|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:01 pm Post subject: Which one is it, Mr. President? |
 |
|
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/obamas_christian_nation_1.html
| Quote: |
April 12, 2009
Obama's 'Christian Nation'
By Monte Kuligowski
President Obama is taking a fair amount of heat from conservatives for his recent comments in Turkey in which, speaking for Americans, he said that, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
Back in June of 2006, 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."
Obama made a similar statement in an email response to CBN's David Brody in 2007:
"Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."
We see that Obama believes we are no longer a Christian nation but an assortment of several mini nations. Obama believes America is a nation of citizens curiously "bound by ideals and a set of values," having no extrinsic anchor and objective source.
In full context of Obama's statements made in Turkey on April 7, the President did at least acknowledge the following:
I think that where -- where there's the most promise of building stronger U.S.-Turkish relations is in the recognition that Turkey and the United States can build a model partnership in which a predominantly Christian nation and a predominantly Muslim nation, a Western nation and a nation that straddles two continents -- that we can create a modern international community that is respectful, that is secure, that is prosperous; that there are not tensions, inevitable tensions, between cultures, which I think is extraordinarily important.
By referring to America as a "predominantly Christian nation" Obama is speaking in terms of population, not of the religion's influence on national morality, policy and law. America is populated primarily by Christians. In that sense Obama is correct.
Sad to say, Obama is also correct in stating that we are no longer a Christian nation. I argue that we are a country divided and that two principal nations currently coexist within the same country. Those two dueling nations have irreconcilable differences on the big questions of life and fundamentally consist of left versus right.
I understand that the word "nation" is used interchangeably with the word "country," but at its core nation means a group a people united by a common faith, morality, set of customs and traditions and language. In the fundamental meaning of nation, we once were a nation which operated from a system of Judeo-Christian morality -- that is, a common faith provided the basis for right and wrong.
That historical fact, Obama refuses to acknowledge. Obama's words, "Whatever we once were," seem to imply that what we once were is not important or perhaps that one cannot objectively determine what we once were. Either way, Obama's lack of basic understanding of American liberty is highlighted.
Additionally, Obama is inaccurate to say that currently we are a Muslim nation, a Hindu nation, a Buddhist nation, etc. Approximately 76 percent of adult Americans identify themselves as Christians. Historically, countries don't do well consisting as a collection of mini nations; unless, of course, a strongman rises up to provide forced order and peace.
America's shores once assimilated different cultures and religions into its existing "one nation under God." Today the "great melting pot" means that traditionalists get thrown into the boiling kettle of liberal diversity.
America today is a much more diverse place, of course, than it was yesterday. The problem, however, is not census numbers and diversity but that Christian morality has been systematically undermined in lower education, academia, media and government (most notably, by the U.S. Supreme Court) for several decades. The problem was never the traditional Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus -- they, for the most part, are happy to live in a country founded on faith in the Judeo-Christian God in which they may live freely, enjoying the practice of their particular religions.
Indeed, the basic morality of right and wrong of traditional religions is strikingly similar. The vast gulf in morality is between the far left and traditional Americans.
When the U.S. Supreme Court in 1892 observed that "this is a Christian nation" it wasn't that people of other religions and nonbelievers were nonexistent in America at the time. The observation could be made because people of all beliefs largely respected the Judeo-Christian system and accepted it as society's basis for right and wrong and moral order. Indeed, back then, even an atheist would have acknowledged society's religious moral framework as the basis for social order.
Unfortunately, the country currently is irreconcilably divided and the division is not among traditional religions; but between leftwing non-traditionalists and traditionalists (predominately Christians, of course). Those, like Obama, who believe they can fundamentally transform America into a better place via their "smart policy," as Hillary would say, are the real problem and threat to American liberty. Every dictator, come to think of it, always believes he is smarter than his average countryman.
When a unifying faith dissipates, people often turn to believe in someone. And when a unifying faith in an external authority disappears, government necessarily becomes the highest authority. From there, well, you know what happens from there.
You will notice that Obama, throughout the economic catastrophe, as he calls it, has not led the country in a single prayer to God, asking for His kind assistance. In former times, even a Deist was not ashamed to petition God for help to America in time of need. Indeed, a certain Deist suggested to the Christian men gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 that prayers be offered at the Constitutional Convention -- and, surprise, he even quoted the Bible to support his request.
Obama doesn't need to appeal to some Christian God, after all, "We are a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." We wouldn't expect those of the Religious Left to literally believe that Almighty God is actually there, now would we? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
samcheokguy
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Location: Samcheok G-do
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What church did Lincoln attend while president? And Bush, darling of 'der kristian reich' didn't boycott the olympics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What church did Lincoln attend while president? And Bush, darling of 'der kristian reich' didn't boycott the olympics |
Who (besides you) is talking about Bush or Lincoln?
