From "Old" to "Muslim"

[Erin]

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-candidate-images;_ylt=AiSre0yujbI2FU3scDmVIHNh24cA

John McCain:

1. Old, 19 percent

2. Military service, 9 percent

3. Record, qualifications, 8 percent

4. Bush, 7 percent

5. Strength, 7 percent

6. Insider, politician, 7 percent

7. Iraq, terrorism, 6 percent

8. Honest, 5 percent

9. Republican, 5 percent

10. (tie) Moral/good and dishonest, 4 percent

Barack Obama:

1. Outsider, change, 20 percent

2. Lack of experience, 13 percent

3. Dishonest, 9 percent

4. Inspiring, 8 percent

5. Liberal, 6 percent

6, 7 (tie). Obama''s race, young, 6 percent

8. Not likable, 5 percent

9. Intelligent, 4 percent

10. Muslim, 3 percent

 

[LuckyTexan]

I think the fact that people see him as dishonest is WAY more important than the fact that people think he is a Muslim.

That being said, I honestly am not bothered by the fact that he is Muslim. He is attempting to become the Commander in Chief of a country whose roots are buried DEEP in defending the right to believe whatever you want! Non-muslim Americans bringing that up... isn''t really very American!

I have never understood why people bring up the religious beliefs of a candidate. I would even say I HATE that. We are supposed to have separation of church and state. A candidates religious beliefs are very personal, and should be private IMO.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/23/2008 11:36:41 AM
Author: LuckyTexan
I think the fact that people see him as dishonest is WAY more important than the fact that people think he is a Muslim.

That being said, I honestly am not bothered by the fact that he is Muslim. He is attempting to become the Commander in Chief of a country whose roots are buried DEEP in defending the right to believe whatever you want! Non-muslim Americans bringing that up... isn''t really very American!

I have never understood why people bring up the religious beliefs of a candidate. I would even say I HATE that. We are supposed to have separation of church and state. A candidates religious beliefs are very personal, and should be private IMO.

There is supposed to be a separation of church & state but everyone knows there really isn''t. "In God We Trust" is printed on our currency for goodness sake. With BOTH candidates supportive of faith-based initiatives don''t expect that blurring of lines to end anytime soon. If a candidate doesn''t want to answer questions about his faith that is fine, but he WILL LOSE. Truth be told, very few people would want a Satanist running the country. Our laws & governmental decisions are very much affected by a person''s values & belief system, which are in turn affected by his/her religion. It''s just a fact.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 8/23/2008 11:36:41 AM
Author: LuckyTexan
I think the fact that people see him as dishonest is WAY more important than the fact that people think he is a Muslim.

That being said, I honestly am not bothered by the fact that he is Muslim. He is attempting to become the Commander in Chief of a country whose roots are buried DEEP in defending the right to believe whatever you want! Non-muslim Americans bringing that up... isn''t really very American!

I have never understood why people bring up the religious beliefs of a candidate. I would even say I HATE that. We are supposed to have separation of church and state. A candidates religious beliefs are very personal, and should be private IMO.

He is? I thought he said he was not. His official website says he is not...

And it may be overly-picky, but no US President is my "Commander in Chief". And would find that out quickly if he or she tried to give me an order. Using Commander in Chief as a synonym for President smacks a bit too much of Our Great and Glorious Leader for my comfort.

The roots of religious INtolerance are every bit as deep. Deeper and older actually, since the separation of church and state wasn''t codified until late in the proceedings, and that ''tolerance'' was not an intrinsic part of any religious sect that came to these shores early on (quite the opposite actually) but was the product of The Enlightenment mode of thought. The Puritans certainly had no qualms about rejecting anyone they deemed heretical, meaning anyone who disagreed with them. The word "pure" isn''t in their name for nothing. The source documents from the founding of The Massachusetts Bay Colony are simply rife with what today we would call extreme intolerance, and harsh sentences even as far as death, for people who strayed from orthodoxy. I would submit that these attitudes have survived quite well in the depths of the American collective soul - albeit diluted by our Constitution. Why else the endless thrash over the correctness of belief in our political candidates?

