OLAADEGBU:

What do you say about Obama preventing Franklin Graham from making a speech on the National Prayers' Day because of what he sees as violation of political correctness?

Maybe he doesn't what your cherished Frankin Graham to make incendiary comments about those who don't share his faith. You already know every American is not a christian and they don't want to be preached at and against by christians under implied government sanction, so Obama allowing graham to speak would have been wrong. It's that simple Olaadegbu.

OLAADEGBU:

What do you say about Obama preventing Franklin Graham from making a speech on the National Prayers' Day because of what he sees as violation of political correctness?

There are too many hidden assumptions in this question that make it problematic.
e.g
1. Who organizes the National Day of Prayer? Is it the government or a private group?
2. Is this practice legal? Can the Congress ask people to pray in a secular country?
3. Is Franklin Graham a True Christian?
4. Free speech means one can say what they want within limits not that they must have a certain platform to say it.
5. What is the evidence you're using to frame this question?

Martian:

Maybe he doesn't what your cherished Frankin Graham to make incendiary comments about those who don't share his faith. You already know every American is not a christian and they don't want to be preached at and against by christians under implied government sanction, so Obama allowing graham to speak would have been wrong. It's that simple Olaadegbu.

And that allows Obama to sanction whoever he likes. Where is the freedom of expression being practised here? I thought Obama wasn't interested in the National Day of prayer since he toned it down.

OLAADEGBU:
And that allows Obama to sanction whoever he likes. Where is the freedom of expression being practised here?I thought Obama wasn't interested in the National Day of prayer since he toned it down.[/

Freedom of expression doesn't mean the government(all of us) should allow one person and one religion to berate the rest of us.
I don't see "christian national day of prayer" or "Hindu national day of prayer" or "Buddhist National day of prayer", or "scientologist National day of prayer".

I see "NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER", so why do you think it's exclusive to your religion? Franklin graham and his daddy are not known for making the best remarks about other people so people like that shouldn't be sanctioned by the government. if franklin graham speaks then louis farrakhan must be allowed to spew his brand of craziness too.

Nevertheless, the National day of prayer, meditation and incation is not a priority here, so why do you care so much?

Pastor AIO:

I think this and the post before it could possibly be the ugliest post I've ever written on NL, or possibly that anyone has ever written. And not only because I was in the wrong about the issue. Even if I was right, it is the manner in which I went about it that makes me so disappointed in myself. This calls for some deep soul searching. It is not only here that I've manifested this kind of style, but it is just a culmination of an approach that has been building up over the last 6 or so months. I've slowly come to relish the yabis exchanges, even as a third party just reading a thread.

But it's good that it's happened cos I now realise that I have some serious self appraisal to do. I would like to extend my unreserved apologies to those mentioned by name, the 'relevant people, Enigma, Olaadegbu, and Davidylan.

I'll be back later with more thoughts. Maybe start another thread on it.

I doubt it was simply about enjoying "yabis", and it's not a six month old matter. You love to "hit back" whenever you feel a tad "slighted". I will even venture to say you tend to get touchy when disagreed with. Not rarely does this happen. You may check your old posts. Sometimes, it's just a change of tone, but it's there.

It is good you want to pay attention to this. We all need an occasional self-appraisal, though.

Martian:

Freedom of expression doesn't mean the government(all of us) should allow one person and one religion to berate the rest of us.
I don't see "christian national day of prayer" or "Hindu national day of prayer" or "Buddhist National day of prayer", or "scientologist National day of prayer".

I see "NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER", so why do you think it's exclusive to your religion? Franklin graham and his daddy are not known for making the best remarks about other people so people like that shouldn't be sanctioned by the government. if franklin graham speaks then louis farrakhan must be allowed to spew his brand of craziness too.

Nevertheless, the National day of prayer, meditation and incation is not a priority here, so why do you care so much?

Every religious organisation is has the freedom to conduct their National Day of Prayer but why is it that when Christians conducted theirs that Obama suddenly remembers the non existent Separation from Church and State?

He is happy to celebrate the Muslims' Ramadan in the White House or to declare a whole month for the celebration of Lesbian, Gays, Bisexuals and Transexual groups but he seems to feel threatened by the Christian groups and yet he wants to be seen as a Christian.

Go and read about the origin and progress of the National Day of Prayer and you will see that it's only Christians that were concerned about praying, fasting and reflecting for their country, it was not atheists or the Muslims.

OLAADEGBU:
Every religious organisation is has the freedom to conduct their National Day of Prayer but why is it that when Christians conducted theirs that Obama suddenly remembers the non existent Separation from Church and State?

