If you are judging by behavior, I believe the word you were looking for is that Obama is more "righteous" than Clinton. All Christians consider themselves to be sinners and sinning does not, as I understand it, lessen their religiosity or "true belief." In a thread that asks if Obama is not what he says he is, I find it dubious that you would make the following statement as a statement of fact: "Obama is less religious than Bush." As long as we're wondering if Obama's faith is real, why not Bush's?
I didn't mean morally, I meant up front with their religion. I could be wrong but it seems Obama talks about his religion much more than Clinton. Even more so if his books have dedicated sections. using that metric I think my reasoning behind saying Bush is more religious is obvious. He was more talkative about it than even Obama.
That's different. If he makes decisions I agree with and uses an invisible man in the sky to rationalize them, that's fine; it's still a decision/stance I agree with. I don't like the rationalization, but the decision is fundamentally correct. If he starts making decisions I disagree with (banning gay marriage, banning abortion, etc.) based on this invisible man in the sky, I'll dislike him. But that's not because of his rationalization, it's because of his stance. There are plenty of religious people that are pro gay marriage and pro abortion. Their religion does not govern their decisions. Obama is one of them.
No agenda? So that's why you posted this: "To me Obama is a guy who wanted to help poor black people while at the same time getting some political allies in Chicago so he sought out the big church as a means to get involved. He isn't a christian, but Christianity is widely accepted in the black community so he adopted it. To me this answers the Jeremiah Wright question. He didn't really care what that guy was saying because he was much more interested in getting people legal/financial/etc help, registering voters, and making friends with political clout. It also answers the question of why liberals don't have a problem with his Christianity. The don't think he really believes it, but he is just following a social norm." Do you seriously not have a clue as to how offensive some of us might find that statement? You assume a hell of a lot about liberals. "liberals don't have a problem with his Christianity. They don't think he really believes it, but he is just following a social norm." Are you really that oblivious? I'm very disappointed to see a thread like this coming from you. I expected better.
Lol @ all these people focusing on his religious beliefs, as if this is in anyway important enough for debate. OH GOLLY GEE YOU GOT ME HES NOT A TRUE CHRISTIAN THIS MUST MEAN HIS PRESIDENCY IS INVALID!!!!!
I was knocking around back then and had an avid interest in the Kennedy/Nixon election. You are exactly right. It never occured to anyone to question Kennedy's faith. Neither his political opponents, nor the media questioned whether he was a Christian. In fact, he was decidedly seen as Christian, and not "a Christian for political purposes," like we see so much of today, especially from Republican candidates, in my opinion. Kennedy was seen as a devout Catholic. The controversy arose from Jack Kennedy being Catholic, not whether he "believed" in a Christian god. No one questioned that. A Catholic had never been elected President in our history. Some wondered at the time if that could ever occur, which seems rather silly now, doesn't it. Almost as silly as this thread. This thread offends me.
While I am admitted not a Christian, I have yet to meet a single Christian who feel that Christianity and morality have nothing to do with each other. As someone pointed out, Hitler believes he's Christian. Do YOU believe Hitler is a "true believer" or that he's only paying lip service to his constituents? I would say the latter, but then again I feel there is some sort of moral standard to being a Christian.
That confuses me greatly. I have answered this "offensive" question a few times already. This thread is purely about the political consequences of Obama's belief. It is pretty well established that politically Christians and Progressives are not allies. The most leftest posters, mark and BJ, have already made their little anti comments kinda showing that. So if you are offended from that side I don't get it at all. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read the thread so read this: Liberals didn't just disagree with Bush's actions, they ridiculed the process. even though it is pretty common for Christians to look for guidance from prayer. If you are offended as an Obama supporter I am as equally confused. 1. I didn't pass judgement on it at all. In fact part of the basis for my theory is Obama is smart and has good morals. Stated clearly in the OP I guessed he wanted to do good in the neighborhood, so smartly IMO sought out the largest church. 2. I see a huge difference in someone saying A. "he isn't a christian at his core, he is probably indifferent and joined for other political/social reasons" vs B. "He is at his core a Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist and is portraying himself as a Christian for some evil plot" I mean A has good very acceptable (to me) alterior motives. I disagree with Major that if true it is a negative. Joining a church to get involved helping out a community seems OK to me. So i really am confused at your outrage. Even more so at you "expect this from me" line. I take it at face value though, so thanks.
Casey, you apparently won't understand this, but the entire premise of your thread is offensive. You assume "It is pretty well established that politically Christians and Progressives are not allies." That simply isn't true. While not religious myself, I've been a liberal for several decades, have met countless liberals over the years, knowing some of them very, very well indeed, and the vast majority are Christians. They go to church as often as the Republicans I know. You assume too much, and your assumptions are grounded in a bias you can't see, because it must simply be too close. "Liberals didn't just disagree with Bush's actions, they ridiculed the process. even though it is pretty common for Christians to look for guidance from prayer." Bush was/is a Methodist. My late mother was a Methodist. I'm very familiar with that branch of Christianity, and I can tell you flat out that it is one of the most tame, innocuous branches of Christianity on the planet. Bush's great bellowing about his "strong fundamentalist religious beliefs" was so much hot air, and a deliberate appeal to Christian fundamentalists on the Right, the very people that now control the GOP. How do I know this? One of my best friends lived in Tarrytown in Austin while Bush was govenor, and they went to the same Methodist church that serves that neighborhood. They attended the same services, which were very much of the "Christian milktoast" variety. Regardless of what Bush said in public for political purposes, his own personal preference was a relaxed Christian religion that didn't "throw it in his face." The rest was just for show. Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about in this instance, with all due respect.
Many in this thread have already agreed that liberals are usually political opponents of the religious right. What is offensive about the thread? You tell me I can't understand yet off no explanation beyond you know Christians who are liberals. So do I, and I have stated this is a political, not a moral or hypocritical opposition. You are saying the same thing about Bush that I am saying about Obama but with a much more sinister motive for the actions. How is one offensive and the other not? "Bush needed to over emphasive religion to appease core" vs "Obama joined church to get involved in community in need" seems mine is much less offensive. I am looking for opinions here, and since this thread is pretty civil (Keep D&D civil) please feel free to expand.
I think that means you pretty much agree with me, or don't dispute it. Cool. thnx. I really don't see this as the extreme position everyone is trying to paint it as. People are saying things I believe when "arguing" with me. "has to say that to get elected" "he is a politician"
Could be, doesn't make me feel any less of him as a man or leader. As far as the liberal perspective, I don't think liberals have a problem voting for a Christian.. Look at Jimmy Carter, the most devout President in modern times.
I can't say if he is a true Christian or not however he did say the right things about Christ and the resurrection for the Easter holiday. From what I heard he does understand it but only he knows if he truly believes it.
Well he is smart and he has a huge staff to help him a bit. WAY different election. Coming off of Nixon religious was a major positive and plus just look at this Spoiler I don't think I would use this as proof democrats readily ally themselves with Christians.
Ugh.... More ideologue bull**** from a poster that has a narrative in their head and makes the script fit at all costs.... Fine... to answer your question, Lincoln's faith as a Christian was questioned a great deal... but whatever, you won't change...
I do not like his politics but it is not my place to judge him for his religious beliefs. Nobody can know what is truly in another persons heart. From his Easter speech, I know he understands about Christ and what it means. I admit I was a little surprised and was glad to hear it. I will take him at his word and accept that he is a Christian. Only he and God truly know and he will be judged for that when he dies just as we all will.