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/24/2008 3:56:16 PM
Author: ksinger
He is? I thought he said he was not. His official website says he is not...

And it may be overly-picky, but no US President is my ''Commander in Chief''. And would find that out quickly if he or she tried to give me an order. Using Commander in Chief as a synonym for President smacks a bit too much of Our Great and Glorious Leader for my comfort.

The roots of religious INtolerance are every bit as deep. Deeper and older actually, since the separation of church and state wasn''t codified until late in the proceedings, and that ''tolerance'' was not an intrinsic part of any religious sect that came to these shores early on (quite the opposite actually) but was the product of The Enlightenment mode of thought. The Puritans certainly had no qualms about rejecting anyone they deemed heretical, meaning anyone who disagreed with them. The word ''pure'' isn''t in their name for nothing. The source documents from the founding of The Massachusetts Bay Colony are simply rife with what today we would call extreme intolerance, and harsh sentences even as far as death, for people who strayed from orthodoxy. I would submit that these attitudes have survived quite well in the depths of the American collective soul - albeit diluted by our Constitution. Why else the endless thrash over the correctness of belief in our political candidates?

Yeah, I am pretty sure he is *NOT* Muslim, but that his father was a Muslim & his stepfather is considered a "radical" Muslim, causing some to mistakenly place that label upon him. I have read that his mother is an atheist though, which I find quite interesting.

I think the "Commander-in-Chief" label only applies to the military.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 8/24/2008 4:00:42 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 8/24/2008 3:56:16 PM
Author: ksinger
He is? I thought he said he was not. His official website says he is not...

And it may be overly-picky, but no US President is my ''Commander in Chief''. And would find that out quickly if he or she tried to give me an order. Using Commander in Chief as a synonym for President smacks a bit too much of Our Great and Glorious Leader for my comfort.

The roots of religious INtolerance are every bit as deep. Deeper and older actually, since the separation of church and state wasn''t codified until late in the proceedings, and that ''tolerance'' was not an intrinsic part of any religious sect that came to these shores early on (quite the opposite actually) but was the product of The Enlightenment mode of thought. The Puritans certainly had no qualms about rejecting anyone they deemed heretical, meaning anyone who disagreed with them. The word ''pure'' isn''t in their name for nothing. The source documents from the founding of The Massachusetts Bay Colony are simply rife with what today we would call extreme intolerance, and harsh sentences even as far as death, for people who strayed from orthodoxy. I would submit that these attitudes have survived quite well in the depths of the American collective soul - albeit diluted by our Constitution. Why else the endless thrash over the correctness of belief in our political candidates?

Yeah, I am pretty sure he is *NOT* Muslim, but that his father was a Muslim & his stepfather is considered a ''radical'' Muslim, causing some to mistakenly place that label upon him. I have read that his mother is an atheist though, which I find quite interesting.

I think the ''Commander-in-Chief'' label only applies to the military.

You''re absolutely right, it does only apply to the military. So the casual use of it in conversation and even the press betrays how far down the road to a permanent war mentality we''ve come as a nation. Creeps me out quite a bit actually.

And of course he''s not a Muslim. However at this point, if someone still believes that after the press coverage of this issue, and his own pointed assertions that he''s NOT, then I don''t suppose there is anything a person could do to convince someone otherwise.

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 8/24/2008 4:09:07 PM
Author: ksinger
And of course he''s not a Muslim. However at this point, if someone still believes that after the press coverage of this issue, and his own pointed assertions that he''s NOT, then I don''t suppose there is anything a person could do to convince someone otherwise.

Um. Ditto.

Anyone remember the Reverend Wright scandal? That was Obama''s CHURCH not his MOSQUE.