But there is only one National Day of Prayer, so waht do you mean by "when christians conducted theirs". Are you suggesting that the "first thursday in may" is the "Christian National Day of Prayer"? That is just disingenuous.

[b]President Obama signed his annual proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer, a traditional that began under President Truman in 1952. However, some atheists and secular groups are planning protests and are asking the annual day be discontinued.
"On this National Day of Prayer, we give thanks for our democracy that respects the beliefs and protects the religious freedom of all people to pray, worship, or abstain according to the dictates of their conscience," reads the president's proclamation. "Let us pray for all the citizens of our great Nation, particularly those who are sick, mourning, or without hope, and ask God for the sustenance to meet the challenges we face as a Nation."
But the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, takes issue with the president's words and says the annual day has been "hijacked" by conservatives to promote a "far-right religious-political agenda."[/b]
http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-proclaims-may-3-as-national-day-of-prayer-amid-protest-74308/

OLAADEGBU:
He is happy to celebrate the Muslims' Ramadan in the White House or to declare a whole month for the celebration of Lesbian, Gays, Bisexuals and Transexual groups but he seems to feel threatened by the Christian groups and yet he wants to be seen as a Christian.

What iswrong in inviting muslims to the white house? Americans who happen to be muslims do exist, you know.
What did the "celebration of LGBT people for a month" entail? What was an example of the month long celebration?
You don't have to see him as a christian if you don't want. Just take your place at the back of the line; behind the rednecks who thinks he's muslim, behind the "birthers" who think he wasn't born in America, behind the people who says he's a socialist, behind the people who are just mad that the president of america is black. You'll be in good company.

OLAADEGBU:
Go and read about the origin and progress of the National Day of Prayer and you will see that it's only Christians that were concerned about praying, fasting and reflecting for their country, it was not atheists or the Muslims.

Well, good for the christians for starting the prayer circle jerk. Now, can you play nice and tolerate the rest? Personally, I want a say in this National day of prayer. THE GREAT LEPRECHAUN demands the sacrifice of some chickens on the National Day of Prayer, right after Franklin Graham is allowed to speak.

That was the thread?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhmf4a7124

Folks should not be deceived, this is election time. See what action Obama took on his first National Day of Prayer.

I notice that you've run from my previous post. Don't run from this one too.

OLAADEGBU:

Every religious organisation is has the freedom to conduct their National Day of Prayer but why is it that when Christians conducted theirs that Obama suddenly remembers the non existent Separation from Church and State?

Actually, there is an existence of the separation between church and state otherwise, the government would be able to outlaw various religions.

OLAADEGBU:
He is happy to celebrate the Muslims' Ramadan in the White House or to declare a whole month for the celebration of Lesbian, Gays, Bisexuals and Transexual groups but he seems to feel threatened by the Christian groups and yet he wants to be seen as a Christian.

Do they celebrate Christmas or Easter in the White House?

OLAADEGBU:
Go and read about the origin and progress of the National Day of Prayer and you will see that it's only Christians that were concerned about praying, fasting and reflecting for their country, it was not atheists or the Muslims.

All the more reason why it should be outlawed. It serves no other purpose than to attempt to meld religion and government.

MyJoe:

I doubt it was simply about enjoying "yabis", and it's not a six month old matter. You love to "hit back" whenever you feel a tad "slighted".[b] I will even venture to say you tend to get touchy when disagreed with. [/b]Not rarely does this happen. You may check your old posts. Sometimes, it's just a change of tone, but it's there.

It is good you want to pay attention to this. We all need an occasional self-appraisal, though.

That's true. I've clocked that.

thehomer: I notice that you've run from my previous post. Don't run from this one too.

Actually, there is an existence of the separation between church and state otherwise, the government would be able to outlaw various religions.

Do they celebrate Christmas or Easter in the White House?

All the more reason why it should be outlawed. It serves no other purpose than to attempt to meld religion and government.

We have discussed that the Separation of Church and State in earlier posts and it has been found out to be a myth that doesn't exist in the constitution. The first Amendment states that the Government cannot establish a religion neither can it prohibit the free expression or speech of the citizens. But that is the exact thing your humanists are doing as you can see in the videoclip below, silencing free speech while pretending to be upholding the non existent Separation of Church and State.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HGsteD_kkU

OLAADEGBU:

We have discussed that the Separation of Church and State in earlier posts and it has been found out to be a myth that doesn't exist in the constitution. The first Amendment states that the Government cannot establish a religion neither can it prohibit the free expression or speech of the citizens. But that is the exact thing your humanists are doing as you can see in the videoclip below, silencing free speech while pretending to be upholding the non existent Separation of Church and State.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HGsteD_kkU

Actually, the separation of church and state hasn't been shown to be a myth. If the government cannot establish a religion neither can it limit the free expression of its citizens, then how can you say the church and the government aren't separate? The difference would be a government endorsed religion. Do you understand what I've just said?

