Obama gets cross in Kentucky
May 14, 2008 Political
Last year around Christmas time Mike Huckabee put out an ad about the season and honoring Jesus. In the background of the ad was a bookcase and the bookcase formed a cross. It actually looked more like a plus sign because the horizontal part was in the middle of the vertical part but nonetheless, it was perceived as a cross even though it has ornaments on it. The only reason there was a controversy is because Huckabee is a man of the cloth and conservative and liberals hate Christian symbolism (or perceived symbolism) in politics unless they are injecting it.
Liberals (and some conservatives) went nuts over this. How dare this guy bring religion into the political world. This despite the fact that all of them have mentioned God and their beliefs in one fashion or another. Anyway, people thought this was just terrible:
Joy Behar [The View] summed the whole thing up with this: “Fine! But let’s just call it what it is. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. It’s an appeal to the Christian right base of the Republican party. The end. That’s it.” The Conservative Voice
Atheist Michael Newdow on Fox discussing how inappropriate it was (You Tube).
First off, let’s all agree how fun it was to see TV blowhards like Chris Matthews and Meredith Vieira come unhinged over the possibility that the infamous bookshelf in the background of Gov. Huckabee’s Christmas TV message was a sinister attempt to subliminally brainwash dopey Americans into seeing a (gasp!) cross. TownHall
There are plenty of examples of the moronic reaction to the so called cross. Google “Huckabee cross” and you will find quite a few items about it. Remember, it caused such a controversy that Huckabee had to defend it and tell people it was a bookcase.
Now enter Barack Hussein Obama, the presumptive nominee for the Democratic party, and see what he is spreading around Kentucky. The picture at the top of this post is a campaign flyer that talks about Obama being a Christian and it shows him standing with a cross behind him. This is not an image, or a bookcase, or any other item that can be mistaken for a cross, it is an actual cross.
The questions now become, will Joy Behar call this what it is, a direct appeal to the Christian right base of the Republican party? Will Micheal Newdow make the TV circuit telling everyone that he, as an atheist, finds it offensive and that it is inappropriate? Will Matthews, Vieira and all the other liberal political pundits who are in the tank for Obama come unhinged over this blatant display of religion? Will this cross require Obama to explain what he thinks he is doing by displaying an item that is so offensive to the left?
You can bet that very few of the people in the media, and certainly not the idiots who criticized Huckabee, will mention it. Those who do will excuse it in some fashion and say that Obama is reaching out. They will say he is crossing lines, he is deeply spiritual and deem it to be perfectly OK. They will give it their seal of approval because, to them, Obama is the messiah. Can we say hypocrites?
Yes we can.
Perhaps the kids at Kos who support Obama can come up with creative ways to excuse behavior that was criticized as overtly religious.
The reality is, Obama is still plagued by rumors that he is a Muslim and no matter how hard he tries he cannot shake that perception. He is also associated with a church that teaches the destruction of white people and that America is bad. Obama is trying to appeal to people in an area where he is unappealing.
This will be interesting to watch play out. I want to see how the liberals excuse this. most will probably need a chiropractor by the time they get done contorting themselves trying to excuse it.
But, that is their cross to bear.
Related:
CBN News
Catholic Bishops Set Political Agenda
Nov 14, 2007 General
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops developed guidelines for voting in the next elections stating that open discussion was needed and that decisions have an impact on the whole. This is certainly very true. If Catholics (or members of any other religion) ignore a candidate’s pro abortion stance in favor of other attributes then they should not be surprised when the candidate, if elected, pushes for abortion rights and will not listen to those asking for it to be abolished. They should not be surprised when the candidate, if elected, nominates judges who are pro abortion and these adherents to religion should not cry because their acts allowed it to happen. Does this mean people from a religion should march in lock step and vote in one particular way? Certainly not, but it does mean that the choices we make have repercussions and as a group, the people should be willing to accept those if they vote for a certain person. The Catholic Bishops did not mention any candidate by name and did not endorse anyone. They merely decided upon a platform. This is no different than any other group (like the teacher’s union or the young college Democrats) deciding upon a platform. They do not force their members to vote a certain way but they put out a platform they believe is best for them.
There are those who would look at the Catholic Bishops and what they are doing and condemn them. The uniformed or under educated would say that the country was set up based on separation of church and state for a reason and that the Catholic Bishops are violating that. The problem with this line of thinking is that it is wrong on many levels.
First of all, there is no such thing as separation of church and state. I defy anyone to find those words in the Constitution. The Constitution states that the government may not establish a religion and they may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. It does not say that the two should be separated, only that government may not establish a national religion. That is why the display of the Koran, the Ten Commandments, a Crucifix, or the Star of David in federal buildings does not violate the Constitution. Government is not establishing any religion but it is allowing the free expression (or exercise) thereof. Those are the people’s buildings, after all. If the government allowed only the display of one religion’s items, then there would be a problem.