 

[LuckyTexan]

Date: 8/24/2008 3:56:16 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 8/23/2008 11:36:41 AM
Author: LuckyTexan
I think the fact that people see him as dishonest is WAY more important than the fact that people think he is a Muslim.

That being said, I honestly am not bothered by the fact that he is Muslim. He is attempting to become the Commander in Chief of a country whose roots are buried DEEP in defending the right to believe whatever you want! Non-muslim Americans bringing that up... isn''t really very American!

I have never understood why people bring up the religious beliefs of a candidate. I would even say I HATE that. We are supposed to have separation of church and state. A candidates religious beliefs are very personal, and should be private IMO.

He is? I thought he said he was not. His official website says he is not...

And it may be overly-picky, but no US President is my ''Commander in Chief''. And would find that out quickly if he or she tried to give me an order. Using Commander in Chief as a synonym for President smacks a bit too much of Our Great and Glorious Leader for my comfort.

The roots of religious INtolerance are every bit as deep. Deeper and older actually, since the separation of church and state wasn''t codified until late in the proceedings, and that ''tolerance'' was not an intrinsic part of any religious sect that came to these shores early on (quite the opposite actually) but was the product of The Enlightenment mode of thought. The Puritans certainly had no qualms about rejecting anyone they deemed heretical, meaning anyone who disagreed with them. The word ''pure'' isn''t in their name for nothing. The source documents from the founding of The Massachusetts Bay Colony are simply rife with what today we would call extreme intolerance, and harsh sentences even as far as death, for people who strayed from orthodoxy. I would submit that these attitudes have survived quite well in the depths of the American collective soul - albeit diluted by our Constitution. Why else the endless thrash over the correctness of belief in our political candidates?

Sorry... I should have said... whether or not he is one... I know he''s not...

I''m a military veteran... so it will forever be the way I see my president... as my Commander in Chief! HOORAH!

 

[LuckyTexan]

Date: 8/24/2008 4:09:07 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 8/24/2008 4:00:42 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 8/24/2008 3:56:16 PM
Author: ksinger
He is? I thought he said he was not. His official website says he is not...

And it may be overly-picky, but no US President is my 'Commander in Chief'. And would find that out quickly if he or she tried to give me an order. Using Commander in Chief as a synonym for President smacks a bit too much of Our Great and Glorious Leader for my comfort.

The roots of religious INtolerance are every bit as deep. Deeper and older actually, since the separation of church and state wasn't codified until late in the proceedings, and that 'tolerance' was not an intrinsic part of any religious sect that came to these shores early on (quite the opposite actually) but was the product of The Enlightenment mode of thought. The Puritans certainly had no qualms about rejecting anyone they deemed heretical, meaning anyone who disagreed with them. The word 'pure' isn't in their name for nothing. The source documents from the founding of The Massachusetts Bay Colony are simply rife with what today we would call extreme intolerance, and harsh sentences even as far as death, for people who strayed from orthodoxy. I would submit that these attitudes have survived quite well in the depths of the American collective soul - albeit diluted by our Constitution. Why else the endless thrash over the correctness of belief in our political candidates?

Yeah, I am pretty sure he is *NOT* Muslim, but that his father was a Muslim & his stepfather is considered a 'radical' Muslim, causing some to mistakenly place that label upon him. I have read that his mother is an atheist though, which I find quite interesting.

I think the 'Commander-in-Chief' label only applies to the military.

You're absolutely right, it does only apply to the military. So the casual use of it in conversation and even the press betrays how far down the road to a permanent war mentality we've come as a nation. Creeps me out quite a bit actually.

And of course he's not a Muslim. However at this point, if someone still believes that after the press coverage of this issue, and his own pointed assertions that he's NOT, then I don't suppose there is anything a person could do to convince someone otherwise.

Sorry... not casual... I'm a veteran... I didn't say it just because we are at war.