What are the humanists doing in the video? And are the humansits the government?

thehomer:

Actually, the separation of church and state hasn't been shown to be a myth. If the government cannot establish a religion neither can it limit the free expression of its citizens, then how can you say the church and the government aren't separate? The difference would be a government endorsed religion. Do you understand what I've just said?

What are the humanists doing in the video? And are the humansits the government?

If it hasn't been shown to be a myth can you point out where it is stated in the constitution? I'm sure you will not find it and yet you Secular humanists have petitioned and sued that the Bibles and prayer be prohibited from the public schools, that prayers should be stopped in the institutions, that the 10 commandments should be removed from public places, and the folks you have up there in the videoclip now have a President to champion their case as they want him to stop the National Day of Prayer.

It is now clear that you have now got your chance to destroy the country from within because it calls itself God's own country. If you will not pray at least allow those who have the nation's goodness at heart to do so without the unnessary prohibition from the Administration that is looking for an opportunity to stop it anyway.

The 4th Reason Why Obama is Not a Christian.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g7hvR7bFA8

Is that he voted for the abortion of babies on 4 different occasions.

This is a man who boasted before the largest abortion organisation in the country, saying:

"I have consistently had 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and Naral Pro-Choice America

He went on to say:

"The first thing I'do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act

This will stop States from restricting abortion of any kind even including partial birth abortion.

True Christians have always opposed abortion because they believe that life starts at conception. Psalm 139:13-14

says:

"For you formed my inward parts ... You covered me in my mothers womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made

Obama doesn't even know when a baby is entitled to its human right but he certainly knows that they can be aborted.

OLAADEGBU:

If it hasn't been shown to be a myth can you point out where it is stated in the constitution? I'm sure you will not find it and yet you Secular humanists have petitioned and sued that the Bibles and prayer be prohibited from the public schools, that prayers should be stopped in the institutions, that the 10 commandments should be removed from public places, and the folks you have up there in the videoclip now have a President to champion their case as they want him to stop the National Day of Prayer.

Lots of things aren't stated in the constitution. For you to understand the idea behind it, you actually need to respond to what I say and to the questions I ask.
What do you understand by the phrase "separation between church and state"? And do you think it is a good idea to keep religion and government separate? If you can answer these questions, then I can help you understand what the constitution says.
There is nothing wrong with stopping this national day of prayer because it is illegal for the government to endorse a particular religion.

OLAADEGBU:
It is now clear that you have now got your chance to destroy the country from within because it calls itself God's own country. If you will not pray at least allow those who have the nation's goodness at heart to do so without the unnessary prohibition from the Administration that is looking for an opportunity to stop it anyway.

Does God have a country?
The government isn't stopping you from praying or does the government go into churches and stop prayers? The law stops the government from telling the citizens to pray. Do you disagree with that idea? Also, the Bible is what is supposed to stop these hypocrites from such public pronouncements simply read your own Bible.

thehomer:

Lots of things aren't stated in the constitution. For you to understand the idea behind it, you actually need to respond to what I say and to the questions I ask.
What do you understand by the phrase "separation between church and state"? And do you think it is a good idea to keep religion and government separate? If you can answer these questions, then I can help you understand what the constitution says.
There is nothing wrong with stopping this national day of prayer because it is illegal for the government to endorse a particular religion.

All these questions has been addressed in earlier posts. Go back and read up so as to catch up.

thehomer:

Does God have a country?
The government isn't stopping you from praying or does the government go into churches and stop prayers? The law stops the government from telling the citizens to pray. Do you disagree with that idea? Also, the Bible is what is supposed to stop these hypocrites from such public pronouncements simply read your own Bible.

Since you can not, could not, would not and will not access any links or videoclips I posted there is no point repeating what these links say to you again.

OLAADEGBU:

All these questions has been addressed in earlier posts. Go back and read up so as to catch up.

Actually, you haven't addressed them. If you think you have, please post a link showing this.

OLAADEGBU:
Since you can not, could not, would not and will not access any links or videoclips I posted there is no point repeating what these links say to you again.

