Obama getting crap for not giving thanks to God. Options

[Steven]

http://www.aol.com/2011/11/25/obama-thanks...1_lnk1%7C115617

Really, honestly, who cares? This is why a lot of religious people get me so mad. I'm a Christian, but I don't care that he didn't thank God.

[katharinekatkat]

http://www.aol.com/2011/11/25/obama-thanks...1_lnk1%7C115617

Really, honestly, who cares? This is why a lot of religious people get me so mad. I'm a Christian, but I don't care that he didn't thank God.

Couldn't agree more. I think it was almost respectful of ALL americans, even those who don't believe in God.

[bumnummies]

United States is not a "Christian Nation" like the repubs would like people to believe. PULEESE. Like who cares. so dumb.

[RWG]

United States is not a "Christian Nation" like the repubs would like people to believe. PULEESE. Like who cares. so dumb.

I'd have to disagree. If the U.S. weren't a Christian nation, this wouldn't be an issue. Consider how Britain's conservative Prime Minister David Cameron can get away with saying he doesn't have a "direct line" to God; how during Canada's last election, Michael Ignatieff was attacked for everything except the fact he's an atheist; and how no other country needs to debate evolution on the national stage. The U.S. may be a little less Christian than some European nations percentage-wise for the sheer fact that it's more diverse, but in terms of degree, no other nation barring perhaps the Vatican is as extreme.

Don't get me wrong--I don't think a politician ever needs to bring up God. It just doesn't surprise me that this would be considered news in the U.S.

This post has been edited by RWG: Nov 26th 2011, 1:12 AM

[katharinekatkat]

I'd have to disagree. If the U.S. weren't a Christian nation, this wouldn't be an issue. Consider how Britain's conservative Prime Minister David Cameron can get away with saying he doesn't have a "direct line" to God; how during Canada's last election, Michael Ignatieff was attacked for everything except the fact he's an atheist; and how no other country needs to debate evolution on the national stage. The U.S. may be a little less Christian than some European nations percentage-wise for the sheer fact that it's more diverse, but in terms of degree, no other nation barring perhaps the Vatican is as extreme.

Don't get me wrong--I don't think a politician ever needs to bring up God. It just doesn't surprise me that this would be considered new in the U.S.

I honestly think that's another one of the USA's problems. They are too diverse to be a "christian nation". They ridicule Afghanistan and Pakistan for being ruled by their muslim faith (religion), but they are doing the exact same thing, just with a different religion.

[RWG]

I honestly think that's another one of the USA's problems. They are too diverse to be a "christian nation". They ridicule Afghanistan and Pakistan for being ruled by their muslim faith (religion), but they are doing the exact same thing, just with a different religion.

I wouldn't go that far, but compared to other western democracies, it's too much.

[bumnummies]

I'd have to disagree. If the U.S. weren't a Christian nation, this wouldn't be an issue. Consider how Britain's conservative Prime Minister David Cameron can get away with saying he doesn't have a "direct line" to God; how during Canada's last election, Michael Ignatieff was attacked for everything except the fact he's an atheist; and how no other country needs to debate evolution on the national stage. The U.S. may be a little less Christian than some European nations percentage-wise for the sheer fact that it's more diverse, but in terms of degree, no other nation barring perhaps the Vatican is as extreme.

Don't get me wrong--I don't think a politician ever needs to bring up God. It just doesn't surprise me that this would be considered news in the U.S.

Sorry I didn't mean that people weren't heavily Christian in the United States, rather that the US isn't designed to be "A Christian Nation" where one should have to speak to God on everything. Obviously there is a huge percentage of Christians in the US who psychotically believe that the president should be a direct reflection of them and praise God at every chance he gets.... I'm just saying they need to cool their heels, lol. He shouldn't have to "Thank God" to do his job. This isn't the middle east where country is ruled by religion.

[Annie]

Sorry I didn't mean that people weren't heavily Christian in the United States, rather that the US isn't designed to be "A Christian Nation" where one should have to speak to God on everything. Obviously there is a huge percentage of Christians in the US who psychotically believe that the president should be a direct reflection of them and praise God at every chance he gets.... I'm just saying they need to cool their heels, lol. He shouldn't have to "Thank God" to do his job. This isn't the middle east where country is ruled by religion.

THIS. We aren't required to pray a certain amount a day. It isn't a law we go to church.

separation of church. and. state.