Stick to the topic at hand.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I found these parts interesting..
| Quote: |
but at its core nation means a group a people united by a common faith, morality, set of customs and traditions and language
|
I would agree with this to an extent..but it is the morality part that interests me, the author goes on to say...
| Quote: |
| we once were a nation which operated from a system of Judeo-Christian morality -- that is, a common faith provided the basis for right and wrong. |
and
| Quote: |
The problem was never the traditional Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus -- they, for the most part, are happy to live in a country founded on faith in the Judeo-Christian God in which they may live freely, enjoying the practice of their particular religions.
Indeed, the basic morality of right and wrong of traditional religions is strikingly similar |
At this point I would expect an outline of how the basic morality of the 'non-traditionalist' is different from the above religions. He doesn't because of course it is not. A point he seems to miss as it undermines the morality comes from God/belief in God argument.
Of course I do realise that this is a thinly veiled Obama=non traditionalist=athiest=communist article. Surely it is time to let the whole athiest/communist thing go.
I found the morality part interesting though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
found these parts interesting..
Quote:
but at its core nation means a group a people united by a common faith, morality, set of customs and traditions and language
I would agree with this to an extent..but it is the morality part that interests me, the author goes on to say...
Quote:
we once were a nation which operated from a system of Judeo-Christian morality -- that is, a common faith provided the basis for right and wrong.
and
Quote:
The problem was never the traditional Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus -- they, for the most part, are happy to live in a country founded on faith in the Judeo-Christian God in which they may live freely, enjoying the practice of their particular religions.
Indeed, the basic morality of right and wrong of traditional religions is strikingly similar
At this point I would expect an outline of how the basic morality of the 'non-traditionalist' is different from the above religions. He doesn't because of course it is not. A point he seems to miss as it undermines the morality comes from God/belief in God argument.
Of course I do realise that this is a thinly veiled Obama=non traditionalist=athiest=communist article. Surely it is time to let the whole athiest/communist thing go.
I found the morality part interesting though. |
Fair enough.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
harlowethrombey
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, only christianity can give rise to a nation with any morals. After all, the first King to actually write down a set of laws was the great christian saint, Hammurabi of Babylon.
Fortunately Europe was a very christian place when they launched 4 crusades, an inquisition and ran off the original colonial settlers. When your royalty is ruling by divine right, only progressive social programs come about, not, say a Dark Age or anything.
I fail to see the 'scandal' in not being connected to genocidal theocracies. President Obama is right. We're not a 'christian' nation. We're a nation that has a large Christian population. We have a large population of many other faiths, too. As well as plenty of non-believers.
It's called not pigeon-holing your entire country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:51 am Post subject: Re: Which one is it, Mr. President? |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
| We see that Obama believes we are no longer a Christian nation but an assortment of several mini nations. |
False, and an example of being deliberately obtuse. Obama clearly considers us a single nation, just a nation without a single unifying faith.
Now, in response to that, the writer says:
| dmbfan wrote: |
| ... at its core nation means a group a people united by a common faith, morality, set of customs and traditions and language. In the fundamental meaning of nation, we once were a nation which operated from a system of Judeo-Christian morality -- that is, a common faith provided the basis for right and wrong. |
Really?
na⋅tion /ˈneɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ney-shuhn] Show IPA
�noun 1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.
2. the territory or country itself: the nations of Central America.
3. a member tribe of an American Indian confederation.
4. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.
I don't see anything about morality -- or especially about faith -- in there; nations have to do with political alignment and location. The writer in question is clearly not using nation in the same way Obama is, and probably not using nation in the same way any of us do.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Either way, Obama's lack of basic understanding of American liberty is highlighted. |
Conservatives throw around words like liberty and freedom far too often and far too carelessly. Whether you like Obama's declaration that we aren't a Christian nation or not, it has nothing to do with American liberty. Hell, the fact that the American people could and did elect a President who is able to say such a thing after years of Presidents who would have said the opposite if anything demonstrates American liberty.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Additionally, Obama is inaccurate to say that currently we are a Muslim nation, a Hindu nation, a Buddhist nation, etc. Approximately 76 percent of adult Americans identify themselves as Christians. |
... and it's almost like the other 24% of people count in President Obama's eyes in determining our national character. That's shocking.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Today the "great melting pot" means that traditionalists get thrown into the boiling kettle of liberal diversity. |
See, there's that American liberty at work again. If the majority of people get tired of the nonsense "traditionalists" keep spouting, they can vote them out of power. Traditionalism is only a virtue if the traditions in question continue to be applicable to the times. Times change.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| America today is a much more diverse place, of course, than it was yesterday. The problem, however, is not census numbers and diversity but that Christian morality has been systematically undermined in lower education, academia, media and government (most notably, by the U.S. Supreme Court) for several decades. |
... and with good reason, given a large portion of our nation is avowedly non-Christian, and a large portion of the remainder is Christian in name only. Christian morality has no place in government, only social good does. In some cases, the two overlap (e.g. murder being wrong). In other places, they don't overlap (e.g. abortions or gay marriage).
| dmbfan wrote: |
| The problem was never the traditional Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus -- they, for the most part, are happy to live in a country founded on faith in the Judeo-Christian God in which they may live freely, enjoying the practice of their particular religions. |
Baseless, unproven (and probably unproveable) assertion.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Indeed, the basic morality of right and wrong of traditional religions is strikingly similar. The vast gulf in morality is between the far left and traditional Americans. |
... and because of that American liberty we keep coming back to, when the morality of "traditional Americans" (whatever the hell that means) is no longer accepted by the majority of, I guess, non-traditional Americans, the matter is decided by vote.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| When the U.S. Supreme Court in 1892 observed that "this is a Christian nation" it wasn't that people of other religions and nonbelievers were nonexistent in America at the time. |
They weren't non-existant, but they were in the immense minority compared to today. Even in 1990, 86% of people self-identified as Christian (compared to 76% today according to your article). That number only goes up as you go back in history.