You didn't actually respond to what I said. Maybe you should learn to express your ideas in words rather than posting clips that end up being irrelevant. If they're relevant, then use the arguments made in them to support your point on the separation between church and state.

Pastor AIO:

That's true. I've clocked that.

Thanks for coming back.
The forum again has a share of common sense, rationality and sanity.
A hug.

thehomer:

Actually, you haven't addressed them. If you think you have, please post a link showing this.

You didn't actually respond to what I said. Maybe you should learn to express your ideas in words rather than posting clips that end up being irrelevant. If they're relevant, then use the arguments made in them to support your point on the separation between church and state.

I've been telling you to change those spectacles of yours, they are becoming opaque.

OLAADEGBU:

I've been telling you to change those spectacles of yours, they are becoming opaque.

How difficult is it for you to post links to where you think you addressed the issue I raised? This is the sort of obfuscation one comes to expect from religious people who don't know what they're talking about.

As has been shown already, "separation of Church and State" is not a US constitutional concept as such.

The expression in the American context originated in a letter in which Jefferson responded to some Baptists, who were congratulating him on his appointment, basically assuring them of his support for the idea that the State should not interfere with their religious freedoms.

Basically, the duplicitous atheists have hijacked the expression and bastardised its use into a context different from its origin --- this occasionally with the assistance of the American Supreme Court. A major impetus of the First Amendment was the protection of religious minorities, in fact minority Christian groups, so that they will not suffer persecution by majority religious groups, in fact majority Christian groups. In various settlements, some "denominations" tended to predominate e.g. Catholics in some places, Anglicans in others etc. The concern about domination and persecution of the minority groups was also fuelled by the experience of many of the early pilgrims who had fled to America because of religious persecution in Europe.

Nowadays, every evangelical atheist mumu shouts "separation of church and state" either in ignorance (among most) and in duplicitous chicanery by the smarter ones. They have benefitted from a generally sympathetic judicial system.


Hmmm, food for thought:

The oath of office that must be taken by various US government officials including congress men/women, senators, cabinet members and even the Vice-President requires them to declare "So help me, God." By convention even appointees to the office of President have usually made the same declaration.

Enigma: As has been shown already, "separation of Church and State" is not a US constitutional concept as such.

Really?

Enigma:
The expression in the American context originated in a letter in which Jefferson responded to some Baptists, who were congratulating him on his appointment, basically assuring them of his support for the idea that the State should not interfere with their religious freedoms.

The state not interfering with religious freedom isn't separation?

Enigma:
Basically, the duplicitous atheists have hijacked the expression and bastardised its use into a context different from its origin --- this occasionally with the assistance of the American Supreme Court. A major impetus of the First Amendment was the protection of religious minorities, in fact minority Christian groups, so that they will not suffer persecution by majority religious groups, in fact majority Christian groups. In various settlements, some "denominations" tended to predominate e.g. Catholics in some places, Anglicans in others etc. The concern about domination and persecution of the minority groups was also fuelled by the experience of many of the early pilgrims who had fled to America because of religious persecution in Europe.

How is this persecution being prevented if not by the state not interfering with religion and religions not interfering with the state's policies?

Enigma:
Nowadays, every evangelical atheist mumu shouts "separation of church and state" either in ignorance (among most) and in duplicitous chicanery by the smarter ones. They have benefitted from a generally sympathetic judicial system.

Here we have gross ignorance or just plain dishonesty. Simply take the time to read the documents involved and understand their underlying principles. By a sympathetic judicial system, you mean one without atheists on the panel.

Enigma:
Hmmm, food for thought:

The oath of office that must be taken by various US government officials including congress men/women, senators, cabinet members and even the Vice-President requires them to declare "So help me, God." By convention even appointees to the office of President have usually made the same declaration.

No it doesn't require them to declare "So help me, God". You're confusing tradition or political expediency for legal fact. The fact is that there is no religious test for public office. Why do you think that is so?

^^Look, continue in your ignorance e.g. conflating "no religious test" with legal requirements concerning oath of office . If you are wise, you will go and read up and cross-check what I wrote.

Enigma: As has been shown already, "separation of Church and State" is not a US constitutional concept as such.

The expression in the American context originated in a letter in which Jefferson responded to some Baptists, who were congratulating him on his appointment, basically assuring them of his support for the idea that the State should not interfere with their religious freedoms.