[ionlywantu2stay]

The U.S. does not have an official religion, thus is it not a Christian nation. You just have loads of people who are under the impression it is.

[druth8x]

separation of church and state but we our leaders swaer on the bible and swear on it before we testify in court.


I do not want to have to ever swear on a bible. But if I have to testify or want to be elected I would have to.

[solastalgia]

I assume that if you were elected President and you were another religion you'd swear on your respective holy book. But I'm uncertain about that, does anyone know for sure?

[bumnummies]

separation of church and state but we our leaders swaer on the bible and swear on it before we testify in court.
I do not want to have to ever swear on a bible. But if I have to testify or want to be elected I would have to.

I don't believe you have to swear... but then I'm Canadian so we might do things differently here. I know when I worked the federal election, all you had to make was an affirmation, basically "I am who I say I am, I reside where I say I reside, and I am old enough to vote in this election" and sign a document. People did not have to "swear" or "take an oath" if they chose not to. I'm assuming that carries into a court room; if you're a witness who is not Christian (and especially if you are of another religion and not just an atheist) you're probably not going to want to swear on the Bible and I believe that due to freedom of religion rules you have the right to refuse. You have to have the right to refuse. I'm positive that someone's made a case for this, I'd be shocked if someone was made to swear an oath on the Bible and no one made a ruckus about it, LOL.

As far as elected officials, all the things I'm able to find in a quick search state that they do not have to swear on a bible or swear at all and that they can simply make an affirmation. Some comment was made alluding to the constitution and not requiring a "religion test" for elected officials. ????

[RWG]

Sorry I didn't mean that people weren't heavily Christian in the United States, rather that the US isn't designed to be "A Christian Nation" where one should have to speak to God on everything. Obviously there is a huge percentage of Christians in the US who psychotically believe that the president should be a direct reflection of them and praise God at every chance he gets.... I'm just saying they need to cool their heels, lol. He shouldn't have to "Thank God" to do his job. This isn't the middle east where country is ruled by religion.

Yeah, it's just a question of semantics. The U.S. isn't supposed to be a religious nation by definition, and it certainly shouldn't be, but I'd argue it plays a big enough role in policy making for it to be considered one.

I assume that if you were elected President and you were another religion you'd swear on your respective holy book. But I'm uncertain about that, does anyone know for sure?

I don't believe you have to swear... but then I'm Canadian so we might do things differently here. I know when I worked the federal election, all you had to make was an affirmation, basically "I am who I say I am, I reside where I say I reside, and I am old enough to vote in this election" and sign a document. People did not have to "swear" or "take an oath" if they chose not to. I'm assuming that carries into a court room; if you're a witness who is not Christian (and especially if you are of another religion and not just an atheist) you're probably not going to want to swear on the Bible and I believe that due to freedom of religion rules you have the right to refuse. You have to have the right to refuse. I'm positive that someone's made a case for this, I'd be shocked if someone was made to swear an oath on the Bible and no one made a ruckus about it, LOL.

As far as elected officials, all the things I'm able to find in a quick search state that they do not have to swear on a bible or swear at all and that they can simply make an affirmation. Some comment was made alluding to the constitution and not requiring a "religion test" for elected officials. ????

From the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause:

"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Though IMO it's a moot point for anyone living today. I can't imagine how far away the U.S. is from having an atheist, Jewish, Eastern faith, or--God forbid--Muslim president, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime. Hell, there's only ever been one Catholic president. If there's no other reason to vote for Mitt Romney, at least it would mark progress in one sense.

[druth8x]

aw ok good. Glad I wouldn't be forced to swear on something I didn't believe in.

But RWG makes a good point all but 1 Presidents have been Christians so in a sense this is a Christian nation at least those who hold the highest power and I imagine most governors and about half the senators and congressman as well.

It is def a religious nation that heavily favors Christians when voting.

[bumnummies]

all but 1 Presidents have been Christians

Excuse you, but Catholicism = Christianity.

[sneaky]

Excuse you, but Catholicism = Christianity.

Yeah but from what I infer Jefferson and Lincoln (and perhaps others) were not Christians. The both had a rather agnostic philosophy if you ask me.

[druth8x]

Excuse you, but Catholicism = Christianity.

my bad...I probably shouldn't comment in a G'd thread as I have a my own belief system. And haven't researched the topic that in depth.

