|
|
Post by Douglass on Jan 8, 2011 8:09:54 GMT -8
In 2010, President Obama played 29 rounds of golf and had 20 basketball outings. He took six vacation trips, defined as all or part of 32 days. He had six formal, solo White House press conferences and six cabinet meetings; he took 172 flights on Air Force One and 196 flights on Marine One. He had 17 town hall meetings and 107 interviews, and he signed 203 bills. CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller featured these statistics and others in his article “Obama’s 2010: By the Numbers.” Although Knoller omitted any numbers relating to Obama’s spiritual life, Politico’s Carol E. Lee uncritically explored Obama’s recent public expressions of faith in “Obama lets his faith show”, and Politics Daily’s David Gibson subsequently chimed in with “Obama Tries to Reassert His Christian Bona Fides, With Words and Deeds.” Admitting that Obama has rarely attended church as president, Gibson reminds us that “George W. Bush never joined a church while he was president, preferring, like Obama, to attend services at the Camp David chapel.” But Knoller tells us that in 2010, Obama visited Camp David only four times. read the rest at bsimmons.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by jon on Jan 8, 2011 12:55:37 GMT -8
so what?
I don't see any requirement for religion in the Constitution.
Spirituality is a private, personal thing and shouldn't be worn on the sleeve of the nation's chief executive.
|
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Jan 8, 2011 20:57:52 GMT -8
so what? I don't see any requirement for religion in the Constitution. This is true. We do not vote for a national chaplain. How convenient that the Constitution should be neutral on the issue. Spirituality is a private, personal thing and shouldn't be worn on the sleeve of the nation's chief executive. If the President wouldn't make it an issue, neither would anyone else. I have always had a problem with the way the President doesn't own his opinions. If he doesn't want to be identified with faith of any description, then he should just say, "You know, I do not want to make faith an issue. Please release me from a further obligation to comment." If he would do that, no problem. However, he keeps talking on both sides of the fence. I would like it if he would just state his position and let that be it. |
|
|
|
Post by Douglass on Jan 8, 2011 22:08:33 GMT -8
so what? I don't see any requirement for religion in the Constitution. Spirituality is a private, personal thing and shouldn't be worn on the sleeve of the nation's chief executive. Religion and spirituality are not a personal and private thing |
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Jan 9, 2011 20:30:37 GMT -8
so what? I don't see any requirement for religion in the Constitution. Spirituality is a private, personal thing and shouldn't be worn on the sleeve of the nation's chief executive. Religion and spirituality are not a personal and private thing In some respects, I agree. What bothers me about the President is not is faith or the lack of it, but the fact that he keeps changing the story. There is no requrement to be anything but a natural-born American citizen. If faith is not a priority for the President, he can say that and leave it alone. It's like he's ashamed of what he believes. I don't understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by jon on Jan 10, 2011 7:51:14 GMT -8
so what? I don't see any requirement for religion in the Constitution. This is true. We do not vote for a national chaplain. How convenient that the Constitution should be neutral on the issue. I guess you missed it when the Constitution was read in the House the other day, let me refresh your memory... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Hardly neutral, what they were saying was "we aren't choosing a religion for you- or insisting you are religious, in fact we'd like to make it a rule that we don't choose or insist- but we won't stop you if you want to do so" Spirituality is a private, personal thing and shouldn't be worn on the sleeve of the nation's chief executive. If the President wouldn't make it an issue, neither would anyone else. I have always had a problem with the way the President doesn't own his opinions. If he doesn't want to be identified with faith of any description, then he should just say, "You know, I do not want to make faith an issue. Please release me from a further obligation to comment." If he would do that, no problem. However, he keeps talking on both sides of the fence. I would like it if he would just state his position and let that be it. How does the President make it an issue...what do you mean when you say he keeps talking about it? why does there have to be any religious test? why does anyone have to declare what they think/how they feel? That is certainly not in the Constitution. Want to know where I see this sort of stuff? In theocracies. If you want a theocracy, that's fine, say so, then I'll know where you really stand. Then we can argue about how a conservative mullah differs from a Fred Phelps and then we can split hairs to Phelps and Pat Robertson who called for God to give out a few heart attacks on the liberals on the supreme court and called for political assassination, and Billy Graham's son- Franklin has demonstrated repeatedly that he has no tolerance. None of that is any good for a free society |
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Jan 10, 2011 11:22:01 GMT -8
This is true. We do not vote for a national chaplain. How convenient that the Constitution should be neutral on the issue. I guess you missed it when the Constitution was read in the House the other day, let me refresh your memory... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Hardly neutral, what they were saying was "we aren't choosing a religion for you- or insisting you are religious, in fact we'd like to make it a rule that we don't choose or insist- but we won't stop you if you want to do so" Did you not notice I was agreeing with you? I disagree with the way the President has handled it, but I agree with you. If the President wouldn't make it an issue, neither would anyone else. I have always had a problem with the way the President doesn't own his opinions. If he doesn't want to be identified with faith of any description, then he should just say, "You know, I do not want to make faith an issue. Please release me from a further obligation to comment." If he would do that, no problem. However, he keeps talking on both sides of the fence. I would like it if he would just state his position and let that be it. How does the President make it an issue...what do you mean when you say he keeps talking about it? why does there have to be any religious test? why does anyone have to declare what they think/how they feel? That is certainly not in the Constitution. [/quote] Again, did you not notice I was agreeing with you. I don't like the way Obama keeps changing his story. It's like he doesn't really care. He just says what people want to hear. What's up with that? I vote for people of different faiths than mine. Just tell the truth or be silent and let that be it. However, Congress sure wants to make it one when a conservative Christian is appointed to office. Want to know where I see this sort of stuff? In theocracies. If you want a theocracy, that's fine, say so, then I'll know where you really stand. Then we can argue about how a conservative mullah differs from a Fred Phelps and then we can split hairs to Phelps and Pat Robertson who called for God to give out a few heart attacks on the liberals on the supreme court and called for political assassination, and Billy Graham's son- Franklin has demonstrated repeatedly that he has no tolerance. None of that is any good for a free society Exactly. Don't like Phelps. Disagree with Robertson, and think Franklin Graham needs serious counseling. Please do not assume that all Christians want to control the rest of the country just because a few do. |
|
|
|
Post by jon on Jan 10, 2011 20:06:36 GMT -8
Please do not assume that all Christians want to control the rest of the country just because a few do. yet you are insisting he make some sort of declaration. By asking for that declaration you are insisting on a religion test of which there is no right answer, but undoubtedly myriad wrong answers. |
|