As far as convincing someone otherwise, I haven't seen all the media coverage regarding this particular subject so I don't know what you do, but ... I honestly don't know that I can believe that he isn't Muslim. He was raised by Muslims. There's a fine line between the Muslim and Judeo-Christian religions... I actually find it kind of odd that he says he isn't... why wouldn't he be if his father was? I wouldn't consider it a bad thing if he was.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 8/27/2008 2:02:43 AM
Author: LuckyTexan
Sorry... not casual... I''m a veteran... I didn''t say it just because we are at war.

As far as convincing someone otherwise, I haven''t seen all the media coverage regarding this particular subject so I don''t know what you do, but ... I honestly don''t know that I can believe that he isn''t Muslim. He was raised by Muslims. There''s a fine line between the Muslim and Judeo-Christian religions... I actually find it kind of odd that he says he isn''t... why wouldn''t he be if his father was? I wouldn''t consider it a bad thing if he was.

Hmm.. you also stated in a previous post that you didn''t understand why people kept bringing up religion in the elections. I''m going to hazard a guess that you were not raised in a very relgious household AND that you are not a native Texan. Religion is the air they breathe down there, in televangelist land, and even if you are not religious, I''m not sure how you wouldn''t be saturated with it if you spent your whole life there. I know I was (born in TX, lived virtually my whole life somewhat north of the Red River). I don''t agree with what I know of it, but understand it? Oh yeah. I understand it quite well.

Most Christians - protestant or Catholic, if told that the only reason they''re Christian is because they were raised by Christians, will bristle quite a lot and say that they made a conscious choice at 13, 15, [insert age] thank you very much, at which time they were sprinkled/dunked/confirmed.

I think what it boils down to for you, is that you think he is probably lying about his religion. I''m taking him at face value on this. Not that I particularly care. All these creedal statements by candidates is tiresome. Here is a piece that pretty much sums it up for me:


http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/08/post-74.html
GEOFFREY DENNIS, Rabbi, Congregation Kol Ami, Flower Mound; University of North Texas professor
Frankly, I have been disillusioned by the divisive role religion has played in this election so far. I view the growing focus on the explicit beliefs of the candidates with great unease.

Whether Democrat or Republican, candidates feeling obligated to offer creedal statements about their Christian faith (or denials of Moslem faith) is driving us back to the pre-Kennedy era where a candidate''s doctrinal confession is a greater political concern than his or her competence in statecraft.

I fear this trend means the political process is stacking the deck against capable people of minority faith, or no faith at all, successfully running for office. I regard this as a grave threat to the long-term health of our body politic.

So much for specificity. I also find applying religious generalizations to political problems equally troubling.
Pastor Warren asked each candidate, "Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it?" The theologically thoughtful answer is, "Every sane person combats evil policies, but the president can''t ''defeat'' evil." No mortal can. This was a question better suited for someone who is running for super-hero rather than for president.

 

[LuckyTexan]

Date: 8/27/2008 7:48:19 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 8/27/2008 2:02:43 AM
Author: LuckyTexan
Sorry... not casual... I'm a veteran... I didn't say it just because we are at war.

As far as convincing someone otherwise, I haven't seen all the media coverage regarding this particular subject so I don't know what you do, but ... I honestly don't know that I can believe that he isn't Muslim. He was raised by Muslims. There's a fine line between the Muslim and Judeo-Christian religions... I actually find it kind of odd that he says he isn't... why wouldn't he be if his father was? I wouldn't consider it a bad thing if he was.

Hmm.. you also stated in a previous post that you didn't understand why people kept bringing up religion in the elections. I'm going to hazard a guess that you were not raised in a very relgious household AND that you are not a native Texan. Religion is the air they breathe down there, in televangelist land, and even if you are not religious, I'm not sure how you wouldn't be saturated with it if you spent your whole life there. I know I was (born in TX, lived virtually my whole life somewhat north of the Red River). I don't agree with what I know of it, but understand it? Oh yeah. I understand it quite well.