Basically, the duplicitous atheists have hijacked the expression and bastardised its use into a context different from its origin --- this occasionally with the assistance of the American Supreme Court. A major impetus of the First Amendment was the protection of religious minorities, in fact minority Christian groups, so that they will not suffer persecution by majority religious groups, in fact majority Christian groups. In various settlements, some "denominations" tended to predominate e.g. Catholics in some places, Anglicans in others etc. The concern about domination and persecution of the minority groups was also fuelled by the experience of many of the early pilgrims who had fled to America because of religious persecution in Europe.

Nowadays, every evangelical atheist mumu shouts "separation of church and state" either in ignorance (among most) and in duplicitous chicanery by the smarter ones. They have benefitted from a generally sympathetic judicial system.


Hmmm, food for thought:

The oath of office that must be taken by various US government officials including congress men/women, senators, cabinet members and even the Vice-President requires them to declare "So help me, God." By convention even appointees to the office of President have usually made the same declaration.

The forum should collect at least a nickel for every post.
Thus, comments like this will not be published.
Anyone can make comments like this, without even knowing what "secular state".
Moderators: collect my idea ... a nickel for every post!

Enigma: ^^Look, continue in your ignorance e.g. conflating "no test" with legal requirements concerning oath of office . If you are wise, you will go and read up and cross-check what I wrote.

This too is plain ignorance which can be rectified by reading or just dishonesty. Please rectify it by reading. You may begin here.
When you're through, I hope you will then understand that the "so help me God" phrase is not a legal requirement. It is optional for the very reason I gave you.

A secular state does not mean to be an atheist state.
A religious state is one that has an official religion and that religion can intervene in public affairs or in matters of state.
This makes the official religion, has privileges over the other, and even can get to ban the practice of a religion (which is against human rights).
A secular state (I insist) is not an atheist state, but a state without religion, that does not allow any interference of religion in their decisions, and which, in turn granted to all religions the same right.
There is nothing a secular atheist.

thehomer:
This too is plain ignorance which can be rectified by reading or just dishonesty. Please rectify it by reading. You may begin here.
When you're through, I hope you will then understand that the "so help me God" phrase is not a legal requirement. It is optional for the very reason I gave you.

^^^ See how you make a mumu of yourself and show your poor comprehension again.

Read my post again and what it says about the President.

Then read this (if you can understand it and its effect): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331

Then go read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

Then go and read your link.

Then go back and read my post.

After that come and talk.

Enigma:


^^^ See how you make a mumu of yourself and show your poor comprehension again.

Read my post again and what it says about the President.

Then read this (if you can understand it and its effect): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331

Then go read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

Then go and read your link.

Then go back and read my post.

After that come and talk.

Seriously, this is why I say you should rectify your ignorance by reading or poor English language comprehension by going back to school. Since it seems you didn't even read your sources, let me quote what the Wikipedia one says since it also contains an explanation. Please read it. After doing that, tell me how it contradicts anything I've said.

Text of the Oath:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Explanation:
Note that the last sentence is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection, as is true of all oaths administered by the United States government; Article Six of the United States Constitution requires that there be no religious test for public office.

Also keep in mind that there are non-believers in the U.S. military. Do you think they do not take oaths? Or that they have to say "so help me God"?

Ptolomeus: A secular state does not mean to be an atheist state.
A religious state is one that has an official religion and that religion can intervene in public affairs or in matters of state.
This makes the official religion, has privileges over the other, and even can get to ban the practice of a religion (which is against human rights).
A secular state (I insist) is not an atheist state, but a state without religion, that does not allow any interference of religion in their decisions, and which, in turn granted to all religions the same right.
There is nothing a secular atheist.

I wonder how hard it is for these religious fanatics to understand that these laws also protect them just in case they become the minority tomorrow.

^^^ So is it in the law or not?

Is it on the statute books or not?

Why didn't your "separation of Church and State" prevent it from being a legal requirement albeit with the possibility of an exception?

Are you so ignorant not to be aware that many legal rules and/or legal requirements make provisions for exceptions ---- exceptions which may not even have anything to do with religion necessarily?

Enigma: ^^^ So is it in the law or not?

Is it on the statute books or not?

Why didn't your "separation of Church and State" prevent it from being a legal requirement albeit with the possibility of an exception?

Are you so ignorant not to be aware that many legal rules and/or legal requirements make provisions for exceptions ---- exceptions which may not even have anything to do with religion necessarily?

Prevent what from being a legal requirement? I just pointed out to you that the phrase is not a legal requirement. Read your own references. Also, note that it says "God" not Jesus, not Holy Spirit or any other mythological creature devoted to a religion since people can believe in a God without being religious. Just so you know.