sight in the background, the Crucifixes would then be a message in and of itself. It would be an implicit statement that Obama, and by extension his administration and the government, is endorsing Catholicism.

But, it wasn't crucifixes, tho. The White House requested that all religious symbols and signage that might appear as a backdrop to where the president was to speak be covered up. The same thing happened when he spoke at Notre Dame. At Georgetown, what got covered up was a "IHS" a religious monogram of the name of Jesus Christ.

Whenever the president gives a policy speech, regardless of where it is given, all signage and symbols of any kind are always obscured, and the backdrop is left plain, or is generally a backdrop of flags and pipe and drape. Otherwise, whatever is in the background can, and will, be taken out of context with regards to the speech on policy. This is SOP and has been for a really long time, ever since I can remember.

 

[layoutshooter]

Because if left uncovered and in plain sight in the background, the Crucifixes would then be a message in and of itself. It would be an implicit statement that Obama, and by extension his administration and the government, is endorsing Catholicism.

But, it wasn't crucifixes, tho. The White House requested that all religious symbols and signage that might appear as a backdrop to where the president was to speak be covered up. The same thing happened when he spoke at Notre Dame. At Georgetown, what got covered up was a "IHS" a religious monogram of the name of Jesus Christ.

Whenever the president gives a policy speech, regardless of where it is given, all signage and symbols of any kind are always obscured, and the backdrop is left plain, or is generally a backdrop of flags and pipe and drape. Otherwise, whatever is in the background can, and will, be taken out of context with regards to the speech on policy. This is SOP and has been for a really long time, ever since I can remember.

Well, gee, then DON'T EVER have ANY sitting president speak at ANY religious institution. I don't agree. When you go into someones else house you should show RESPECT for their beliefs. That is NOT making religion, that is showing RESPECT for ALL religions.

I would not DREAM of going into someones home or church and asking them to cover whatever or not say grace over dinner or show disrespect to their beliefs in ANY way, shape or form.

IF, any president not just Obama, chooses to go into ANY type of religious setting that should show RESPECT for that faiths believes. ALL faiths, whatever the venue. That would foster religious freedom.


Like I believe, you are NOT required to believe it or not, I would be willing to bet a LOT of money that Obama would NOT ask a Muslim group to cover THEIR symbols. (if they have them I really don't know)

Either respect ALL beliefs and symbols OR, and this would be FAR better, NEVER speak in ANY religious forum.

Any hwo, we are not going to agree, so that is that. Now it is time to determine if I am going to relocate my truck.

 

[Turtle]

The president, this one and others, have given many speeches at many venues, religious and otherwise, where signage and symbols were not covered up.

Signage and symbols are not covered up, even at religious universities, when the president gives a Commencement address, for example. Or political speeches like fundraisers and campaign speeches.

But for policy speeches, they get covered. They always have, far as I know.

Your Elected Democrats and Republicans - Making much ado is what we do best!​

 

[layoutshooter]

I like the pics!! As to presidents, I still say that NO president should EVER speak at a religious venue and NEVER EVER should make a policy speech.

 

[Poorboy]

Those Pictures are Just Plain Funny, But True!

 

[RLENT]

As to presidents, I still say that NO president should EVER speak at a religious venue and NEVER EVER should make a policy speech.

Yup .... as leader of the free world ..... Chief Executive of The United States ..... where freedom of religion and speech is considered almost sacred ..... he should be muzzled ......

[just shaking head ..... utterly unbelievable .....]

BTW:

Osama Obama has come out of the closet and stated the he FIRMLY backs the building of mosque near "Ground Zero"

That ISN'T what he said at all - it's your (or others) paraphrase and characterization of what he said.

If the above is truly indicative of your ability (or more accurately, LACK OF ABILITY) to receive, duplicate, and understand communication, it raises some pretty serious questions ..... considering you claim to have worked for the NSA and were involved with national security matters (a listening post ? ), I'd say it's no small deal .....

If one were to distill (or paraphrase) what he actually said, in essence, it would be this:

"I support religious freedom for all Americans, including Muslims ...."

The above is a relatively accurate paraphrase of the intent of his communication - probably because it is one without an agenda ....

Of course, I actually heard what he said (on TV) ......

 

[witness23]

Yup .... as leader of the free world ..... Chief Executive of The United States ..... where freedom of religion and speech is considered almost sacred ..... he should be muzzled ......

[just shaking head ..... utterly unbelievable .....]

BTW:


That ISN'T what he said at all - it's your (or others) paraphrase and characterization of what he said.

If the above is truly indicative of your ability (or more accurately, LACK OF ABILITY) to receive, duplicate, and understand communication, it raises some pretty serious questions ..... considering you claim to have worked for the NSA and were involved with national security matters (a listening post ? ), I'd say it's no small deal .....

If one were to distill (or paraphrase) what he actually said, in essence, it would be this:

"I support religious freedom for all Americans, including Muslims ...."

The above is a relatively accurate paraphrase of the intent of his communication - probably because it is one without an agenda ....

Of course, I actually heard what he said (on TV) ......

Its scary isn't it?

 

[layoutshooter]

The president has NO business getting involved on local matters. Period. He should ONLY be involved in National matters. Funny thing those states rights. As to what I may or may not have ever done when I was with NSA. You ain't got a clue.

 

[RLENT]

The president has NO business getting involved on local matters. Period. He should ONLY be involved in National matters.

Good Grief .... open your eyes ....

Upholding civil rights is a national matter .... that's why the Department of Justice has a whole Division devoted solely to civil rights:

Civil Rights Division Home Page

The President, being the Chief Executive of the United States, is one who is ultimately charged under our form of governance, with seeing that those civil rights are upheld, and laws pertaining to them are enforced.

Funny thing those states rights.

Freedom of religion is right guaranteed by the United States Constitution/Bill of Rights.

As such it is an individual right, which is acknowledged and ultimately upheld by the national government.

As to what I may or may not have ever done when I was with NSA. You ain't got a clue.

True enough - I was going from memory as to what activities you had claimed been involved in, at some point in your career ...

The listening thing may have been while you were at the ASA .....

You know, I'm really, really not much of a fan of what Obama does for the most part ......

However, I am not so rabid, so blind or so ideologically-driven that I am incapable of seeing when he (or Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan, or Carter, ad nauseum ....) does something where he (they) is (are), for once, on the right side of an issue.

When any of these individuals does something right, they deserve some acknowledgment and props for doing so .....

Obama was entirely on the correct side on this particular issue .... he stood up and took what was very likely to be a fairly unpopular position and did the right thing: used the bully pulpit to remind some Americans who they are (or ought to be) and from whence they came ......

He really took no position on whether they community center/mosque ought to be built - but only on the freedom of religion/right of those in question to do so (on private property, and given compliance with state and local laws/zoning)

 

[RLENT]

Its scary isn't it?

Yes - it's almost terrifying who we have apparently entrusted things to ......