Most Christians - protestant or Catholic, if told that the only reason they're Christian is because they were raised by Christians, will bristle quite a lot and say that they made a conscious choice at 13, 15, [insert age] thank you very much, at which time they were sprinkled/dunked/confirmed.

I think what it boils down to for you, is that you think he is probably lying about his religion. I'm taking him at face value on this. Not that I particularly care. All these creedal statements by candidates is tiresome. Here is a piece that pretty much sums it up for me:


http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/08/post-74.html
GEOFFREY DENNIS, Rabbi, Congregation Kol Ami, Flower Mound; University of North Texas professor


Frankly, I have been disillusioned by the divisive role religion has played in this election so far. I view the growing focus on the explicit beliefs of the candidates with great unease.

Whether Democrat or Republican, candidates feeling obligated to offer creedal statements about their Christian faith (or denials of Moslem faith) is driving us back to the pre-Kennedy era where a candidate's doctrinal confession is a greater political concern than his or her competence in statecraft.

I fear this trend means the political process is stacking the deck against capable people of minority faith, or no faith at all, successfully running for office. I regard this as a grave threat to the long-term health of our body politic.

So much for specificity. I also find applying religious generalizations to political problems equally troubling.
Pastor Warren asked each candidate, 'Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it?' The theologically thoughtful answer is, 'Every sane person combats evil policies, but the president can't 'defeat' evil.' No mortal can. This was a question better suited for someone who is running for super-hero rather than for president.

Born right here where I am... left when I was 10 though... and just returned 3 years ago... I grew up in California... but raised by VERY right wing, fundamentalist Christian, republican, TEXAN parents... they actually volunteered in GW's campaign! I'd say your guess is OPPOSITE of what is true... and probably why I am not very political, or religious... I got too much of it when I was growing up!

I don't want candidates to focus their time on explaining their religious beliefs, because I don't think it should be our business... another poster above said it well... that it is what it is... in our country it IS an issue... my point is that I don't think it SHOULD be.

But since they are going to talk about it, why not tell the truth... the WHOLE truth... instead of dancing for us at a protestant church while we have to hear from other sources that his family is rooted in Muslim ties. AGAIN... It shouldn't be a problem IF he is Muslim. Muslim doesn't = terrorist... which is what I think it is coming down to in the SPIN.

Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong in my assumptions... but from the limited info I have from the media I have seen... I think he's lying to save face, and win the election.

Back to the thread starters post... I'm obviously not the only one who thinks he's dishonest... #3

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/24/2008 5:43:03 PM
Author: FrekeChild

Date: 8/24/2008 4:09:07 PM
Author: ksinger
And of course he''s not a Muslim. However at this point, if someone still believes that after the press coverage of this issue, and his own pointed assertions that he''s NOT, then I don''t suppose there is anything a person could do to convince someone otherwise.

Um. Ditto.

Anyone remember the Reverend Wright scandal? That was Obama''s CHURCH not his MOSQUE.

Hehe, this reminds me of when Anderson Cooper finally made the comment I was thinking the whole time. When talking about the Muslim rumors, and this was not long after the Wright scandal, he said something along the lines of ''Well, we know he was in a Christian church for 20 years'' and he kinda had this smirk and laugh. It''s like, which is it people? You want to berate him over his 20 year connection to a Christian church and pastor or you want to claim he''s a Muslim. It can''t be both. Well, unless you really want to hate him for any reason at all, throwing logic and reason out the window.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/27/2008 2:02:43 AM
Author: LuckyTexan

Date: 8/24/2008 4:09:07 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 8/24/2008 4:00:42 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 8/24/2008 3:56:16 PM
Author: ksinger
He is? I thought he said he was not. His official website says he is not...

And it may be overly-picky, but no US President is my ''Commander in Chief''. And would find that out quickly if he or she tried to give me an order. Using Commander in Chief as a synonym for President smacks a bit too much of Our Great and Glorious Leader for my comfort.