The words separation of church and state were taken from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists when they expressed concerns that in their state religion was seen as a privilege or favor granted by the state. Jefferson did not address the state issue but addressed establishment on the national level when he wrote; ‘I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.’ He meant that the words of the Constitution provided a wall that protects religion from government. His words have been misused to push the secularist agenda as advanced by the Communist organization, the ACLU.
The second issue is that the Catholic Bishops violated no rules even if we accept that there is such a thing as separation of church and state. The First Amendment is designed to keep government out of religion not the other way around. Religious groups are free to discuss politics, support positions or candidates and they are free to push for those items that they believe to be in the best interest of their beliefs. The church is not restricted by the Constitution, the government is. The church has freedom under the First Amendment while the government does not. Therefore, the various religions around the country are FREE to decide how what agenda they want to push. Their members do not have to follow those guidelines and are free to vote as they wish, just as with the teacher’s unions or young Democrats mentioned above. Even if the Church told its members that they had to vote a certain way it would not violate the Constitution. Once again, it prohibits the government from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Church is not the government and is free to tell its members how they should vote and what they may be involved in and still remain a member of the church.
This is no different than the right to free speech. The government is not allowed to restrict your free speech but others may. Your work can tell you what you are and are not allowed to discuss and it can fire you for using profanity or discussing what you have been told not to. You can be told not to say certain things in a church, a school, a store or anywhere else because it is not the government keeping you from speaking. In the case of the church, it is they and not the government that is making the decisions so nothing is violated.
People belong to various religions for a number of reasons. Those religions are free to tell their people the best way to vote. Jews overwhelmingly support Democrats (even though the Democrats screw them and ignore Israel) and there is nothing wrong with it. If all the Muslims decided they wanted to vote for Hillary then that would be their right and it does not violate the Constitution.
I know this was lengthy but it is important to combat ignorance if we want to have a better society.
Source:
My Way News
Tags: abortion rights, abortion stance, conference of catholic bishops, free exercise, pro abortion, religion, repercussions, separation of church and state
Those Religious Nut Politicians
Oct 8, 2007 Uncategorized
Since George Bush was elected president his religious views have been ridiculed and scorned, especially by those on the left and in the media (but I repeat myself). When George Bush says that he seeks the guidance of the Almighty people act as if he has three heads. When he talks about prayer the left goes nuts and there are those who believe that religion has no place in government. The religious contingent of voters has been referred to as the religious right as if there is something inherently wrong with being a religious person because, after all, they are on the right.
Of course, when the Democrats are out trying to win an election they find religion. Part of the Democratic platform is to speak more of religion and to court the religious vote. The left does not care about the people it just wants their votes. Look at how many Democrats speak from churches when they are running for office. After they are elected they seem to run from the church and anything religious. One might say that religion should not play in the political arena and that is certainly a view to which people are entitled. What I find interesting is the hypocrisy.
Those who think that George Bush is pushing Christianity across the Middle East as part of his personal crusade get their panties in a wad whenever they talk about the president and his agenda. But along comes B. Hussein Obama with his talk about religion and building a Kingdom on Earth and he is hailed as the second coming of John the Baptist.
Obama was in a church this weekend where he said:
“Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics,” Obama said. “Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power’s sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God.” CNN
If George Bush siad that he was an instrument of God the left in America would be melting down in a pile of babbling goo. They would be very upset that this president invoked God and discussed his religion in the decisions he has made. How dare him be an instrument of God? In fact, there are those who believe that Bush thinks he is an instrument of God and acts accordingly, much to the distaste of the Godless liberals.
Let Obama show up and speak in such a fashion and all the sudden he is revered as a religious man who will do God’s work in America. I will admit though, when he said the part about being vain and seeking power for power’s sake, I though of Hillary…
Religion plays a large part in American politics and there is no escaping that regardless of what the ACLU and the atheists want. However, Democrats only seem to care about religion when it is time to be elected. Any other time their moral compass points to Hell.
The problem, of course, is that some people fall for this. The Jews vote overwhelmingly Democrat though the Democrats screw the Jews and abandon Israel every time they get the chance. The black community, which is strongly conservative in its religious views, votes Democratic in every election despite the fact that 40 years of Democratic policies and programs has put them in a worse position.
I only hope the religious right can see through this mindless prattle and realize that no matter how much the Democrats claim to be people of God, when the votes are counted and they have won, they go right back to their Godless ways.
Forty million murdered babies are evidence of that.
Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, , Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Pet Haven Blog, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, The Magical Rose Garden, third world county, DragonLady’s World, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, The Random Yak, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Phastidio.net, , Conservative Cat, Nuke’s, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, CORSARI D’ITALIA, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: , Democrats, lies, Link Fest, Obama, Political Commentary, religion
Loading ...
Loading...