It really was simply a statement of fact: the vast, vast majority of Americans were Christian. While the majority still are, the portion that aren't are a very sizeable minority now, and that minority is quickly growing.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| ... back then, even an atheist would have acknowledged society's religious moral framework as the basis for social order. |
Doubtful at best, particularly when set in absolute terms like "would have" instead of "might have" or something less certain. I'm sure we all remember the study whose conclusion was the more certain people were of something, the more likely they were to be wrong. Authors of rubbish like this article are probably operating under that rule.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Unfortunately, the country currently is irreconcilably divided and the division is not among traditional religions; but between leftwing non-traditionalists and traditionalists (predominately Christians, of course). |
There's nothing irreconcilable about it, we reconcile it by voting, as we always have. Since the author's "traditionalists" are in the minority, they don't get their way, but everyone intelligent is civil about it and continue living under societal law. Simple as that.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Every dictator, come to think of it, always believes he is smarter than his average countryman. |
Author is as wrong to call Obama a dictator as liberals were to call Bush a dictator. It was stupid, childish nonsense then, and it's stupid, childish nonsense now. Nothing constructive can be said about such a statement, sorry.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| When a unifying faith dissipates, people often turn to believe in someone. And when a unifying faith in an external authority disappears, government necessarily becomes the highest authority. From there, well, you know what happens from there. |
The idea that any society without a single unifying faith defaults to a dictatorship is just plain silly. You might argue when government bans faith dictatorship tends to follow, but that's not the same thing.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| You will notice that Obama, throughout the economic catastrophe, as he calls it, has not led the country in a single prayer to God, asking for His kind assistance. |
This is the nice thing about being elected as a non-Republican: you don't need to pull rubbish like "national prayers" to keep your voter base happy.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Obama doesn't need to appeal to some Christian God, after all, "We are a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." We wouldn't expect those of the Religious Left to literally believe that Almighty God is actually there, now would we? |
That "almighty god" probably isn't there.
Good article, it inversely points out how well Obama is handling religion in our nation, and leaves me feeling positive as a result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| We see that Obama believes we are no longer a Christian nation but an assortment of several mini nations. Obama believes America is a nation of citizens curiously "bound by ideals and a set of values," having no extrinsic anchor and objective source. |
How has Christianity demonstrated itself to be objective in morality? It used to be a sin to eat meat on Friday. Only three of the ten commandments are part of the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| We see that Obama believes we are no longer a Christian nation but an assortment of several mini nations. Obama believes America is a nation of citizens curiously "bound by ideals and a set of values," having no extrinsic anchor and objective source. |
How has Christianity demonstrated itself to be objective in morality? It used to be a sin to eat meat on Friday. Only three of the ten commandments are part of the law. |
And don't forget that the first commandments basically amount to "fall down and worship me." Hardly useful for human morality.
There's enough rape and slaughter and assorted other ills in the bible to be greatly disturbing, were it true. I sometimes wonder if these biblical moralists have actually read the thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I consider America a Christian nation . . .
. . . but for what its worth Obama is correct as well. America is at least as much a pluralistic nation as it is a Christian nation. And since I am not a Christian (although people on this forum always mistake me for one), I would argue that our pluralistic traditions are more important than our Christian traditions.
And no, a Christian nation is not necessarily a theocracy. A Christian nation is a nation that is predominantly Christian in value and outlook. That is true of the United States. But clearly, when Obama was using the words 'Christian nation' he was using a more narrow definition of the term than I do. That's fine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You will notice that Obama, throughout the economic catastrophe, as he calls it, has not led the country in a single prayer to God, asking for His kind assistance. In former times, even a Deist was not ashamed to petition God for help to America in time of need. Indeed, a certain Deist suggested to the Christian men gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 that prayers be offered at the Constitutional Convention -- and, surprise, he even quoted the Bible to support his request.
|
I wonder if the writer could provide another example, preferably from the last 60 years or so, of a president publically leading America in prayer.
I'm not saying it's never happened, but as someone who follows American politics fairly closely, I can't say that any instances are springing to mind. (And you'll notice that the writer doesn't say that that "certain Deist" actually did lead a prayer, just that he advised his colleagues to pray.)
And anyway:
I think I know enough about the professional anti-Obamaites to know that if he DID try to lead America in prayer, they would denounce it as an insincere gesture designed to cover up the fact that he is a secret Muslim/atheist/radical Marxist/whatever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Separation of Religion and politics is a quintessential requirement for good governance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