The roots of religious INtolerance are every bit as deep. Deeper and older actually, since the separation of church and state wasn''t codified until late in the proceedings, and that ''tolerance'' was not an intrinsic part of any religious sect that came to these shores early on (quite the opposite actually) but was the product of The Enlightenment mode of thought. The Puritans certainly had no qualms about rejecting anyone they deemed heretical, meaning anyone who disagreed with them. The word ''pure'' isn''t in their name for nothing. The source documents from the founding of The Massachusetts Bay Colony are simply rife with what today we would call extreme intolerance, and harsh sentences even as far as death, for people who strayed from orthodoxy. I would submit that these attitudes have survived quite well in the depths of the American collective soul - albeit diluted by our Constitution. Why else the endless thrash over the correctness of belief in our political candidates?

Yeah, I am pretty sure he is *NOT* Muslim, but that his father was a Muslim & his stepfather is considered a ''radical'' Muslim, causing some to mistakenly place that label upon him. I have read that his mother is an atheist though, which I find quite interesting.

I think the ''Commander-in-Chief'' label only applies to the military.

You''re absolutely right, it does only apply to the military. So the casual use of it in conversation and even the press betrays how far down the road to a permanent war mentality we''ve come as a nation. Creeps me out quite a bit actually.

And of course he''s not a Muslim. However at this point, if someone still believes that after the press coverage of this issue, and his own pointed assertions that he''s NOT, then I don''t suppose there is anything a person could do to convince someone otherwise.

Sorry... not casual... I''m a veteran... I didn''t say it just because we are at war.

As far as convincing someone otherwise, I haven''t seen all the media coverage regarding this particular subject so I don''t know what you do, but ... I honestly don''t know that I can believe that he isn''t Muslim. He was raised by Muslims. There''s a fine line between the Muslim and Judeo-Christian religions... I actually find it kind of odd that he says he isn''t... why wouldn''t he be if his father was? I wouldn''t consider it a bad thing if he was.

Um, actually he was raised by his Christian grandparents and his atheist mother. He spent about a year or two with his stepfather and I haven''t read anything about him being a "radical" Muslim. If he became one, that was long after Obama moved away from him.

As far as his dad, he only met the man once, when he was 10 years old. Not much of a chance that he''d have an influence on him.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/27/2008 12:07:26 PM
Author: LuckyTexan

But since they are going to talk about it, why not tell the truth... the WHOLE truth... instead of dancing for us at a protestant church while we have to hear from other sources that his family is rooted in Muslim ties. AGAIN... It shouldn't be a problem IF he is Muslim. Muslim doesn't = terrorist... which is what I think it is coming down to in the SPIN.

Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong in my assumptions... but from the limited info I have from the media I have seen... I think he's lying to save face, and win the election.

I think it's a bit disingenuous when people report that his family is rooted in Muslim ties. That implies that it's something he grew up with and was surrounded by. The African side of his family tended to be Muslim but he was not raised by or with these people. He didn't even meet them until he was well into his twenties (and by that time his father was dead). Religion wasn't exactly the first thing on the agenda when the family met for the first time either. They had bigger problems.

The influence of faith came from his grandparents and the many Christians he encountered in Chicago. It was them that he stood by when they prayed (not sure if he participated with them or not as at that time he was still skeptical of religion). But after spending years with these people, it was they that convinced him to check out Wright's church and it was there he found a faith in Jesus Christ. I'm not sure why anyone, that has researched his background, keeps coming up with this Muslim stuff. I was exposed to more teaching of Johavah's Witnesses as a child than he likely was of Islam and yet no one would dare accuse me of a Johavah's Witness.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 8/27/2008 12:07:26 PM
Author: LuckyTexan

Date: 8/27/2008 7:48:19 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 8/27/2008 2:02:43 AM
Author: LuckyTexan
Sorry... not casual... I''m a veteran... I didn''t say it just because we are at war.