[bumnummies]

Yeah but from what I infer Jefferson and Lincoln (and perhaps others) were not Christians. The both had a rather agnostic philosophy if you ask me.

Well, that's not what she was referring to though.

my bad...I probably shouldn't comment in a G'd thread as I have a my own belief system. And haven't researched the topic that in depth.

Oh, you're free to comment, I just found it strange you didn't think Catholicism was part of Christianity. See, this is the thing with Christianity that's different from every other religion, pretty much. There's Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Protestants, Baptists, Greek Orthodox, New Apostolics, Evangelicals.... There's like, soo many different sects of Christianity it's difficult to keep track of. With Islam you have the Sunni or Shiite branch, and you have some (re: one?) slight variations on Buddhism (Zen Buddhism being the variation on it - that I know of anyways)... and I don't think Hinduism is split. With Judaism, you basically just have the Orthodox jews who are the ones that are extremely strict with their religion, wear all of the traditional clothes, hairstyles, etc... and the non-orthodox ones, who are more mainstream and blend into society.

Christianity is just crazy crazy split and there are so many different interpretations on it. Catholics are basically considered the snobs, they're the one with the Pope and the Vatican, priests, bishops, cardinals, nuns and all of that business. Baptists = The Duggar Family. or the Westboro Baptist Church, but lets be realistic... they don't even count because their agenda is just backwards. Protestants = widely known as the sane, easier going group of the bunch that don't get all pissy about divorce and gays - Anglicans (aka Church of England, started by Henry VIII!) being a close second although the church doesn't still officially recognize gay marriage as a whole and only permits select parishes to perform same-sex marriages. And the Evangelicals are like... the crazies, usually. That covers some of the popular ones anyways Sorry if I offended anyone by that.

[SpamGoddess]

Baptists = The Duggar Family. or the Westboro Baptist Church, but lets be realistic... they don't even count because their agenda is just backwards. Protestants = widely known as the sane, easier going group of the bunch that don't get all pissy about divorce and gays - Anglicans (aka Church of England, started by Henry VIII!) being a close second although the church doesn't still officially recognize gay marriage as a whole and only permits select parishes to perform same-sex marriages. And the Evangelicals are like... the crazies, usually. That covers some of the popular ones anyways Sorry if I offended anyone by that.

lolololol at your examples of Baptists. Mostly because I was raised in Baptist churches and I don't know anyone remotely like any of those groups. Protestants aren't really their own sect - really, Protestants are all (or most) Christians who aren't Catholic. And Evangelicals... well, you have Evangelicals coming from all sects. Certain Baptists are evangelicals, as well as Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. But the word "Evangelical" has gotten so twisted in referring to Christians, it's saddening. People now only affiliate it with the "crazies," when really, the crazies are just that - crazy. Really, Evangelicals are really only supposed to cover those that actively share the Gospel with others, and to evangelize. It doesn't mean they push their views on people or that they can't have progressive views to begin with. All Christians should really aspire to be evangelical, as the Bible says to go out and share with the world. But someone I consider more evangelical than most is my sister who is very missions oriented, traveling the world to reach out to people and to evangelize. But she's not crazy and has fairly progressive views on gay marriage and things like that.

Also as pissy as a lot of Southern/Independent Baptists get over divorce, there's quite a bit of it that goes on.

[bumnummies]

lolololol at your examples of Baptists. Mostly because I was raised in Baptist churches and I don't know anyone remotely like any of those groups. Protestants aren't really their own sect - really, Protestants are all (or most) Christians who aren't Catholic. And Evangelicals... well, you have Evangelicals coming from all sects. Certain Baptists are evangelicals, as well as Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. But the word "Evangelical" has gotten so twisted in referring to Christians, it's saddening. People now only affiliate it with the "crazies," when really, the crazies are just that - crazy. Really, Evangelicals are really only supposed to cover those that actively share the Gospel with others, and to evangelize. It doesn't mean they push their views on people or that they can't have progressive views to begin with. All Christians should really aspire to be evangelical, as the Bible says to go out and share with the world. But someone I consider more evangelical than most is my sister who is very missions oriented, traveling the world to reach out to people and to evangelize. But she's not crazy and has fairly progressive views on gay marriage and things like that.

Also as pissy as a lot of Southern/Independent Baptists get over divorce, there's quite a bit of it that goes on.

There are extremes within all the different sects, that's for sure. I was purposefully stating the stereotypes for what the groups are known more for though.