As far as convincing someone otherwise, I haven''t seen all the media coverage regarding this particular subject so I don''t know what you do, but ... I honestly don''t know that I can believe that he isn''t Muslim. He was raised by Muslims. There''s a fine line between the Muslim and Judeo-Christian religions... I actually find it kind of odd that he says he isn''t... why wouldn''t he be if his father was? I wouldn''t consider it a bad thing if he was.

Hmm.. you also stated in a previous post that you didn''t understand why people kept bringing up religion in the elections. I''m going to hazard a guess that you were not raised in a very relgious household AND that you are not a native Texan.

Born right here where I am... left when I was 10 though... and just returned 3 years ago... I grew up in California... but raised by VERY right wing, fundamentalist Christian, republican, TEXAN parents... they actually volunteered in GW''s campaign! I''d say your guess is OPPOSITE of what is true... and probably why I am not very political, or religious... I got too much of it when I was growing up!

I don''t want candidates to focus their time on explaining their religious beliefs, because I don''t think it should be our business... another poster above said it well... that it is what it is... in our country it IS an issue... my point is that I don''t think it SHOULD be.

But since they are going to talk about it, why not tell the truth... the WHOLE truth... instead of dancing for us at a protestant church while we have to hear from other sources that his family is rooted in Muslim ties. AGAIN... It shouldn''t be a problem IF he is Muslim. Muslim doesn''t = terrorist... which is what I think it is coming down to in the SPIN.

Wouldn''t be the first time I was wrong in my assumptions... but from the limited info I have from the media I have seen... I think he''s lying to save face, and win the election.

Back to the thread starters post... I''m obviously not the only one who thinks he''s dishonest... #3

Well, it would have been a decent guess with decent chances if you''d been a bit more forthcoming. Now who''s spinning a bit hmm? You were raised in an ultra-fundamentalist family and you don''t understand why people are all in a froth over creedal correctness?? You must have attended different fundamentalist churches than I did. I''m going to apply the same yardstick of logic and judgement to you that you are applying to Obama on this issue: I don''t believe that you''re not very relgious, in spite of your claims to the contrary: I simply cannot see how that can be....I mean your parents were and assiduously raised you so by your own admission... in fact I suspect you''re a closet fundamentalist still. You must be lying.

Amazing how that works isn''t it?

(I don''t really think you''re lying BTW, I''m simply making a point here)


Come on, in seriousness now, you surely understand the mindset of people to whom religion is central much better than I do and I understand it pretty darn well - to claim you don''t is disingenuous. Apparently even you think that exposure as a child to a certain tradition is enough to cast serious suspicion that he was "turned Muslim". What you''re really saying is you want Obama to torpedo his career by "admitting" that a few years in schools in Jakarta (a Muslim AND Catholic school, in equal measure) and a few visits to a mosque when he was a kid made him a "secret" Muslim. Why didn''t the 2 years he spent in a Catholic school turn him into a Catholic? It didn''t, anymore than your upbringing- which was far more intensive in Christianity than his in Islam BTW, was able to make YOU a hardcore fundamentalist.

If a man has been a member of a Christian church for 20 years, and claims openly to be a Christian, how can I prove he''s not? He stepped into a mosque at some time in the past? A synagogue? Didn''t do his "three to thrive" every week for his whole life? (Wed, Sat and Sun, dontcha know) There''s dishonest and then there''s a cartoonish Dr. Evil-I''m-masquerading-as-a-Christian-for-decades-to-carry-out-my-nefarious-master-plan-haha! dishonest. What you are talking about is the latter, and I will staunchly not believe that level of conniving from him. He was exposed to a lot as a child, but that doesn''t constitute "raising" in a certain tradition. Your own experience should tell you that judging his current, adult beliefs on how he was raised is pretty unfair. If you want to think he''s dishonest that''s fine, but you need to find better reasoning to tar him with.

 

[MoonWater]

to Karen...